Mice And 25 Different Diets,which One Increases Lifespan The Most?

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I'm not sure if this was posted yet?
The main question is if the carbs in the chow contained protein within the fruit and how much,did they allow for this?

"In invertebrates, reproductive output and lifespan are profoundly impacted by dietary macronutrient balance, with these traits achieving their maxima on different diet compositions, giving the appearance of a resource-based tradeoff between reproduction and longevity. For the first time in a mammal, to our knowledge, we evaluate the effects of dietary protein (P), carbohydrate (C), fat (F), and energy (E) on lifespan and reproductive function in aging male and female mice. We show that, as in invertebrates, the balance of macronutrients has marked and largely opposing effects on re- productive and longevity outcomes. Mice were provided ad libitum access to one of 25 diets differing in P, C, F, and E content, with reproductive outcomes assessed at 15 months. An optimal balance of macronutrients exists for reproductive function, which, for most measures, differs from the diets that optimize lifespan, and this response differs with sex. Maximal longevity was achieved on diets containing a P:C ratio of 1:13 in males and 1:11 for females. Diets that optimized testes mass and epididymal sperm counts (indicators of gamete production) contained a higher P:C ratio (1:1) than those that maximized lifespan. In females, uterine mass (an indicator of estrogenic activity) was also greatest on high P:C diets (1:1) whereas ovarian follicle number was greatest on P:C 3:1 associated with high-F intakes. By contrast, estrous cycling was more likely in mice on lower P:C (1:8), and the number of corpora lutea, indicative of recent ovulations, was greatest on P:C similar to those supporting greatest longevity (1:11)".


http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3481.full.pdf
 

paymanz

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,707
Very interesting ,thankas.!

So from a quick look at the results, they don't have benefits in same diet.longevity , higher c to p, and for productive system lower ratio.
 

Peater Piper

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
817
Very interesting ,thankas.!

So from a quick look at the results, they don't have benefits in same diet.longevity , higher c to p, and for productive system lower ratio.
I know Paul Jaminet (Perfect Health Diet) believes different ratios are required for longevity compared to virility, with more carbohydrates required for the latter. I think Peat would disagree, however, believing that once an animal is fully grown, maximal metabolism aids in maintaining youthfulness and boosting longevity.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
A Protein-Carbohydrate Ratio of 1:13 on a 2,500 Calorie diet yields 179 Calories from protein. This is equivalent to 45 grams.

This would also lead to favorable calcium balance. From CALCIUM RETENTION OF YOUNG ADULT MALES AS AFFECTED BY LEVEL OF PROTEIN AND OF CALCIUM INTAKE:
When consuming the 47-g protein intake, the subjects were consistently in calcium balance and the amount of calcium retained was unaffected by the calcium intake. At the 95-g protein intake, none of the subjects were in calcium balance when 500 mg calcium was given, but they did achieve balance when 800 mg was given. When 142-g protein was ingested, no subject was in balance at either the 500- or 800-mg calcium intake and only three of 15 subjects were in balance at the 1400-mg intake.
 
Last edited:

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I checked the forum to see if this was discussed before and sure enough it was. Low Protein / High Carb Diet - Healthier Than Caloric Restriction

I think @jyb and @haidut found the smoking gun. The protein fed to the mice was casein combined with an absurdly high amount of methionine added to it.

"A problem is the methionine as confounding factor, Ray seems to think it is a big deal lifespan problem in those studies. The high protein ones had 10g/kg of methionine. Seems like huge but I'm not sure what's the human equivalent so can't tell if that's a lot. But either way, the low protein mice can be seen as methionine restricted compared to others.@jyb

"That's a good point. The 9.8g/kg methionine for a mouse is about 700mg/kg for a human. So, for a 75kg human that would be about 52g per day. This is huge, and quite unrealistic for a human on any diet. I wonder why that added so much methionine to the high protein diet...
The HPLC diet would be toxic for a human with all that extra methionine added and I am not sure exactly what human diet it mimics." @haidut,

The added methionine is of course not mentioned anywhere in the article.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
"Let's add an amino acid that's been shown to reduce lifespan dramatically into a diet study where lifespan is measured."

"Dur-dur-dur, I'm a scientist."
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
I checked the forum to see if this was discussed before and sure enough it was. Low Protein / High Carb Diet - Healthier Than Caloric Restriction

I think @jyb and @haidut found the smoking gun. The protein fed to the mice was casein combined with an absurdly high amount of methionine added to it.

Hidden methionine is a classic in animal studies about carb & fat health effects. Peter from Hyperlipid does a whole list of various problems encountered in those studies and hidden protein is a common one.
 
Last edited:

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
Wow. This study is actually a different one, but the lead author is the same person. On the bottom of Table 1 though, you can see that they used methionine in this study as well.
Diets varied in content of P (casein and methionine), C (sucrose, wheatstarch, and dextrinized cornstarch), and F (soya bean oil).
I wonder why. Casein does not appear to be low in methionine as can be seen here. Perhaps she should do the study with added glycine next time. It's almost like she designed this study to get a shocking result for publicity. She is a shock-scientist.

Samantha M. Solon-Biet needs to work on her three variable graphs as well. Hers are confusing to look at. If she can't do something like this, then she should stick to two dimensions.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom