How’s Your Longevity Outlook?

[RIGM]

I’m posting this in response to the knee surgery posts, and more generally to start a discussion on how diet might affect our longevity.

My father, a physician, in the late 1970s and early 1980s worked on Nathan Pritikin's staff at the Pritikin Longevity Center in CA. Pritikin was an early advocate of low-fat, high-fiber diets (essentially the “Mediterranean Diet” today). I recall my father telling me about the tremendous results they were having moderating or curing “age related” diseases. They were dramatically improving health simply by changing the foods the patients ate. Since historically doctors received so little education on the role of diet, this was novel at the time both for him and most of the profession.

I ate this Pritikin diet for most of my adult life because I have moderately high hereditary cholesterol (205-230). I was only partially successful in controlling it and finally went on Lipitor about 20 years ago, age 40. It worked (160), but I had minor fatigue which I attributed to it. In the same period of time, I also felt some knee pain which caused me to stop running. I thought it might be early stages of arthritis, or exercise-induced damage, but it was not bad enough to treat. I biked and swam for exercise.

About 10 years ago, a physician friend introduced me to a plant-based diet. I looked at the science and adopted it. Shortly after this, I relocated and my healthcare provider changed to the Mayo Clinic. The primary care doc there took me off Lipitor (vegan, low BMI, exercising, high “good cholesterol” = low risk of heart disease). My cholesterol has stayed below 200 in the intervening years and my knee pain has subsided by 90%. In fact, so much so that now at age 60, I signed up for an Ironman event later this year when my brother heckled me to join him and his wife (yes, maybe a “humble brag,” but also a display of my stupidity in responding to a sibling rivalry). I’m preparing now with long swim and bike training, and I’ve begun to run again years after stopping. I’m pain free.

I suspect the diet is playing a key role in my cholesterol and joint improvements because things started to improve only when I went vegan. Still, I don’t know for 100% sure if the changes have been due to the diet, not taking Lipitor, knee lubrication from years of biking, and/or something else.

I’m not proselytizing, but a good place to start is with this free web site. Dr. Greger is endowed and provides information purely as a public service. He presents reputable, peer reviewed science there. As an aside, search there for “arthritis” if you’re concerned about your knees like I was:

https://nutritionfacts.org

Interestingly, Greger became a doctor because the Pritikin Center helped to extend and improve his grandmother’s life many years ago. Of course, the latest research is that the Mediterranean Diet is not as good as a plant-based diet, but Pritikin was an early pioneer in the move toward more better eating. Possibly my father helped his grandmother, and now Greger is helping me.

 

[HenryD]

My wife (47) and I (50) switched to a plant-based vegan diet two years ago at her insistance. She is the primary cook was previously a heavy meat consumer, while I already preferred a Mediterranean-style diet.

Our cholestorol improved 30-40 points to a little less than 200. She lost weight and my BMI is low anyway. Her chronic joint and nerve issues have disappeared. My minor knee issues have disappeared. We are on no meds, whereas she used to take a lot of ibuprofen.

We haven't really thought about longevity impacts, but do hope it will give us more healthy, active years. We both feel remarkably better than we did when we met 5 years ago.

+1 on nutrionfacts.org and Dr. Greger.

I'd encourage people to look up Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, and how he looks and lives at 85.

 

[RAE]

Well, first I'll say that I absolutely believe that diet is linked to health and longevity. Beyond that, though, I think you will get a lot of different opinions here as to what a healthy diet looks like. I'm glad the Pritikin diet seems to work for you, but for me, it wouldn't work at all. Quite a few folks on the forum (including me) would probably fall into the LCHF way of eating, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to what Pritikin recommends, from what I know of the Pritikin diet. Things like meat and eggs are very important in my eating plan, and I think Pritikin discourages both. Butter, coconut oil, and full-fat cheese are also part of my diet, and I believe Pritikin discourages those too (correct me if I am wrong). I think the only common aspects of my diet and the Pritikin diet may be avoidance of refined grains and sugar, and a general emphasis on unprocessed or minimally-processed foods (veggies, etc).

I'm guessing you did not intend for this thread to be about the merits of different types of diets, so I'll leave it at that. I do think most people could benefit from eating more real/whole foods, and fewer ultra-processed foods, so if whatever diet you are following promotes that idea, then it will probably be generally beneficial for health and longevity.

 

[RIGM]

Yes, there is a lot of controversy in the diet world, and I'm not here to stir that pot. I joke that in Woody Allen's movie Sleeper, he wakes up in the future and everyone is smoking. When he questions it, someone replies, "Yea, who would have thought that back in the 1970's we all thought that smoking was bad." Is eating meat or eating plants the "smoking" in that joke? In 200 years, they will have it figured out.

