White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red.jpeg

In light of recommendations for heart healthy eating from national professional organizations encouraging Americans to limit their intake of meat, the beef industry commissioned and co-wrote a review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of beef versus chicken and fish on cholesterol levels published over the last 60 years. They found that the impact of beef consumption on the cholesterol profile of humans is similar to that of fish and/or poultry--meaning that switching from red meat to white meat likely wouldn't make any difference. And that's really no surprise, given how fat we've genetically manipulated chickens to be these days, up to ten times more fat than they had a century ago (see Does Eating Obesity Cause Obesity?).

There are a number of cuts of beef that have less cholesterol-raising saturated fat than chicken (see BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol?), so it's not so surprising that white meat was found to be no better than red, but the beef industry researchers conclusion was that "therefore you can eat beef as part of a balanced diet to manage your cholesterol."

Think of the Coke versus Pepsi analogy. Coke has less sugar than Pepsi: 15 spoonfuls of sugar per bottle instead of 16. If studies on blood sugar found no difference between drinking Coke versus Pepsi, you wouldn't conclude that "Pepsi may be considered when recommending diets for the management of blood sugars," you'd say they're both equally as bad so we should ideally consume neither.

That's a standard drug industry trick. You don't compare your fancy new drug to the best out there, but to some miserable drug to make yours look better. Note they didn't compare beef to plant proteins, like in this study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. As I started reading it, though, I was surprised that they found no benefit of switching to a plant protein diet either. What were they eating? You can see the comparison in Switching from Beef to Chicken & Fish May Not Lower Cholesterol.

For breakfast, the plant group got a kidney bean and tomato casserole and a salad, instead of a burger. And for dinner, instead of another burger, the plant protein group just got some boring vegetables. So why was the cholesterol of the plant group as bad as the animal group? They had the plant protein group eating three tablespoons of beef tallow every day--three tablespoons of straight beef fat!

This was part of a series of studies that tried to figure out what was so cholesterol-raising about meat--was it the animal protein or was it the animal fat? So, researchers created fake meat products made to have the same amount of saturated fat and cholesterol by adding extracted animal fats and cholesterol. Who could they get to make such strange concoctions? The Ralston Purina dog food company.

But what's crazy is that even when keeping the saturated animal fat and cholesterol the same (by adding meat fats to the veggie burgers and making the plant group swallow cholesterol pills to equal it out), sometimes they still saw a cholesterol lowering advantage in the plant protein group.

If you switch people from meat to tofu, their cholesterol goes down, but what if you switch them from meat to tofu plus lard? Then their cholesterol may stay the same, though tofu and lard may indeed actually be better than meat, since it may result in less oxidized cholesterol. More on the role of oxidized cholesterol can be found in my videos Does Cholesterol Size Matter? and Arterial Acne.

Just swapping plant protein for animal protein may have advantages, but if you really want to maximize the power of diet to lower cholesterol, you may have to move entirely toward plants. The standard dietary advice to cut down on fatty meat, dairy, and eggs may lower cholesterol 5-10%, but flexitarian or vegetarian diets may drop our levels 10 to 15%, vegan diets 15 to 25%, and healthier vegan diets can cut up to 35%, as seen in this study out of Canada showing a whopping 61 point drop in LDL cholesterol within a matter of weeks.


You thought chicken was a low-fat food? It used to be a century ago, but not anymore. It may even be one of the reasons we're getting fatter as well: Chicken Big: Poultry and Obesity and Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity.

Isn't protein just protein? How does our body know if it's coming from a plant or an animal? How could it have different effects on cardiovascular risk? See Protein and Heart Disease, another reason why Plant Protein [is] Preferable.

Lowering cholesterol in your blood is as simple as reducing one's intake of three things: Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

What about those news stories on the "vindication" of saturated fat? See the sneaky science in The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena via Freestockphotos.biz. This image has been modified.

Original Link

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red

White Meat May Be as Cholesterol-Raising as Red.jpeg

In light of recommendations for heart healthy eating from national professional organizations encouraging Americans to limit their intake of meat, the beef industry commissioned and co-wrote a review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of beef versus chicken and fish on cholesterol levels published over the last 60 years. They found that the impact of beef consumption on the cholesterol profile of humans is similar to that of fish and/or poultry--meaning that switching from red meat to white meat likely wouldn't make any difference. And that's really no surprise, given how fat we've genetically manipulated chickens to be these days, up to ten times more fat than they had a century ago (see Does Eating Obesity Cause Obesity?).

