• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Eating meat extends human life expectancy

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,019
Location
USA / Europe
Another study challenging the vegan dogma relentlessly promoted by mainstream media under the aegis of World Economic Forum (WEF) members and other similarly microcephalic goons. As the study says, other studies that found benefits in eating vegan diets have failed to account for the so-called socioeconomic factor - i.e. that educated, well-paid people in developed countries can spend time and money on finding plants that can somewhat mimic the composition and nutritional profile of meat, and thus have an overall beneficial effect on health. However, eating even those carefully chosen plant diets cannot match the full benefits meat eating has on health and lifespan. Now, that does not mean one should gobble up meat for every meal, as there are indeed important factors in meat that need to be mitigated (e.g. the low calcium/phosphorus ratio). However, even with those caveats in mind a predominantly meat-based diet is probably still more beneficial in the long run compared to a pure vegan diet.

Meat intake is associated with life expectancy | IJGM
Meat-eating extends human life expectancy worldwide

"...Study author, University of Adelaide researcher in biomedicine, Dr Wenpeng You says humans have evolved and thrived over millions of years because of their significant consumption of meat.
We wanted to look more closely at research that has thrown a negative spotlight on meat consumption in the human diet,” Dr You says. “Looking only at correlations of meat consumption with people’s health or life expectancy within a particular group, and or, a particular region or country, can lead to complex and misleading conclusions. “Our team broadly analysed the correlations between meat eating and life expectancy, and child mortality, at global and regional levels, minimising the study bias, and making our conclusion more representative of the general health effects of meat eating.” Published in the International Journal of General Medicine today, the study examined the overall health effects of total meat consumption in 170+ countries around the world. The researchers found that the consumption of energy from carbohydrate crops (grains and tubers) does not lead to greater life expectancy, and that total meat consumption correlates to greater life expectancy, independent of the competing effects of total calories intake, economic affluence, urban advantages, and obesity."

"...But with the strong development of nutrition science and economic affluence, studies in some populations in developed countries have associated meat-free (vegetarian and vegan) diets with improved health. “I think we need to understand that this may not contradict the beneficial effect of meat consumption,” nutritionist on the study, Yanfei Ge says. “Studies looking into the diets of wealthy, highly educated communities, are looking at people who have the purchasing power and the knowledge to select plant-based diets that access the full nutrients normally contained in meat. Essentially, they have replaced meat with all the same nutrition meat provides.”"

"...“While this is no surprise to many of us, it still needs to be pointed out,” Dr Saniotis says. It highlights that meat has its own components contributing to our overall health beyond just the number of calories consumed, and that without meat in our diet, we may not thrive. “Our take home message from the paper is that meat-eating is beneficial to human health provided that it is consumed in moderation and that the meat industry is conducted in an ethical way.” "
 

LA

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
484
Yes thank you.
Meat eaters absolutely live longer if they can avoid "too much" starch. I cannot do any starch whatsoever - although my husband who is descended from ancestors from the area between the Baltic sea and the top of the yodeling area of Italy and the width of at least the Netherlands on the west and whatever was on the East before World War ONE. He seems to do best with some starch. We purchase organic what-ever or he gets too skinny
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
4,823
Location
Chicago
Another study challenging the vegan dogma relentlessly promoted by mainstream media under the aegis of World Economic Forum (WEF) members and other similarly microcephalic goons. As the study says, other studies that found benefits in eating vegan diets have failed to account for the so-called socioeconomic factor - i.e. that educated, well-paid people in developed countries can spend time and money on finding plants that can somewhat mimic the composition and nutritional profile of meat, and thus have an overall beneficial effect on health. However, eating even those carefully chosen plant diets cannot match the full benefits meat eating has on health and lifespan. Now, that does not mean one should gobble up meat for every meal, as there are indeed important factors in meat that need to be mitigated (e.g. the low calcium/phosphorus ratio). However, even with those caveats in mind a predominantly meat-based diet is probably still more beneficial in the long run compared to a pure vegan diet.

Meat intake is associated with life expectancy | IJGM
Meat-eating extends human life expectancy worldwide

"...Study author, University of Adelaide researcher in biomedicine, Dr Wenpeng You says humans have evolved and thrived over millions of years because of their significant consumption of meat.
We wanted to look more closely at research that has thrown a negative spotlight on meat consumption in the human diet,” Dr You says. “Looking only at correlations of meat consumption with people’s health or life expectancy within a particular group, and or, a particular region or country, can lead to complex and misleading conclusions. “Our team broadly analysed the correlations between meat eating and life expectancy, and child mortality, at global and regional levels, minimising the study bias, and making our conclusion more representative of the general health effects of meat eating.” Published in the International Journal of General Medicine today, the study examined the overall health effects of total meat consumption in 170+ countries around the world. The researchers found that the consumption of energy from carbohydrate crops (grains and tubers) does not lead to greater life expectancy, and that total meat consumption correlates to greater life expectancy, independent of the competing effects of total calories intake, economic affluence, urban advantages, and obesity."

"...But with the strong development of nutrition science and economic affluence, studies in some populations in developed countries have associated meat-free (vegetarian and vegan) diets with improved health. “I think we need to understand that this may not contradict the beneficial effect of meat consumption,” nutritionist on the study, Yanfei Ge says. “Studies looking into the diets of wealthy, highly educated communities, are looking at people who have the purchasing power and the knowledge to select plant-based diets that access the full nutrients normally contained in meat. Essentially, they have replaced meat with all the same nutrition meat provides.”"

"...“While this is no surprise to many of us, it still needs to be pointed out,” Dr Saniotis says. It highlights that meat has its own components contributing to our overall health beyond just the number of calories consumed, and that without meat in our diet, we may not thrive. “Our take home message from the paper is that meat-eating is beneficial to human health provided that it is consumed in moderation and that the meat industry is conducted in an ethical way.” "
I used to work with some Brahmins. They were vegan. But of course, they have very strong family and extended family support and "privilege." They are extremely smart and ambitious. But when I was invited to weddings or other occassions, anyone over 40 had no eyebrows. The women tended to a sortof sudden obesity after youthful beauty. While they smile kindly and lovingly (they are nice), they seem completely out of it. Like smiling zombies. Their strong supportive ties are holding each other up.
 

Ritchie

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
443
Another study challenging the vegan dogma relentlessly promoted by mainstream media under the aegis of World Economic Forum (WEF) members and other similarly microcephalic goons. As the study says, other studies that found benefits in eating vegan diets have failed to account for the so-called socioeconomic factor - i.e. that educated, well-paid people in developed countries can spend time and money on finding plants that can somewhat mimic the composition and nutritional profile of meat, and thus have an overall beneficial effect on health. However, eating even those carefully chosen plant diets cannot match the full benefits meat eating has on health and lifespan. Now, that does not mean one should gobble up meat for every meal, as there are indeed important factors in meat that need to be mitigated (e.g. the low calcium/phosphorus ratio). However, even with those caveats in mind a predominantly meat-based diet is probably still more beneficial in the long run compared to a pure vegan diet.

Meat intake is associated with life expectancy | IJGM
Meat-eating extends human life expectancy worldwide

"...Study author, University of Adelaide researcher in biomedicine, Dr Wenpeng You says humans have evolved and thrived over millions of years because of their significant consumption of meat.
We wanted to look more closely at research that has thrown a negative spotlight on meat consumption in the human diet,” Dr You says. “Looking only at correlations of meat consumption with people’s health or life expectancy within a particular group, and or, a particular region or country, can lead to complex and misleading conclusions. “Our team broadly analysed the correlations between meat eating and life expectancy, and child mortality, at global and regional levels, minimising the study bias, and making our conclusion more representative of the general health effects of meat eating.” Published in the International Journal of General Medicine today, the study examined the overall health effects of total meat consumption in 170+ countries around the world. The researchers found that the consumption of energy from carbohydrate crops (grains and tubers) does not lead to greater life expectancy, and that total meat consumption correlates to greater life expectancy, independent of the competing effects of total calories intake, economic affluence, urban advantages, and obesity."