Still, that humor is a bit dismissive. Yes, there is a lot that the scientists don't know, but there also is a lot that they have figured out already as well. I think the key is to follow the science, the good science: the double blind, placebo controlled, peer reviewed science (because there is a lot of junk science out there as well - junk science paid for by organizations that have a financial interest in positions which the paid-for science miraculously supports).

I posted my results because I saw all the knee stories and I was able to reverse much of my issue with whatever combination of things I did. As I said, I'm not proselytizing, but just saying, "hey, here's my story." Admittedly, that is anecdotal. So people should be looking at the science. People can go to the keto sites and the plant-based sites and make up their own minds.

We agree that minimally refined foods are best.

 

[audreyh1]

I’m not eating any highly processed foods, but otherwise the diet that seems best for me is a low carbohydrate, high fat diet that includes animal foods. My instincts are to respect the omnivore heritage of humans and the majority the presentations and papers I have read indicate that is very compatible with good health.

I also don’t believe that lowering total cholesterol or LDL benefit older adults - certainly not older women. As I reach 60, I will feel safer with a somewhat higher total cholesterol and LDL as I believe it’s protective, as long as my triglycerides are low and my HDL high. So I don’t know about using lower total cholesterol and LDL as markers of future health/longevity.

I don’t see the nutrition battle ending any time soon, so I’m not sure there is much benefit rehashing it all here on this forum. We each have to decide what’s best for us.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

We're also big fans of of nutritionfacts.org and watch the videos. I bought the "How Not to Die" book and cookbook by Dr. Gregor. We make mostly plant based meals now and eat from his Daily Dozen checklist. That site, the Blue Zones, and others like it convinced us to eat more like the inhabitants of places with longer life spans (especially Loma Linda since that is in our state) and much lower rates of Western diet diseases. I found the paleopoo video (100+ grams of fiber a day!) pretty enlightening. I'm not in Ironman status, but I've lost weight without dieting or going hungry and DH has seen some health improvements as well so going plant based has been a good switch for us.

 

[RonBoyd]

FYI

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dietary-cholesterol-does-not-matter#section3

The amount of cholesterol in your diet and the amount of cholesterol in your blood are very different things.

Although it may seem logical that eating cholesterol would raise blood cholesterol levels, it usually doesn't work that way.

The body tightly regulates the amount of cholesterol in the blood by controlling its production of cholesterol.

When your dietary intake of cholesterol goes down, your body makes more. When you eat larger amounts of cholesterol, your body makes less. Because of this, foods high in dietary cholesterol have very little impact on blood cholesterol levels in most people.

However, in some people, high-cholesterol foods do cause a rise in blood cholesterol. These people make up about 25% of the population and are often referred to as "hyperresponders." This tendency is considered to be genetic.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

.......And then there is this by cardiologist Dr Anthony Pearson -

How is that a discredited diet developed by a man with no scientific or nutritional background and with no legitimate scientific studies supporting it has been endorsed by CMS to be taught intensively to patients after their coronary bypass surgery or heart attack?
The explanation involves pseudoscience, evangelical nutritional fervor and a Senator who has managed to get Congress to pass laws supporting “integrative” medicine

Nathan Pritikin’s Pseudoscience Longevity Legacy​

Nathan Pritikin is an “inventor” who became convinced that heart disease could be treated by following an ultra-low fat diet.
After establishing his “Longevity Center” in Santa Monica for well-healed clients, (Average price per week for one is about $4,500) he wrote a book entitled “the Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise” in 1979. The book sold more than 10 million copies in paperback and hardcover, and was on the New York Times Bestseller Top Ten list for more than 54 weeks.
He died at the age of 69 after slashing his wrists with a razor blade.

The Pritikin diet is similar to other now discredited diets promulgated by Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn which are ultra low fat and almost vegetarian. Such ultra low fat diets are not recommended by any major scientific organization and are not supported by the scientific literature.

Read more......


https://theskepticalcardiologist.co...-but-now-endorsed-by-your-federal-government/

 

[daylatedollarshort]

.......And then there is this by cardiologist Dr Anthony Pearson...Read more......
https://theskepticalcardiologist.co...-but-now-endorsed-by-your-federal-government/

I think for heart health personally we've decided to go with the American Heart Association recommendations for plant based -

"Whether you’re considering eating less meat or giving it up entirely, the benefits are clear: less risk of disease and improved health and well-being. Specifically, less meat decreases the risk of:

• Heart disease
• Stroke
• Obesity
• High blood pressure
• High cholesterol
• Type 2 diabetes
• Many cancers

Meat is often loaded with cholesterol and saturated fat, which have starring roles in poor heart health. And processed meats like deli meat, bacon and sausage often have too much sodium as well. On the other hand, lean meats, skinless poultry, and fish can be good sources of protein."

