3 ms·

How long do you want to live and how robust do you want to be as you age? Something like 50% of people have sarcopenia by the time they're 80. Seems likely eati

by dilap 4y ago

How long do you want to live and how robust do you want to be as you age? Something like 50% of people have sarcopenia by the time they're 80. Seems likely eating more high-quality protein and doing resistence training could be a good way to increase life-and-health-span, avoiding that fate.

comte7092 4y ago
How many of those people are just plain sedantary? “High-quality” is an extremely vague notion, and there is a huge gap between the average persons habits and the health/fitness world’s “ideal”. People will point to an extremely low average and then use that as evidence of an extremely narrow ideal, when there is a fairly large amount of range in between that may or may not be just fine. Resistance training is good. Eating below the minimum standard of protein is good. Does the average person need to be eating 1g/lb of body weight? No.
- dilap 4y ago
  I understand the term to mean - dense protein vs calories - adequate quantities of all consituient amino acids - easily digestable So e.g. beef is a higher quality protein than beans, by that metric. It's hard to know the ideal amount of protein for sure w/o e.g. life-long RCTs (and even then, that answer will only be for whatever context those studies are done in), and to be sure there are people to advocate for low-protein diets as well as for high-protein. Personally, I'm placing my bets on high-protein. I've tried everything from vegan to vegetarian to (now) meat-based diets, and I feel by far the healthiest and strongest on a meat based diet. (And it's my most recent diet, so I have the disadvantage of aging going along w/ it.) Given the lack of consensus around dietary topics, I'd advise all people to keep an open mind and do some indivdual experimentation. (I take it as an axiom that feeling good, strong, healthy in the moment is a good predictor of health over the long term, thus making personal experimentation a valid approach. Of course that could in theory be not true, but it seems very unlikely to me.)
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    > I take it as an axiom that feeling good, strong, healthy in the moment is a good predictor of health over the long term, thus making personal experimentation a valid approach. Of course that could in theory be not true, but it seems very unlikely to me. There are many example of things that make you feel good in the short term, but not in the long term. It's not a wild "theory", it's a pattern we see all over the place. I'm not sure why that would seem unlikely to you. I feel better in the moment while eating a dozen cookies. I feel worse later. I feel better for a few hours when I take an opioid or other drugs, but long term it's not going to be for the better. I'll feel better for a few days if I skip my workout today, I wont feel sore and beat up. After a week or two, old aches and pains will return, and over the long run not exercising will cause me more and more problems. Billions of people overeat and have an unhealthy body weight which causes them problems. They do it because overeating feels good in the moment. Is it really that unthinkable that eating a lot of red meat can make a person feel good but increase their risk of cardiovascular disease long term? We may not agree whether or not this is true, but can we at least agree that if it is true, it follows the exact same pattern as many other things in life?
    - dilap 4y ago
      Those are all short-term phenomenons, though, providing rapid feedback in both feeling worse and having worse performance. I mean, sure, it's possible that eating food which makes you feel good (over weeks and months, not just for 1 hour and then w/ a hangover) is actually unhealthy, but it seems unlikely, especially if you're eating traditional foods which your body should have incorporated knowledge of through evolution.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  “High-quality” is an extremely vague notion I'm glad you said that. This notion of "high quality" just refers to the essential amino acids it contains. There is no intrinsic quality to a particular protein source, they are broken down into single amino acids or very small (tripeptide or less) in digestion, anyway. Anyone can get all essential amino acids necessary for their body's protein synthesis from a mix of plant sources, too, it just requires a little planning. Most people should look more at metabolic disorders as a factor in middle age or later sedentary lifestyles, and maybe even secondary vascular disorders' role in health and muscle density in later life. Being active when you are young is great, but their are many other factors in later life health. There is good evidence that veganism is associated with improved average longevity (among other good outcomes). I don't care who eats meat - I do - but it's better to do it with eyes open, and not for faulty reasons. Bringing it back to the article though, some of the plant based products being brought to market give me pause because of how processed they are. The salt, sugar, and fat levels are getting high and you lose the benefits of less processed vegetables.
rafaelero 4y ago
Protein (specially the aminoacid methionine) is actually known to shorten lifespan in mammals. It does this by decreasing the level of FGF-21 in the body. Advices to maximize lifespan should mention restricting dietary protein.
- sawmurai 4y ago
  Interesting, I have never heard that one before. Would you mind sharing a source?
  - rafaelero 4y ago
    You know all those studies on caloric restriction that show life extension benefits? Looks like their benefits are mediated by FGF21 increase resulted by protein reduction [1]. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29499-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29499-8
colordrops 4y ago
More than 50% of people are dead before 80. Seems like a strange age to choose for this measure.
- dilap 4y ago
  About half of americans are already overweight and falling apart by the time their 40 -- I'm aiming higher!