There are a number of cuts of beef that have less cholesterol-raising saturated fat than chicken (see BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol?), so it's not so surprising that white meat was found to be no better than red, but the beef industry researchers conclusion was that "therefore you can eat beef as part of a balanced diet to manage your cholesterol."

Think of the Coke versus Pepsi analogy. Coke has less sugar than Pepsi: 15 spoonfuls of sugar per bottle instead of 16. If studies on blood sugar found no difference between drinking Coke versus Pepsi, you wouldn't conclude that "Pepsi may be considered when recommending diets for the management of blood sugars," you'd say they're both equally as bad so we should ideally consume neither.

That's a standard drug industry trick. You don't compare your fancy new drug to the best out there, but to some miserable drug to make yours look better. Note they didn't compare beef to plant proteins, like in this study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. As I started reading it, though, I was surprised that they found no benefit of switching to a plant protein diet either. What were they eating? You can see the comparison in Switching from Beef to Chicken & Fish May Not Lower Cholesterol.

For breakfast, the plant group got a kidney bean and tomato casserole and a salad, instead of a burger. And for dinner, instead of another burger, the plant protein group just got some boring vegetables. So why was the cholesterol of the plant group as bad as the animal group? They had the plant protein group eating three tablespoons of beef tallow every day--three tablespoons of straight beef fat!

This was part of a series of studies that tried to figure out what was so cholesterol-raising about meat--was it the animal protein or was it the animal fat? So, researchers created fake meat products made to have the same amount of saturated fat and cholesterol by adding extracted animal fats and cholesterol. Who could they get to make such strange concoctions? The Ralston Purina dog food company.

But what's crazy is that even when keeping the saturated animal fat and cholesterol the same (by adding meat fats to the veggie burgers and making the plant group swallow cholesterol pills to equal it out), sometimes they still saw a cholesterol lowering advantage in the plant protein group.

If you switch people from meat to tofu, their cholesterol goes down, but what if you switch them from meat to tofu plus lard? Then their cholesterol may stay the same, though tofu and lard may indeed actually be better than meat, since it may result in less oxidized cholesterol. More on the role of oxidized cholesterol can be found in my videos Does Cholesterol Size Matter? and Arterial Acne.

Just swapping plant protein for animal protein may have advantages, but if you really want to maximize the power of diet to lower cholesterol, you may have to move entirely toward plants. The standard dietary advice to cut down on fatty meat, dairy, and eggs may lower cholesterol 5-10%, but flexitarian or vegetarian diets may drop our levels 10 to 15%, vegan diets 15 to 25%, and healthier vegan diets can cut up to 35%, as seen in this study out of Canada showing a whopping 61 point drop in LDL cholesterol within a matter of weeks.


You thought chicken was a low-fat food? It used to be a century ago, but not anymore. It may even be one of the reasons we're getting fatter as well: Chicken Big: Poultry and Obesity and Infectobesity: Adenovirus 36 and Childhood Obesity.

Isn't protein just protein? How does our body know if it's coming from a plant or an animal? How could it have different effects on cardiovascular risk? See Protein and Heart Disease, another reason why Plant Protein [is] Preferable.

Lowering cholesterol in your blood is as simple as reducing one's intake of three things: Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, and Cholesterol: Tolerable Upper Intake of Zero.

What about those news stories on the "vindication" of saturated fat? See the sneaky science in The Saturated Fat Studies: Buttering Up the Public and The Saturated Fat Studies: Set Up to Fail.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena via Freestockphotos.biz. This image has been modified.

Original Link

What About Eating Just a Little Meat?

NF-Oct11 Plant-based Diets and Diabetes.jpeg

As you can see in my video, Plant-Based Diets and Diabetes, we've known for decades that a plant-based diet may be protective against diabetes. Studies going back half a century found that those eating meat one or more days a week had significantly higher rates of diabetes, and the more frequently meat was eaten, the more frequent the disease. And this is after controlling for weight, so even at the same weight, those eating more plant-based had but a fraction of the diabetes rates. If anything, vegetarians should have had more diabetes just because they appear to live so much longer, so they had more time to develop these kinds of chronic diseases; but no, apparently lower rates of death and disease.