Plant based from what I've read seems to pretty much align with the nutritionfacts.org site, Harvard Health, microbiome research, Blue Zones study, Stanford, Mayo Clinic, CDC, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and all the others. If you have any health links from a major health organization recommending anything different I would appreciate a link as we are always open to new ideas and tweaking our diets. Nutritionfacts.org is more into solid vegan but he emphasizes what you do eat (his daily dozen) if more important than what you don't eat, as in a vegan could live on beer and french fries and not be healthy.

 

[braumeister]

Sometimes the line between discussions of diets and religions seems very fine indeed.

 

[RIGM]

Here is the wiki on Nathan Pritikin, presenting another, more balanced viewpoint. Yes, he was not an MD, and yes, much of his program was, at the time, not supported by scientific studies (but that was 40 years ago), and, yes, he did die by suicide (in the face of leukemia). Pretty much all of that is irrelevant if the results of that diet ameliorated or reversed age related diseases. My father, an MD, was there personally and confirmed their success in that mission.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Pritikin

Still, my father’s experience was not a controlled experiment. Over the years, I have maintained an open mind, looking for good science that both supports and, more importantly, challenges my views. Based on that, I think the answers are more nuanced than black and white. Without getting into great depth, we could have a good discussion on the finer points, the advantages, of the various diets.

I don’t know Pearson’s background or interests; he may have some good science behind his views, but what I saw in that link was a man using ad hominem attacks to discredit others with whom he disagrees. He mentions a Pritikin-supportive study that would not pass peer review today, but despite the site saying he presents an “unbiased, evidenced based discussion,” he does not address the myriad of peer reviewed studies that have been conducted in the intervening 40 years that do support Pritikin’s results. A balanced web site would look at both sides of the issue, just as a good study should seek evidence both for and against its hypotheses.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I sometimes have to wonder who’s benefiting and how:

https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/10/04/how-to-design-saturated-fat-studies-to-hide-the-truth/

Look, in the end, we all are going to believe what we want to believe, rightly or wrongly, with good/bad, certainly incomplete info. I’m not here to convince anyone that any particular diet is best. “Ye places yer bets, and ye takes yer chances.”

 

[Red Badger]

Sometimes the line between discussions of diets and religions seems very fine indeed.

+1. Now I gotta go worship at the alter of bacon.

 

[RAE]

Sometimes the line between discussions of diets and religions seems very fine indeed.

Yeah, no kidding. I am reading this thread and experiencing deja vu........it's almost predictable how the discussion will go and where it's headed, based on several similar threads from the not-too-distant past. We all have our "trusted sources" of information on diet, and trying to debate whether a certain source of info. is trustworthy or not usually goes nowhere (see past threads for evidence of that!).

People are going to choose a diet that they believe suits them, for whatever reason(s). Trying to persuade them to change is, for the most part, futile, IMO.

 

[audreyh1]

Meat is often loaded with cholesterol and saturated fat, which have starring roles in poor heart health. And processed meats like deli meat, bacon and sausage often have too much sodium as well. On the other hand, lean meats, skinless poultry, and fish can be good sources of protein.

I just want to point out that dietary cholesterol is no longer of concern - even the current US dietary guidelines point this out. And numerous studies and trials, over and over again, show there is no association between saturated fat and CVD mortality or all cause mortality. In fact, some have shown an inverse relationship. Studies/articles that continue to use LDL as the marker/measure of heart health risk are using older, debunked science.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I just want to point out that dietary cholesterol is no longer of concern - even the current US dietary guidelines point this out. And numerous studies and trials, over and over again, show there is no association between saturated fat and CVD mortality or all cause mortality. In fact, some have shown an inverse relationship. Studies/articles that continue to use LDL as the marker/measure of heart health risk are using older, debunked science.

Those weren't my words, that was a quote from The American Heart Association web site on the benefits of a plant based diet -

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-li...does-plant-forward-eating-benefit-your-health.

If you have any links on the debunked science idea on cholesterol from a major health organization, I would be interested in reading them. All I'm reading from the leading health association sites I check have pretty much the same stance as the AHA. I checked the healthy eating guidelines at health.gov and they are pretty much the same as the AHA- https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executive-summary/

 

[RAE]

Those weren't my words, that was a quote from The American Heart Association web site on the benefits of a plant based diet -

Against my better judgment, I will again post a link to an article that describes what the AHA is all about, and why they continue to mislead the public with false information about saturated fats, and other things (hint: big money from their corporate sponsors, including Procter and Gamble, Unilever, Bayer, and others, who make billions on unhealthy processed foods).