"...But with the strong development of nutrition science and economic affluence, studies in some populations in developed countries have associated meat-free (vegetarian and vegan) diets with improved health. “I think we need to understand that this may not contradict the beneficial effect of meat consumption,” nutritionist on the study, Yanfei Ge says. “Studies looking into the diets of wealthy, highly educated communities, are looking at people who have the purchasing power and the knowledge to select plant-based diets that access the full nutrients normally contained in meat. Essentially, they have replaced meat with all the same nutrition meat provides.”"

"...“While this is no surprise to many of us, it still needs to be pointed out,” Dr Saniotis says. It highlights that meat has its own components contributing to our overall health beyond just the number of calories consumed, and that without meat in our diet, we may not thrive. “Our take home message from the paper is that meat-eating is beneficial to human health provided that it is consumed in moderation and that the meat industry is conducted in an ethical way.” "
How does this square with the research showing significant methionine restriction increasing life span dramatically? Meat is obviously very dense in methionine.. Peat has been talking about this recently
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,178
How does this square with the research showing significant methionine restriction increasing life span dramatically? Meat is obviously very dense in methionine.. Peat has been talking about this recently
I'm pretty sure this has only been shown in lower animals such as mice, and comes with a series of trade off's like decreased body size, organ size, and liver function.

Glycine is a partial antidote to methionine excess, and is largely found in animal products like connective tissue and skin.
 

Ritchie

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
443
I'm pretty sure this has only been shown in lower animals such as mice, and comes with a series of trade off's like decreased body size, organ size, and liver function.

Glycine is a partial antidote to methionine excess, and is largely found in animal products like connective tissue and skin.
Peat doesn't see it that way, he's literally dropped his protein intake down to 50 grams a day in a bid to avoid methionine.

When asked about how many gms of protein he eats a day this was his response : “trying to get it down to as close to 50 as possible for the low methionine”

He may have other rationale as to why he's lowered his protein intake so much but methionine is a big one and he's stated it.
 
Last edited:

dukesbobby777

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
427
Peat doesn't see it that way, he's literally dropped his protein intake down to 50 gms a day in a bid to avoid methionine.

He may have other rationale as to why he's lowered his protein intake so much but methionine is a big one and he's stated it.

When has he stated that? I've missed that interview
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
3,422
Peat doesn't see it that way, he's literally dropped his protein intake down to 50 grams a day in a bid to avoid methionine.

When asked about how many gms of protein he eats a day this was his response : “trying to get it down to as close to 50 as possible for the low methionine”

He may have other rationale as to why he's lowered his protein intake so much but methionine is a big one and he's stated it.


I‘m also sceotical of methionine. The other downside of meat being high phosphorus and some pufa content.

But everything is subject to hormesis and food matrixes also modulate their respective component effects.

Restricting methionine is the same as balancing the mTOR and Ampk pathways. Methionine ain’t excessively harmful when you also do excercise, spent time not eating, add glycine and so forth.

Same with niacin (amide) btw. When humans had a low intake of that they better tolerated parasites like worms that produced some endogenously. Then, when supply secured, anti-parasitic immunity evolved stronger up to allergies and stuff.

Everything is in flux.

But Peat incorporating some mainstream life-extension science is nice to know
 

GreekDemiGod

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
2,780
Location
Romania
The only actually worthwhile finding from this that isn't just conclusion-mining by looking at correlations is that access to quality protein sources improves lifespan. Because, well, obviously. You'll live longer on meat than you will on Twinkies. You'll also live longer on quality plant protein, which it admits, but that's not as fun of a conclusion. Any first-worlder walking away from this thinking "wow eating bacon and hamburgers every day is actually making me live longer!" has been significantly misled.
 

