I think this video speaks to the complexity of the problem. A person who is younger than 60, my guess is increased BMI is going to show in longevity study more tendency to death. Overweight you are probably prone to more presentation of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and as well to some types of cancer. But over that age particularly over 75 or so, lower body weight may speak to a higher health risk as certain disease processes may be at work to cause that. Overweight more protein is being consumed but is overweight then the problem or is protein consumption the problem. Over 75 probably in longevity study protein is auxiliary to other causes of death as well. Speaking to the issue, three things are involved in longevity diet exercise and community. Unless very genetically advantaged we need all three to live the longest. Protein needs really refer to the specific population under study. A goat herder in afghanistan 65 or so, going up and down mountains all day probably needs as much as possible to retain muscle mass. A 65 year old american whose exercise is getting out the garbage or a casual stroll on sundays, needs very little comparatively protein. Plant protein seems better than animal in several disease processes study. But plant protein is not as easily assimilated. So......? It depends. What bothers me are my community, old or elderly vegans. who probably do need protein as they may be exercising to maintain muscle mass and to prevent sarcopenia and they already have very low BMI. They do not need animal protein but it is quite likely they must be in the high range of plant protein consumption for retention of muscle mass with age. The plant docs are really doing a disservice their community in suggesting low is best. Yes it is for the typical american, but older vegans with low to normal BMI no. Auxiliary to that.... Protein levels as a incitement to IGF-1 production, and then in theory performed, are all of the animal kind or in humans, of animal protein kind, which may confuse the detriments of animal protein to plant protein. Plants in IGF-1 stimulation for longevity, has simply never been studied to any depth or number of participants. So show me a study of plant protein stimulation of IGF-1 production to have a result of lower life expectancy. You cannot as none exists. IGF-1 in vitro is not enough to lay the claim of reduced longevity, as that number varies genetically and in blood may differ widely to that found as a norm in tissue. And IGF-1 itself has very many considered necessary to a long life benefits such as in replacement of muscle damaged by exercise and neurological components necessary for cognition.
In short a plant doc may be perfectly correct to tell the average over weight and under exercised american they do not need any additional protein In fact lower caloric intake which then results in less protein intake is likely what they need to prolong life. In any event they are probably far in excess of any amount of protein intake to bother as really exercies they do not do it and activity it simply is not there. Now a oldster vegan who probably exercises, as they are health conscious, with a low to average BMI.....a plant doc should advocate for a higher end plant protein intake. But they do not. Sarcopenia and it related condition osteoporosis is a likely general consequence. Which is a proven to lower life expectancy and quality of life in multiple studies and meta analysis of studies.
What is the functional result of that....a normal vegan who is older exercise perhaps moderately 3 times a week...try to eat more beans and probably soybeans are best, tofu tempah that sort of thing. Having a little bit of that with each meal would be fine, or chuck it all down if you have to, at one. If a elite type athlete who is vegan and older, add specific aminos to add muscle growth ,add specific types of plant protein, several times a day at specific amounts and types each, combined with other aids such as creatine, consider TRT or other agents to confound that tendency....in short it could get very complicated. But the real is we are almost all the first. Don't low ball protein because of animal protein results, in study of health and longevity, they in general do not apply. We vegans, in this are special ;)
They have years ago done tests on electrical stimulation of muscles to produce a exercise like effect, and they failed. It was a idea though, hook yourself up to a electrical muscle stimulation thing watch TV and go to bed. Did not work. Though it has some limited application to return from injury or perhaps paralysis. So I opinine no.
I’m puzzled by the lack of response to the statement that studies don’t show a relationship between animal protein and cardiovascular or cancer risk? Am I crazy, isn’t there a ton of studies showing the relationship between animal protein and all sorts of health issues? And if there are, why no rebuttal?
Well this is the overall problem with animal protein study and specific disease processes...in demographic study they show invariably people who consume more animal protein are what..overweight. What do they also consume if the demographic is a american or UK population...ultraprocesseed foods. Now other studies such as the widely published one (2015 I think) showing IGF-1 stimulation effect from protein did not isolate out IGF-1 from plant sources. Point is, in study it is very hard to seperate out animal protein. Not that it is not fact, but to establish a control is very very hard. What do you have to do.......... produce a similiar cohort, which is at the same body weight as their animal consuming compatrio,t but eating planst only...which is impossible, as vegans have almost always a lower BMI. So any rebuttal would have to be in a very limited context of sorts, which would not allow almost all demographic study. Overweight is such a large hinderance to long life, it is very hard to isolate out if your groups under study typical americans are almost always that.
@@TonyYates Did either of those meta analysis discard studies which did not isolate out BMI differences? In other words were they comparing in study different peoples by BMI? Naturally we would assume those on more plant protein would have lower body weight as that is the norm for vegans. So are we if they did not looking at a weight differential not a protein determination.? Hard to tell from just the abstract but perhaps they did , seems not, but maybe a full look see of the studies would tell.