If you still want to take diet advice from AHA, that's your prerogative. But I don't see how anyone can argue that AHA's advice is consistent with most published, peer-reviewed diet/nutrition research over the last couple decades or so (on saturated fats and cholesterol, for example), because it clearly is not.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/882564?src=soc_tw_160817-pm_mscpedt_news_neuro&faf=1#vp_1

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Against my better judgment, I will again post a link to an article that describes what the AHA is all about, and why they continue to mislead the public with false information about saturated fats, and other things (hint: big money from their corporate sponsors, including Procter and Gamble, Unilever, Bayer, and others, who make billions on unhealthy processed foods).

If you still want to take diet advice from AHA, that's your prerogative. But I don't see how anyone can argue that AHA's advice is consistent with most published, peer-reviewed diet/nutrition research over the last couple decades or so (on saturated fats and cholesterol, for example), because it clearly is not.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/882564?src=soc_tw_160817-pm_mscpedt_news_neuro&faf=1#vp_1

I don't think they are helping Proctor and Gamble much by recommending a whole foods, plant based diet. Further on their page from the link above they say "Just make sure you’re not replacing meat with a bunch of highly processed meat substitutes or “vegan junk food.” You know, the French fry diet! The key is adding high-quality, nutrient-dense plant-based foods. In fact, a recent study showed that eating primarily high-quality plant foods (such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains and nuts) was associated with a lower risk of death from cardiovascular diseases than eating primarily lower-quality plant foods (such as fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes and sweets). The researchers concluded that even if you’ve eaten a poor diet for half your life, adding more healthy plant foods as an adult can help reduce your risk."

If you have any links from a major health nonprofit or government health site recommending something substantially different than what the AHA recommends, I would be interested in reading those articles. I've checked other countries like Canada and their government is recommending plant based as well - https://www.cookinglight.com/news/canada-food-guide-dietary-guidelines-no-meat-dairy-vegan.

 

[audreyh1]

Those weren't my words, that was a quote from The American Heart Association web site on the benefits of a plant based diet -

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-li...does-plant-forward-eating-benefit-your-health.

If you have any links on the debunked science idea on cholesterol from a major health organization, I would be interested in reading them. All I'm reading from the leading health association sites I check have pretty much the same stance as the AHA. I checked the healthy eating guidelines at health.gov and they are pretty much the same as the AHA- https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executive-summary/

I’m sorry, but IMO the AHA is woefully out of date. Many US major health organizations are way behind the times (including the American Diabetics Association) and are extremely slow to change their ways in the face of new scientific findings. Many major US health organizations receive a lot of funding from the US food and pharmaceutical industry. Reasons why US chronic disease has exploded and continues to mushroom.

So you have to look at the recent scientific papers being published.
A long list of recent scientific papers here: The Disputed Science on Saturated Fats https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/saturated-fats-do-they-cause-heart-disease

2016 Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions - links to many studies: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111

2018 LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature: PDF https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391?needAccess=true

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I’m sorry, but IMO the AHA is woefully out of date. Many US major health organizations are way behind the times (including the American Diabetics Association) and are extremely slow to change their ways in the face of new scientific findings. Many major US health organizations receive a lot of funding from the US food and pharmaceutical industry. Reasons why US chronic disease has exploded and continues to mushroom.

So you have to look at the recent scientific papers being published.
A long list of recent scientific papers here: The Disputed Science on Saturated Fats https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/saturated-fats-do-they-cause-heart-disease

2016 Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions - links to many studies: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111

2018 LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature: PDF https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391?needAccess=true

The BMJ article advocates a Mediterranean diet, which Webmd describes as, "There’s no single Mediterranean diet plan, but in general, you'd be eating lots of fruits and vegetables, beans and nuts, healthy grains, fish, olive oil, small amounts of meat and dairy, and red wine.' That is plant based and pretty close, if not exactly the same, as the AHA diet recommendations.

 

[RAE]

Well, if you want to see what foods AHA really recommends, you need to look no further than the foods they endorse as "heart healthy", through their Heart Check certification program (the little red heart on the package of many processed food in the grocery store). The majority are processed foods, many of which are not healthy (for example - products made with refined grains and added sugar (like Honey Nut Cheerios) ,and industrial seed oils like corn oil). AHA also still (unbelievably, to me) endorses soft margarine, made from industrial seed oils, as a better diet choice than butter. Corn oil, vegetable oil, and the other highly processed seed oils are now widely recognized as unhealthy, based on many recent studies, yet AHA still endorses them because the companies that make them are a major source of funds for AHA. AHA will not endorse any food (through Heart Check) whose producer does not pay AHA a substantial sum for their endorsement. Does that sound like an unbiased way to evaluate whether foods are healthy or not?