by dilap 4y ago

comte7092 4y ago

How many of those people are just plain sedantary? “High-quality” is an extremely vague notion, and there is a huge gap between the average persons habits and the health/fitness world’s “ideal”. People will point to an extremely low average and then use that as evidence of an extremely narrow ideal, when there is a fairly large amount of range in between that may or may not be just fine. Resistance training is good. Eating below the minimum standard of protein is good. Does the average person need to be eating 1g/lb of body weight? No.

dilap 4y ago
I understand the term to mean - dense protein vs calories - adequate quantities of all consituient amino acids - easily digestable So e.g. beef is a higher quality protein than beans, by that metric. It's hard to know the ideal amount of protein for sure w/o e.g. life-long RCTs (and even then, that answer will only be for whatever context those studies are done in), and to be sure there are people to advocate for low-protein diets as well as for high-protein. Personally, I'm placing my bets on high-protein. I've tried everything from vegan to vegetarian to (now) meat-based diets, and I feel by far the healthiest and strongest on a meat based diet. (And it's my most recent diet, so I have the disadvantage of aging going along w/ it.) Given the lack of consensus around dietary topics, I'd advise all people to keep an open mind and do some indivdual experimentation. (I take it as an axiom that feeling good, strong, healthy in the moment is a good predictor of health over the long term, thus making personal experimentation a valid approach. Of course that could in theory be not true, but it seems very unlikely to me.)
- Buttons840 4y ago
  > I take it as an axiom that feeling good, strong, healthy in the moment is a good predictor of health over the long term, thus making personal experimentation a valid approach. Of course that could in theory be not true, but it seems very unlikely to me. There are many example of things that make you feel good in the short term, but not in the long term. It's not a wild "theory", it's a pattern we see all over the place. I'm not sure why that would seem unlikely to you. I feel better in the moment while eating a dozen cookies. I feel worse later. I feel better for a few hours when I take an opioid or other drugs, but long term it's not going to be for the better. I'll feel better for a few days if I skip my workout today, I wont feel sore and beat up. After a week or two, old aches and pains will return, and over the long run not exercising will cause me more and more problems. Billions of people overeat and have an unhealthy body weight which causes them problems. They do it because overeating feels good in the moment. Is it really that unthinkable that eating a lot of red meat can make a person feel good but increase their risk of cardiovascular disease long term? We may not agree whether or not this is true, but can we at least agree that if it is true, it follows the exact same pattern as many other things in life?
  - dilap 4y ago
    Those are all short-term phenomenons, though, providing rapid feedback in both feeling worse and having worse performance. I mean, sure, it's possible that eating food which makes you feel good (over weeks and months, not just for 1 hour and then w/ a hangover) is actually unhealthy, but it seems unlikely, especially if you're eating traditional foods which your body should have incorporated knowledge of through evolution.
throwaway5752 4y ago
“High-quality” is an extremely vague notion I'm glad you said that. This notion of "high quality" just refers to the essential amino acids it contains. There is no intrinsic quality to a particular protein source, they are broken down into single amino acids or very small (tripeptide or less) in digestion, anyway. Anyone can get all essential amino acids necessary for their body's protein synthesis from a mix of plant sources, too, it just requires a little planning. Most people should look more at metabolic disorders as a factor in middle age or later sedentary lifestyles, and maybe even secondary vascular disorders' role in health and muscle density in later life. Being active when you are young is great, but their are many other factors in later life health. There is good evidence that veganism is associated with improved average longevity (among other good outcomes). I don't care who eats meat - I do - but it's better to do it with eyes open, and not for faulty reasons. Bringing it back to the article though, some of the plant based products being brought to market give me pause because of how processed they are. The salt, sugar, and fat levels are getting high and you lose the benefits of less processed vegetables.

rafaelero 4y ago

Protein (specially the aminoacid methionine) is actually known to shorten lifespan in mammals. It does this by decreasing the level of FGF-21 in the body. Advices to maximize lifespan should mention restricting dietary protein.

sawmurai 4y ago
Interesting, I have never heard that one before. Would you mind sharing a source?
- rafaelero 4y ago
  You know all those studies on caloric restriction that show life extension benefits? Looks like their benefits are mediated by FGF21 increase resulted by protein reduction [1]. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29499-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29499-8

colordrops 4y ago

More than 50% of people are dead before 80. Seems like a strange age to choose for this measure.

dilap 4y ago
About half of americans are already overweight and falling apart by the time their 40 -- I'm aiming higher!