Fast forward 50 years to the Adventist-2 study, looking at 89,000 people, and we see a stepwise drop in the rates of diabetes as one eats more and more plant-based, down to a 78% lower prevalence among those eating strictly plant-based. Protection building incrementally as one moved from eating meat daily, to eating meat weekly, to just fish, to no meat, and then to no eggs and dairy either. Followed over time, vegetarian diets were associated with a substantially lower incidence of diabetes, indicating the potential of these diets to stem the current diabetes epidemic.

We see the same step-wise drop in rates of another leading killer, high blood pressure. The greater the proportion of plant foods, the lower the rates of hypertension, and the same with excess body fat. The only dietary group not on average overweight were those eating diets composed exclusively of plant foods, but again there was the same incremental drop with fewer and fewer animal products. This suggests that it's not black and white, not all or nothing, any steps we can make along this spectrum of eating healthier may accrue significant benefits.

What about eating a really healthy diet with just a little meat? Is it better to eat none at all? We have new insight last year from Taiwan. Asian diets in general tend to be lower in meat and higher in plant foods compared with Western diet, but whether a diet completely avoiding meat and fish would further extend the protective effect of a plant-based diet wasn't known, until now.

Traditionally, Asian populations have had low rates of diabetes, but a diabetes epidemic has since emerged, and appears to coincide with increased meat, animal protein, and animal fat consumption, but the Westernization of Asian diets also brought along a lot of fast food and junk, and so these researchers at the national university didn't want to just compare those eating vegetarian to typical meateaters. So, they compared Bhuddist vegetarians to Bhuddist non-vegetarians, eating traditional Asian diets. Even the omnivores were eating a predominantly plant-based diet, consuming little meat and fish, with the women eating the equivalent of about a single serving a week, and men eating a serving every few days. That's just 8% of the meat intake in the U.S., 3% for the women. The question: is it better to eat 3% or 0%?

Again, both groups were eating healthy; zero soda consumption, for example, in any group. Despite the similarities in their diet, and after controlling for weight, family history, exercise, and smoking, the men eating vegetarian had just half the rates of diabetes, and the vegetarian women just a quarter of the rates. So even in a population consuming a really plant-based diet with little meat and fish, true vegetarians who completely avoided animal flesh, while eating more healthy plant foods, have lower odds for prediabetes and diabetes after accounting for other risk factors. They wanted to break it up into vegan versus ovo-lacto like in the Adventist-2 study, but they couldn't because there were no cases at all of diabetes found within the vegan group.

More on preventing and treating this terrible disease:

The reason I keep going back to that Adventist-2 study is that it's not only the biggest study of those eating plant based diets in North America, but the largest such study anywhere anytime. We owe those investigators a great debt (not to mention the 96,741 participants!). One thing I'm happy my tax dollars are going towards (via the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health). More from the Adventists in Caloric Restriction vs. Animal Protein Restriction.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: Reisek / Flickr

Original Link

Where Do You Get Your Fiber?

NF-Sep29 Do Vegetarians get enough Protein?.jpg

Vegetarians and vegans are all too familiar with the question: Where do you get your protein?

Well, we can finally put to rest the question of whether vegetarians get enough protein thanks to a large study that compared the nutrient profiles of about 30,000 non-vegetarians to 20,000 vegetarians and about 5,000 vegans, 5,000 flexitarians (vegetarian most of the time), and 5,000 pescetarians (no meat except fish). The average requirement is 42 grams of protein a day. As you can see in the graph in the video, Do Vegetarians Get Enough Protein, meat eaters get way more than they need, and so does everyone else. Vegetarians and vegans average 70% more protein than the recommendation every day.

It's surprising that there's so much fuss about protein in this country when less than 3% of adults don't make the cut, presumably because they're on extreme calorie-restricted diets and aren't eating enough food period. But 97% of Americans get enough protein.

There is a nutrient, though, for which 97% of Americans are deficient. That nutrient is fiber.

Less than 3% of Americans get even the recommended minimum adequate intake of fiber. That's something we really have to work on.

On average, we get only about 15 grams a day. The minimum daily requirement is 31.5, so we get less than half the minimum. Men are particularly deficient. If we break down intake by age and gender, after studying the diets of 12,761 Americans, the percent of men between ages 14 and 50 getting the minimum adequate intake is zero. (The only nutrient Americans may be more deficient in than fiber is potassium. See 98% of American Diets Potassium Deficient.)

This deficit is stunning in that dietary fiber has been protectively associated in population studies with the risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and various cancers as well high cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugars. Therefore, it is not surprising that fiber is listed as a nutrient of concern reported by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Protein is not.