A lot of this goes back to AHA's misguided and (very) outdated belief that saturated fats are bad for us, and cause heart disease. Despite many studies over the last couple decades that have failed to link higher LDL and cholesterol to all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular disease mortality, AHA continues to promote foods low in saturated fat, and advises us to instead consume things like corn oil and vegetable oil, which are NOT healthy. And they continue to recommend foods with too much sugar, because "low fat" and "non fat" foods don't taste very good unless you replace the fat with sugar. Again, it's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that a lot of this goes back to money and corporate influence.

This article sheds more light on some of what I mentioned above, if anyone is interested:

https://sustainabledish.com/coconut-oil-wont-kill-listening-american-heart-association-might/

Again, if you think the diet advice from AHA is sound and unbiased, and choose to follow their advice, that's okay with me. But I don't see how you can argue that their advice is consistent with most diet/nutrition research over the last couple decades or so.

 

[audreyh1]

The BMJ article advocates a Mediterranean diet, which Webmd describes as, "There’s no single Mediterranean diet plan, but in general, you'd be eating lots of fruits and vegetables, beans and nuts, healthy grains, fish, olive oil, small amounts of meat and dairy, and red wine.' That is plant based and pretty close, if not exactly the same, as the AHA diet recommendations.

You asked for info that debunked cholesterol being bad for heart health and I assumed also debunked saturated bad for heart health.

If the AHA is still recommending limiting dietary cholesterol intake then they are really behind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-dietary-cholesterol/?utm_term=.b5fa635c61f0

Note that the BMJ article demonstrated that a slightly higher fat diet had much better heart health outcomes than a (not so) low fat diet, in spite of the two groups having the same LDL readings. This is a pretty strong indication that LDL is not a main cause.

Dietary RCTs with outcome benefit in primary and secondary prevention
In comparison with advice to follow a ‘low fat’ diet (37% fat), an energy-unrestricted Mediterranean diet (41% fat) supplemented with at least four tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil or a handful of nuts (PREDIMED) achieved a significant 30% (number needed to treat (NNT)=61) reduction in cardiovascular events in over 7500 high-risk patients. Furthermore, the Lyon Heart study showed that adopting a Mediterranean diet in secondary prevention improved hard outcomes for both recurrent myocardial infarction (NNT=18) and all-cause mortality (NNT=30), despite there being no significant difference in plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol between the two groups.

There is no standard definition of a “Mediterranean diet”. It gets described all over the place and is highly variable in real life.

The French consume a diet high in saturated fat (plenty of meat and dairy), yet France has a low incidence of heart disease. There’s a Mediterranean country for you.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Again, if you think the diet advice from AHA is sound and unbiased, and choose to follow their advice, that's okay with me. But I don't see how you can argue that their advice is consistent with most diet/nutrition research over the last couple decades or so.

The AHA is recommending pretty much the same basic plant based, whole foods diet as all the other major health organizations, universities, governments, microbiome and longevity studies and recommendations we've looked at. We're choosing to go with that fairly global consensus advice. YMMV.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

The French consume a diet high in saturated fat (plenty of meat and dairy), yet France has a low incidence of heart disease. There’s a Mediterranean country for you.

The French High Council For Public Health (HCPH) is in the middle of updating their national nutrition guidelines to be the same as everybody else - more plants and less meat and dairy - https://www.cookinglight.com/news/france-dietary-guidelines-less-meat-dairy

 

[audreyh1]

The French High Council For Public Health (HCPH) is in the middle of updating their national nutrition guidelines to be the same as everybody else - more plants and less meat and dairy - https://www.cookinglight.com/news/france-dietary-guidelines-less-meat-dairy

Sounds like their health may go downhill as a consequence. The US nutrition guidelines are a horrific mess and we have the high and rapidly increasing chronic disease statistics to show for it.

Gee, why would they mess with their low national incidence of heart disease? Just so they can be sick like everyone else? It boggles the mind.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Sounds like their health may go downhill as a consequence. The US nutrition guidelines are a horrific mess and we have the high and rapidly increasing chronic disease statistics to show for it.

Gee, why would they mess with their low national incidence of heart disease? Just so they can be sick like everyone else? It boggles the mind.

France has high cancer rates. I looked at that when we started researching the plant based diets to see how the standard French diet compares.

In the U.S. very few people actually follow the U.S. diet and exercise guidelines.