Dietary Advice of the Experts

 

Reading articles and watching videos on the thoughts of the experts on nutrition is puzzling.  

I'll go ahead and start with the granddaddy of advice on Youtube, David Sinclair of Sinclair Laboratory at Harvard.  Wow.   Sometimes I think I'm hearing personal opinions more than facts.   I'm never 100% certain of the position he espouses.  Is he a vegan?  No.  Maybe a lacto-vegetarian.  I find it annoying to listen to him, and wondering why I feel that way.  Do I challenge his findings?  I'll just say it.  YES.  Well, who do I think I am?  I think I am Helene.  But my real problem with him is his egotism and hubris.   How so?  Just his odd bristle and seeming distain for all things not Sinclair.   He likes to brag that he's in his 50s and looks much much younger.  Are there any gray hairs??  Wrinkles??  Well, I suppose he is maintaining OK.  Except....

What do I know about his thoughts on a healthy diet?   It depends on whether you're a fruit fly or a yeast cell.   We can extrapolate all we need to know from there.  Let's see.  Calorie restriction.  OK.  Methionine restriction.  Okaaaaay...  Protein restriction.  You're starting to lose me.   He's got a big supplement stack.  Well, maybe.  But I'll admit, I have a few issues there.   "Look lady,"  I can imagine him saying, "I have a list as long as your chubby little arm of documented studies."   Very impressive.   I just have a gnawing concern that the takeaway from the studies is slanted by being a study that his minions at the Sinclair Lab did under his oversight.  And?  And there is a bias.  Cherry picking of studies and results.  Yes, I have some doubts.  You're telling me you dare to fly in the face of Harvard University?  I'm afraid so.   As soon as I see that the talking head of a video I've clicked on is David Sinclair, I think, "Uh oh.  Here we go." 

What say I?  I've heard the noise about calorie restriction and methionine restriction and protein restriction before.   I'm not sold.   What about the blizzards of studies?   Well, these are almost exclusively animal studies, and more than half of those on yeast and earthworms.  I understand that many of the studies focus on mice and flies, etc, because of the time element.  To determine the lifespan of calorie deprived, methionine deprived, protein deprived people would take a study of decades, instead of a couple years.   No mention of possible downsides of these restrictions.  Muscle wasting, including vital organs.  Bone depletion.   These leading to a host of other problems, especially those seen in the elderly.  Which goes to the question of longevity and whether one spends old age in good health.   

 

To start with, I don't think an ideal human diet is a one size fits all thing.  For example, suppose one has kidney problems?  In that case a low protein diet would be helpful.  Suppose one has epilepsy?  A ketogenic diet would probably be beneficial.   The same can be said for a number of neurological conditions.  How much of the study results for humans argue for calorie restriction, methionine restriction or protein restriction, when in reality the improvements seen with these diets are due to other factors that wind up happening in these diets?  Where am I heading with this?  I am saying that one big factor has been ignored, which is the level of carbohydrate consumption.   

So, what other problems do I have with dietary advice?  It all started a long time ago with the cholesterol hype.   I would say probably with the motivation of helping drug companies sell statins.  If anything, triglyceride levels seem like a better focus, and once again, the main thing causing high triglycerides is high carbohydrate.   Eating fat is a problem due to the effect of the carb overload.  Without a carb overload, the fats are not detrimental.  But what about hypercholesterolemia?  In that case I would say there may be hereditary issues.  

One of the most nourishing foods was sacrificed on the cholesterol altar, which is eggs.  "They're high in cholesterol!" the experts cried.  No matter that the cholesterol in eggs is not well absorbed.  Ignoring the fact that the bioavailability of egg protein is second only to human breast milk, and nearly twice as high, if not three times as high, as other sources of protein.  And inexpensive.  Oh, did I say inexpensive?  Surely the panic against eggs had nothing to do with herding the masses in the direction of more expensive protein choices?  

This brings me to an article I read in Life Extension today.  Its conclusions are diametrically opposed to those of Mr. Sinclair.  The gist of the article is that most people aren't eating enough protein, especially those that are older.  I am completely convinced that this is correct.  How much should one be eating?  An older person should aim at 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of weight.  They probably are assuming normal weight.  Why would I be so convinced of this idea?  The studies?  Well, just looking around.  As people age one of the most obvious and prevalent symptoms of decline is sarcopenia, loss of muscle mass.  This results in many of the catastrophes of aging, which is all types of frailty.  Not as obvious, but just about as pervasive is bone loss.  Also catastrophic.  Both of these conditions are in large part the result of inadequate protein consumption and absorption.  Of course, one would do well to exercise.  I feel this is putting the cart before the horse though.  How can one benefit from this exercise without providing the protein needed for it the have the best effect?  

And so, trying to partake of the current wisdom of dietary advice leaves one wandering around in a maze of conflicting opinions based on myriads of studies pointing in all different directions.