One problem is that most people have no idea what's in their food; more than half of Americans think steak is a significant fiber source. By definition, fiber is only found in plants. There is no fiber in meat, dairy or eggs, and little or no fiber in junk food. Therein lies the problem. Americans should be eating more beans, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains--but how are they doing?

96% of Americans don't eat the minimum recommended daily amount of beans, 96% don't eat the measly minimum for greens, and 99% don't get enough whole grains. Nearly the entire U.S. population fails to eat enough whole plant foods.

Even semi-vegetarians make the fiber minimum, though. Those eating completely plant-based diets triple the average American intake. When closing the fiber gap, you'll want to do it gradually though, no more than about five extra grams a day each week until you can work your way up. But it's worth it. "Plant-derived diets tend to contribute significantly less fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and food-borne pathogens, while at the same time offering more fiber, folate, vitamin C, and phytochemicals, all essential factors for disease prevention, optimal health, and well being." And the more whole plant foods the better. If we compare the nutritional quality of vegan versus vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diets, traditional healthy diet indexing systems consistently indicate that the most plant-based diet is the healthiest one.

For more on how S.A.D. the Standard American Diet is, see Nation's Diet in Crisis.

Americans eating meat-free diets average higher intakes of nearly every nutrient. See my video Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management.

Isn't animal protein higher quality protein though? See my videos:

For more on protein, see: Plant Protein Preferable and Prostate Cancer Survival: The A/V Ratio.

And for a few on fiber:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert / Flickr

Original Link

4 Reasons Vegan is the Hottest, Most Important Food Trend Today

Here are 4 reasons why vegan is the hottest, most important trend in food today: Millennials – the generation born between 1981 and 1997 – are projected to surpass the outsized Baby Boom generation as the nation’s largest living generation this year. Millennials are considered the “tastemakers in food,” and they happen to be socially conscious and …

Original Link

How Grapefruit Affects Prescription Drugs

NF-Aug5 How Grapefruit Affects Prescription Drugs.jpg

Does grapefruit in particular help people lose weight?

If someone eats half of a grapefruit three times a day before each meal for a couple months, they may lose about two pounds -- but that's no more than if they ate three apples or pears a day. In one study, the grapefruit eaters not only saw their weight go down, but their waist got slimmer, and their body fat melted away. If, however, we repeat the experiment and instead ask people to drink a half cup of water before each meal, we get the same result. So this belief that grapefruit has some special fat-burning quality appears to be just a long-held myth.

The researchers reported that grapefruit consumers had a drop in weight, a significant drop in cholesterol, and a significant drop in blood pressure. They concluded that consumption of grapefruit daily for six weeks does not significantly decrease body weight, cholesterol, or blood pressure, though. That made me do a little double take, but again, it's because the grapefruit didn't do any better than placebo.

Other studies have found a legitimate cholesterol-lowering benefit of grapefruit, and even a little dip in triglycerides, especially eating red as opposed to white . For example, one study showed a decrease in cholesterol, but only from one life-threatening cholesterol level to another life-threatening cholesterol level. To prevent heart disease, we really have to get down to a total cholesterol of around 150, which is the average cholesterol of those eating diets composed exclusively of plant foods, not just grapefruits (See, for example, One in a Thousand: Ending the Heart Disease Epidemic).

Even though grapefruits alone don't do much, the researchers suggest that people might be more likely to stick with them than cholesterol lowering drugs, noting that most people with heart disease stop taking their statin drugs within a couple years because of the adverse side effects (see Statin Muscle Toxicity). While grapefruits alone don't have any side effects, ironically, combining grapefruits and drugs can make drug side effects even worse.

If we eat lots of fruits and vegetables, we hopefully won't need a lot of drugs (Say No to Drugs by Saying Yes to More Plants), but certain phytochemicals in plants can affect the metabolism of drugs in the body. Grapefruit is the poster child, described as a "pharmacologist's nightmare." Natural phytochemicals in grapefruit suppress the enzymes that help clear more than half of commonly prescribed drugs, and less drug clearance means higher drug levels in the body. This may actually be good if we want a better caffeine buzz from our morning coffee, or our doctors want to help us save thousands of dollars by boosting the effects of expensive drugs instead of just peeing them away.

But higher drug levels may mean higher risk of side effects. Women taking the Pill are normally at a higher risk of blood clots, but even more so, perhaps, if they have been consuming grapefruit. Taking the Pill with grapefruit juice may increase blood drug concentrations by 137 percent.

