#1
8 Likes
#2

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
#3

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 mechanismā€¦ IGF-1 and protein is related.

I think high protein literature might be flawedā€¦ I am feeling the quackery in me that is wrong and I am purging thisā€¦ Somehow it is all starting to make sense to meā€¦ IGF-1, mTOR, amino acid restriction, proteinā€¦ Or I might just be high.

1 Like
#4

Iā€™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
#5

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
#6

As long as your muscle mass stays equal or grows, your current protein intake is sufficient.

2 Likes
#7

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
#8

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 donā€™t risk falling and breaking a hip, etc, they way an old human does)

1 Like
#9

Freaky and good podcast on protein by Rhonda Patrick released yesterday:

1 Like
#10

Excellent quote explaining CR (calorie restriction) lifespan benefits and the confusion surrounding it from the podcast, but itā€™s not mentioned more after this.

ā€œWhat 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, itā€™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 thatā€™s a huge difference between those two, and thatā€™s of course often what we donā€™t want to see as it makes our lives more difficult.ā€ @Neo

3 Likes
#11

I have long been confused by CR claimsā€¦10% CR or 20% CR. 20% less than what? If the weight loss stabilizes, then how is it CR anymore? Iā€™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, Iā€™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 helpfulā€¦at least not for me. Iā€™ll use Dexa (2x/year) and a scale to monitor progress. Iā€™ll also watch my performance progress.

2 Likes