Random, interesting studies

Mauritio

@cs3000 said in Random, interesting studies:

@Mauritio
one in dogs vs birds (fig 2 , its not policosanol tho general
fatty acid esters absorbed a little but the fatty alcohol ester didnt https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21739344_Comparative_aspects_of_lipid_digestion_and_absorption_Physiological_correlates_of_wax_ester_digestion

but looked a bit further for specific, rats can digest even more of it if its esterified specific to oleic acid
but thats synthetic esterification not bound with oleic acid normally https://grasasyaceites.revistas.csic.es/index.php/grasasyaceites/article/view/1388 , couldnt find if humans could absorb some but theres a case of a women with gastric blockage who ate a lot of honeycomb so at least a lot goes undigested
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2740191/#s02

was still worth posting your post now i know more about it & wouldnt have

@Mauritio said in Random, interesting studies:

for it beeing indigestible for us ?

study from that megathread showing good anti blood clotting property of policosanol https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9425618/

Seems right. For some reason birds seem to be good at it. Humans not. Such a shame.

And interesting studies you posted on Bee bread. Quite the strong effect indeed.

Mauritio

Im not convinced that low protein is dangerous and catabolic, mid - long term in people under 65.

I recently posted a study showing 5 weeks of 8% protein in the diet did not cause muscle loss. After which someone said that isnt long enough .

Now here's a study showing that 12 weeks of a very low 0.4g/kg/d, ~5%protein diet does not lower basal muscle protein synthesis!
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0137183

It seems to come down to age as well.
Here it gets interesting: if you're under 65 and eating a high protein diet, that is strongly associated with death, cancer and diabetes . Over 65 it seems to be protective !

"...aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality..."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3988204/

Not sure why. Low protein diets can lead to lower thymus weight, as seen in this study (https://www.scielo.br/j/bjmbr/a/MGBdr7CsJTMQrf7Bhjbdv3z/?lang=en)
And older people are more susceptible to infections and chronic inflammation .So maybe after 65 the increase
in Protein and inflammatory amino acids is worth the trade off, for increased immunity and suppression of inflammation .
Maybe it's simply the lesser of 2 evils at that point .
What do you guys think?

LucH

@Mauritio said in Random, interesting studies:

What do you guys think?

After 60 yrs, 2 - 5% % loss is usual, according to activity.
Main causes to fight against (things happening in our bodies as we age that might contribute to sarcopenia):
Reduction in nerve cells responsible for sending signals from the brain to the muscles to start movement.
Lower concentrations of some hormones, including growth hormone, testosterone, and insulin-like growth factor
Increases in inflammation, partly due to disease
A decrease in the ability to turn protein into energy.

So, if we can slow down these processes, we could better manage ...
Law of nature: if not able to reproduce, if not able to transmit knowledge, we become a weight for society.
Note I don't feel it that way

DavidPS

@Mauritio - I am wary of drawing conclusions from studies that lump people into groups based solely on their protein intake. It is too broad-brush for me. For example, is it the high protein or the skewed calcium to phosphorous ratio in the high protein group? Is it the high protein or the change in the glycine to methionine ratio?

Aging is complex. For a more holistic approach, see Ray Peat's 2015 newsletter:

https://wiki.chadnet.org/files/imprinting-and-aging.pdf

alfredoolivas

@Mauritio
In the first study, the 5% protein diet, caused 0.32% loss in free fat mass.

Which is almost nothing right? very interesting.

Mauritio

@DavidPS It is speculative for sure . But the effect was strong. A 75% increase in overall mortality is pretty wild.

It hints at low protein being safe. That's what I'm getting at . If it was harmful, it would be unlikely to have such a drastic effect.

Mauritio

@alfredoolivas yeah that's negligible. Pretty wild . Thanks for sharing.

And Im not sure people realize how low 5% is .10% is doable .
8% is somewhat doable, but 5% is really hard . Especially for 12 weeks.

I remember posting the 8% study on reddit and some smartass was like : "Good luck loosing all your muscle" ...

Basically zero muscle loss after 12 weeks of 5% protein is pretty impressive.

Mauritio

Seems like they do eat the honeycomb as well.
@cs3000
Youtube Video

random

@Mauritio said in Random, interesting studies:

Seems like they do eat the honeycomb as well.
@cs3000
Youtube Video

There's no moment in this video where we see the Africans eating the honey for several seconds without the shot changing, so there's not even time to see if they swallow it or spit the comb out after chewing, there is 2 hunters eating honey, and the first hunter legit still has a ball of wax in the inside of his right cheek right before camera switch. Are you looking for confirmation bias?

Mauritio

@random Yeah maybe they spit it out. Just came across this video randomly and thought it was interesting.

random

@Mauritio said in Random, interesting studies:

@random Yeah maybe they spit it out. Just came across this video randomly and thought it was interesting.

I suggest try to find videos where the camera focus on the hunters for long enough with out switching to see if they spit or swallow the comb