If suppressing our drug clearance enzymes with grapefruit juice elevates levels of ingested estrogen, what might it be doing to our own estrogen levels? A study associating grapefruit consumption with breast cancer freaked out the medical community, but subsequent studies on even larger groups of women found no evidence of a link. The Harvard Nurses' Study even found a decreased risk of the scariest breast cancer type, so it doesn't look like we have to worry about grapefruit affecting our natural chemistry.

For those prescribed unnatural chemistries, it may be a good idea to discontinue grapefruit consumption for 72 hours before use of a drug that may interact with it. If you don't want to give up your grapefruit, you can ask your doctor about switching from a grapefruit-affected drug like Lipitor to one of the citrus-proof alternatives (the replacement drug chart can be seen in my video, Tell Your Doctor If You Eat Grapefruit).

Other videos on citrus include:

And another video on the risks associated with taking estrogens: Plant-Based Bioidentical Hormones.

Can't eat grapefruit without sprinkling sugar on top? Try erythritol instead to avoid so many empty calories: Erythritol May Be a Sweet Antioxidant.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death and More Than an Apple a Day.

Image Credit: Liz West / Flickr

Original Link

Stopping Heart Disease in Childhood

NF-July15 Heart Disease Starts in Childhood.jpg

A landmark paper in 1953 radically changed our view about the development of heart disease forever. The study looked at a series of 300 autopsies performed on U.S. battle casualties of the Korean War. The average age was 22 years old, but 77% of the soldiers' hearts had gross evidence--meaning visible-to-the-eye evidence--of coronary atherosclerosis, hardening of their arteries. Some of them had vessels that were clogged off 90% or more. As an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, "This widely cited publication dramatically showed that atherosclerotic changes appear in the coronary arteries years and decades before the age at which coronary heart disease (CHD) becomes a clinically recognized problem." Follow-up studies on the hearts of thousands of more soldiers over the subsequent years confirmed their results.

How young does it go? Fatty streaks, the first stage of atherosclerosis, were found in the arteries of 100% of kids by age ten. What's accounting for this buildup of plaque even in childhood? In the '80s we got our first clue in the famous Bogalusa Heart Study. This looked at autopsies of those who died between the ages of 3 to 26 years old, and the #1 risk factor was cholesterol intake. There was a dramatic stepwise increase in the proportion of their arteries covered in fatty streaks as the level of bad cholesterol in the blood increased. As powerful as this was, the study only looked at 30 kids. So they decided to study 3000: three thousand accidental death victims, ages 15 through 34.

After thousands of autopsies, they were able to produce a scoring system that could predict the presence of advanced atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries of young people. The higher our score, the higher the likelihood we have these lesions growing in the arteries that pump blood and oxygen to our heart. So if we're young and we smoke, our risk goes up by one point. If we have high blood pressure at such a young age, that's four points. If we're an obese male, that's six points, but high cholesterol was the worst of all. If our non-HDL cholesterol (meaning the total cholesterol minus the good cholesterol) is above 220 or so, our risk increased eight times more than if we smoked.

Let's say you're a woman with relatively high cholesterol, but you don't smoke, you're not overweight, your blood pressure and blood sugars are OK. At your sweet 16 there's just about a 1 in 30 (3%) chance you already have an advanced atherosclerotic lesion in your heart, but if you don't improve your diet, by your 30th birthday, it's closer to a one in five (20%) chance you have some serious heart disease, and if you have really high cholesterol it could be closer to one in three (33%).

In the video, Heart Disease Starts in Childhood, you can see what happens to our risk if we bring our cholesterol down to even just that of a lacto-ovo vegetarian, or if we exercise to boost our HDL, etc. It shows that even in 15 to 19-year-olds, atherosclerosis has begun in a substantial number of individuals, and this observation suggests beginning primary prevention at least by the late teenage years to ameliorate every stage of atherosclerosis and to prevent or retard progression to more advanced lesions.

If we start kids out on a low saturated fat diet, we may see a significant improvement in their arterial function by 11 years old. The study concluded, "Exposure to high serum cholesterol concentration even in childhood may accelerate the development of atherosclerosis. Consequently the long-term prevention of atherosclerosis might be most effective when initiated early in life." And by early in life they meant infancy.

Atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, begins in childhood. By age ten nearly all kids have fatty streaks, the first stage of the disease. Then the plaques start forming in our 20s, get worse in our 30s, and can start killing us off in middle age. In our hearts it's a heart attack, in our brains it's a stroke, in our extremities it can mean gangrene, and in our aorta, an aneurism.