Eberhardt

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
554
I'm pretty sure this has only been shown in lower animals such as mice, and comes with a series of trade off's like decreased body size, organ size, and liver function.

Glycine is a partial antidote to methionine excess, and is largely found in animal products like connective tissue and skin.
I think it actually have been replicated in apes which is very similar. But it has also been showed that adsing glycine in diet gives equal amount of lifeextension. I also think that as far as I can understand, just lile tryptohan being converted to 5htp-> serotonin is deoendent on context/metabolic status the innflamatory/excitatory effect of methionin is likewise dependent. And I doubt the metabolic state and life quality of the tested animals have been excellent. There are as far as I know also great differences deending in heritage as to how the individual process methionin
 

xeliex

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
512
It seems that Dr. Peat is experimenting with lower protein. He says he is getting around 60g but trying to bring it down to 50g. In the past, he had suggested close to 100g with balancing methionine with collagen / glycine.

I personally will continue with closer to 100g knowing that Ray experiments and changes his views and ways on things. His big picture of health inspired by the giants before him has not changed though.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,178
I think it actually have been replicated in apes which is very similar. But it has also been showed that adsing glycine in diet gives equal amount of lifeextension. I also think that as far as I can understand, just lile tryptohan being converted to 5htp-> serotonin is deoendent on context/metabolic status the innflamatory/excitatory effect of methionin is likewise dependent. And I doubt the metabolic state and life quality of the tested animals have been excellent. There are as far as I know also great differences deending in heritage as to how the individual process methionin

I'm pretty sure that methionine restriction hasn't been tested in apes yet. The most recent review I read was in 2016 and no mention of apes as a model was discussed. Even if an ape model had been started in the past couple years for methionine restriction, it wouldn't be close to completion due to the lifespan of macaques (the breed of ape generally used in these types of studies).

Peat doesn't see it that way, he's literally dropped his protein intake down to 50 grams a day in a bid to avoid methionine.

When asked about how many gms of protein he eats a day this was his response : “trying to get it down to as close to 50 as possible for the low methionine”

He may have other rationale as to why he's lowered his protein intake so much but methionine is a big one and he's stated it.

1) I dont base my statements off of how "Dr. Peat see's it", so a response of "Peat see's it X way" is largely irrelevant to this conversation. This is especially the case considering Dr. Peat has multiple quotes from many different periods of time that are seemingly contradictory with eachother.

2) Also, Peat lowering his protein intake to 60g/ day to keep methionine lower, doesn't mean that "He doesn't see" that the methionine restriction studies have mostly been done in lower animals, have resulted in certain physical tradeoffs, and that glycine has been shown to be somewhat of an antidote to methione.

3) If I'm not mistaken many of the methionine restriction studies in these lower animals were started when the animals where young. In quite a few other longevity models starting an intervention at a later age resulted in significantly less benefit than when started at a young age. This implies that methionine restriction when applied to full grown adult humans may not play out in the same manner that methionine restriction does in young lower animals.

4) Incorporating a larger amount of collagen/ gelatin in the diet may allow for sufficient protein intake, as well as a larger glycine intake, while effectively limiting methionine. This is something that Dr. Peat himself has discussed and may effectively diminish the need for a low protein diet.

5) Studies in older adults show decreased mortality with higher intakes of protein. This has been discussed as being related to frailty, sarcopenia, and increased catabolism. So even if restricting methionine intake increased lifespan in humans (who most likely had to start restricting when they were young), the increased frailty, and decreased body size, particularly when older may predispose towards other issues that can possibly increase risk of mortality and cancel out the ability to realize the increase in total lifespan. This is not to mention possible alterations in quality of life due to the possible tradeoffs.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
9,726
A few points:

Methionine deficiency leads to the same benefits as are attributed to calorie reduction, in rodent studies.

