8 Likes
Thanks. This was good. Even though brief, the discussion brings home the point that there is nuance to the protein intake / exercise / mTOR hypergrowth solution for each person, ie, there is NO one size fits all approach.
7 Likes
I have to admit, I eat a very low protein diet naturally, I do not like to eat high protein. It is a chore for me.
I am watching this video where Michael Gregor (quack vegan doctor) but who has written a book on longevity critiquing this bodybuilder with high protein intake.
I have to read more about this. I am having flashbacks to IGF-1 litterature which I thought was B.S but now there are soon drugs for dogs that maybe increase lifespan based on that mechanism… IGF-1 and protein is related.
I think high protein literature might be flawed… I am feeling the quackery in me that is wrong and I am purging this… Somehow it is all starting to make sense to me… IGF-1, mTOR, amino acid restriction, protein… Or I might just be high.
1 Like
I’m still of the opinion that one should eat at least 1.6-2g/kg of protein per day spread over 4 meals AND take rapamycin to gain the best of both worlds.
2 Likes
Would you agree that lower protein is better if you have get no clinically significant side effect from it (muscle loss, loss of muscle strength)?
1 Like
As long as your muscle mass stays equal or grows, your current protein intake is sufficient.
2 Likes
Equal at an already optimal level of muscle mass or strength is the caveat. Optimal is higher than what is the case for the average person.
1 Like
How come thought so? I thought it was quite legit in lab / pre-clinical literature + the humans with genetically low. (Question for me was more that rats don’t risk falling and breaking a hip, etc, they way an old human does)
1 Like
Freaky and good podcast on protein by Rhonda Patrick released yesterday:
1 Like
Excellent quote explaining CR (calorie restriction) lifespan benefits and the confusion surrounding it from the podcast, but it’s not mentioned more after this.
“What will happen if I eat 25% less calories than I need? Then you die. But people become healthier when they eat 25% less, but that is something else, it’s not that they are eating 25% less than they need, they are eating 25% less than what they are actually used of consuming. And that’s a huge difference between those two, and that’s of course often what we don’t want to see as it makes our lives more difficult.” @Neo
3 Likes
I have long been confused by CR claims…10% CR or 20% CR. 20% less than what? If the weight loss stabilizes, then how is it CR anymore? I’ve concluded (for now) that the CR is just a way to find the minimum calories needed to sustain the body and energy output needed for the chosen lifestyle.
If I was a professional athlete, I’d worry more about the maximum calories I could consume without adding body fat. But since I am not focused on performance only, I am looking for the least calorie and protein I need to sustain my body and energy usage and recovery and adaptation.
I dont think. % CR is helpful…at least not for me. I’ll use Dexa (2x/year) and a scale to monitor progress. I’ll also watch my performance progress.
2 Likes