For those of us older than ten years of age, the choice likely isn't whether or not to eat healthy to prevent heart disease, it's whether or not we want to reverse the heart disease we likely already have.

Drs. Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. proved that we can reverse heart disease with a plant-based diet, but we don't have to wait until our first heart attack to start unclogging our arteries. We can start reversing our heart disease right now. We can start reversing heart disease in our kids tonight.

The bottom line is that we have tremendous control over our medical destinies. How do we go about reversing our heart disease? I address that question in my latest live annual review presentation More Than an Apple a Day. Or, for shorter snippets:

Heart disease is a choice.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my 2012 live year-in-review presentation Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

Image Credit: James MacDonald / Flickr

Original Link

How Plant-Based Diets May Extend Our Lives

NF-July10 How a Plant Based Diet May Help you Live Longer.jpg

A recent review suggested that plant-based diets may prove to be a useful nutritional strategy for lifespan extension in part because they tend to be naturally low in the amino acid methionine (see my video Starving Cancer with Methionine Restriction). Apparently, the less methionine there is in body tissues, the longer different animals tend to live. But what are the possible implications for humans? See my video Methionine Restriction as a Life Extension Strategy.

I've talked before about the free radical theory of aging, the concept that aging can be thought of as the oxidation of our bodies just like rust is the oxidation of metal (see Mitochondrial Theory of Aging). Methionine is thought to have a pro-oxidant effect. The thinking is that lowering methionine intake leads to less free radical production, thereby slowing aging. Fewer free radicals would decrease the rate of DNA damage, which would curtail the rate of DNA mutation, slowing the rate of aging and disease and potentially increasing our lifespan.

There are three ways to lower methionine intake: The first is caloric restriction. By decreasing our overall intake of food, we would reduce our intake of methionine. Or, because methionine is found protein, we could practice protein restriction, eating a relatively protein deficient diet. The third option is eat enough food, eat enough protein, but just stick to proteins that are relatively low in methionine, which tends to mean plant proteins.

Caloric restriction is hard, because we walk around starving all the time. Something like every-other-day eating is described as "never likely to gain much popularity as a pro-longevity strategy for humans, so it may be more feasible to achieve moderate methionine restriction by eating a plant-based diet." On a population-wide level, folks could benefit from just lowering their protein intake, period. Researchers noted that "the mean intake of proteins [and thus methionine] of Western human populations is much higher than needed. Therefore, decreasing such levels has a great potential to lower tissue oxidative stress and to increase healthy life span in humans while avoiding the possible undesirable effects of caloric restriction."

We're eating around double the protein we need, so the first thing doctors can recommend is to decrease the intake of protein, but we can also get our methionine even lower by eating a plant-based diet.

The fact that beans have comparably low methionine has been classically considered a disadvantage. But, given the capacity of methionine restriction to decrease the rate of free radical generation in internal organs, to lower markers of chronic disease, and to increase maximum longevity, this "disadvantage" may actually be a strong advantage. This fits well with the important role of beans in healthy diets like the traditional Mediterranean diet. Interestingly, soy protein is also especially poor in methionine, which may help explain the healthy effects iof soyfoods. Watch my video Increased Lifespan from Beans.

The reason why plant-based diets are so protective is not known. Yes, vegetables contain thousands of phytochemicals, but separately investigating their possible protective roles would be an impossible task. The idea that the protective effect is not due to any of the individual plant food components, but to a synergic "combined effect" is gaining acceptance. However, based on the relationship of excess dietary methionine to vital organ toxicity, as well as its likely mechanism of action through increases in free radical generation, the possibility exists that the protective effects of plant-based diets can be due, at least in part, to their lower methionine content. As one paper concluded, "The low-methionine content of vegan diets may make methionine restriction feasible as a life extension strategy."

Plant-based diets can also mimic other benefits of caloric restriction, such as improving levels of the "fountain of youth" hormone DHEA. See The Benefits of Caloric Restriction Without the Actual Restricting.

Americans are living longer but sicker lives. That's why we need a diet and lifestyle that supports health and longevity. I have a whole presentation on the role diet can play in preventing, arresting, and even reversing many of our top 15 killers: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death.

I've touched previously on the irony that animal protein may be detrimental for the same reasons it's touted as superior in Higher Quality May Mean Higher Risk.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my 2013 live year-in-review presentation More Than an Apple a Day.

Original Link