To your point 4) @CLASH We attempt to block methionine by increasing intake of collagen or gelatin. I wonder if that is really a viable strategy?

Dr. Peat has always said over the years that high starch diets are essentially cost effective ways of getting calories but are not ideal. This study helps bear that out.

There is widespread disdain for dairy products in the “alternative health” world. They hate on dairy like they hate on sugar.
 

Eberhardt

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
554
I'm pretty sure that methionine restriction hasn't been tested in apes yet. The most recent review I read was in 2016 and no mention of apes as a model was discussed. Even if an ape model had been started in the past couple years for methionine restriction, it wouldn't be close to completion due to the lifespan of macaques (the breed of ape generally used in these types of studies).
Hm I seem to have remembered wrongly here. I did a dive into it two years ago and Im still pretty sure I read about it but I cant seem to find any mention of it when trying to relocate it and as you said that would be a very long experiment. I do think macaques are much more relevant than rodents though. And Im 100% positive that I've seen research showing the same benefits without the side-effects from glycine. But not sure if we generally disagree a lot here anyway
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
806
I'm pretty sure that methionine restriction hasn't been tested in apes yet. The most recent review I read was in 2016 and no mention of apes as a model was discussed. Even if an ape model had been started in the past couple years for methionine restriction, it wouldn't be close to completion due to the lifespan of macaques (the breed of ape generally used in these types of studies).
Not methionine restriction specifically, but calorie restriction has been tested. I recall two studies, the first showed no benefit, but the second adjusted some variables and was successful. Of course given the whole replication crisis, it would be good to not draw conclusions from only two studies. I also remember the studies showing glycine was beneficial used massive amounts, far more than would be achievable with collagen. I've never been able to stick with refined glycine for some reason, it always makes me feel a little off after a few days.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,178
Not methionine restriction specifically, but calorie restriction has been tested. I recall two studies, the first showed no benefit, but the second adjusted some variables and was successful. Of course given the whole replication crisis, it would be good to not draw conclusions from only two studies. I also remember the studies showing glycine was beneficial used massive amounts, far more than would be achievable with collagen. I've never been able to stick with refined glycine for some reason, it always makes me feel a little off after a few days.

In the caloric restriction studies in monkeys, the one that used a refined food diet compared ad libitum to caloric restriction and found a benefit. However the one that compared a calorically restricted whole foods diet to a non-calorically restricted whole foods diet found no benefit.

My interpretation from this generalization of the studies was that eating ad libitum purified lab diets decreases life span in span in monkeys.
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
806
In the caloric restriction studies in monkeys, the one that used a refined food diet compared ad libitum to caloric restriction and found a benefit. However the one that compared a calorically restricted whole foods diet to a non-calorically restricted whole foods diet found no benefit.

My interpretation from this generalization of the studies was that eating ad libitum purified lab diets decreases life span in span in monkeys.
I went back to the studies. It's University of Wisconsin vs National Institute of Health. Wisconsin showed a benefit, NIA did not. NIA was not ad libitum, even for controls. Wisconsin tried to approximate ad libitum based on calories, which is weird. NIA also mixed species and ages, so they ended up with a lot of confounding variables. The NIA used a naturally sourced diet, while Wisconsin was semi-purified, but looking at Table 2, both diets left a lot to be desired. Overall, the NIA study made a lot of decisions that could have tainted the results, imo. It's hard to draw any firm conclusions. Even if it does work in humans, quality of life matters. If a person can eat fewer calories, feel satisfied with plenty of vitality and maintain a healthy weight, then great. I'm nearly underweight while eating an excess of calories, restricting calories would cause me to waste away.

 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
4,676
The women tended to a sortof sudden obesity after youthful beauty.
I noticed this when I lived in India. It is quite remarkable how much this occurs. It happens around 20-30 years of age. It is seriously like overnight. It always boggled my mind.
 

Similar threads

Top