This from the second study seems to suggest they did not qualify BMI.. "Dietary data were collected using food-frequency questionnaires at baseline (1989-1993, 2000-2001, 2006-2008). Deaths were followed until 2018. Associations were examined using Cox regression. Additionally, we performed a highest versus lowest meta-analysis and a dose-response meta-analysis to summarize results from the Rotterdam Study and previous prospective cohorts. " But they may have, I just do not see it in the abstract. If they did not it is -pretty worthless as a guide to life expectancy. We already know fatter people live shorter lives. And who is fatter, those who consume more animal not plant proteins.
To mean a thing it has to be equal BMI peoples who consume animal or plant protein. A one to one comparison as closely as that can be done. Preferably charted decade by decade, as end stage cancers and such would skew the BMI numbers downward regardless of any diet. Rough comparisons of equal BMI's between the plant and animal studies up until a decade or so before death would probably serve for study purposes.
There’s no evidence that there’s no difference between animal and plant protein in terms of longevity? I guess if you ignore the evidence, it doesn’t exist.
@@Mrm1985100 Just to venture a guess, perhaps it has a to do with how the studies are framed. Are they in relations to specific disease processes as opposed to longevity? Anyway that is mine.
Absolutely a HUGE difference in longevity in favor of plant proteins. It's Peer reviewed science! Are u not paying attention or do u just want to ignore it?? Hmmmm
@@BryanMartinlaxcoach Show the longevity study meta analysis. I am not saying it may not be out there, but would like to get a look see. so find it and post the name of the meta analysis here. The study itself will probably be censored out but the name will not be.
The eternal question for eternal youth and immortality. The simple answer: You will die alone and no amount of money or "health gurus" will save you. There's your answer. Sweet dreams!
He clearly states slow, not stop. One plant doc is selling a book by the title how not to age, and that following how not to die...which are two impossible things. But simon is not saying that, nor is he that person saying those stupid things to sell his books. Yes we all die and all age, the thing it to do both gracefully. That we may achieve perhaps.
8:50 there's no relationship between protein intake (be it from plants or animals) and mortality /longevity /cvd /cancer. he also critiques people who promote protein restriction as a way to prolong lifespan in humans.
I'm guessing the devil may be in the details. Has snimal protein been specifically isolated out in longevity study? Lower body weight in america at least, would probably have a inverse relationship to mortality among all age groups excepting the very elderly over 80.More diabetes prelevence and more cardo vascular disease. We can assume with higher body weight more protein is being consumed.
If anyone tells you they can stop aging or stop death itself, a reasonable conclusion is they are lying. For what intention or purpose we could debate, but that is unequivocal...they are lying.
If you have not the sense to completely avoid this place of human, where they kill children as if they were nothing more than pieces of wood we may throw upon a fire, I think you will not know to eat less protein. In fact avoiding the traps may be the thing if we could remember a thing. :) But I suspect those who forget what this place is about, will not remember a thing of it at all, as what they want in the most, is too forget not remember what it was they have just left.. So they are reborn not really with remembering a thing as that is their wont.
Reconciling the healthspan, lifespan protein arguments, an excellent question!
I think this video speaks to the complexity of the problem. A person who is younger than 60, my guess is increased BMI is going to show in longevity study more tendency to death. Overweight you are probably prone to more presentation of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and as well to some types of cancer.
But over that age particularly over 75 or so, lower body weight may speak to a higher health risk as certain disease processes may be at work to cause that.
Overweight more protein is being consumed but is overweight then the problem or is protein consumption the problem.
Over 75 probably in longevity study protein is auxiliary to other causes of death as well.
Speaking to the issue, three things are involved in longevity diet exercise and community.
Unless very genetically advantaged we need all three to live the longest.
Protein needs really refer to the specific population under study. A goat herder in afghanistan 65 or so, going up and down mountains all day probably needs as much as possible to retain muscle mass. A 65 year old american whose exercise is getting out the garbage or a casual stroll on sundays, needs very little comparatively protein.
Plant protein seems better than animal in several disease processes study.
But plant protein is not as easily assimilated.
So......?
It depends. What bothers me are my community, old or elderly vegans. who probably do need protein as they may be exercising to maintain muscle mass and to prevent sarcopenia and they already have very low BMI. They do not need animal protein but it is quite likely they must be in the high range of plant protein consumption for retention of muscle mass with age.
The plant docs are really doing a disservice their community in suggesting low is best. Yes it is for the typical american, but older vegans with low to normal BMI no.
Auxiliary to that....
Protein levels as a incitement to IGF-1 production, and then in theory performed, are all of the animal kind or in humans, of animal protein kind, which may confuse the detriments of animal protein to plant protein. Plants in IGF-1 stimulation for longevity, has simply never been studied to any depth or number of participants.
So show me a study of plant protein stimulation of IGF-1 production to have a result of lower life expectancy. You cannot as none exists. IGF-1 in vitro is not enough to lay the claim of reduced longevity, as that number varies genetically and in blood may differ widely to that found as a norm in tissue.
And IGF-1 itself has very many considered necessary to a long life benefits such as in replacement of muscle damaged by exercise and neurological components necessary for cognition.
In short a plant doc may be perfectly correct to tell the average over weight and under exercised american they do not need any additional protein In fact lower caloric intake which then results in less protein intake is likely what they need to prolong life. In any event they are probably far in excess of any amount of protein intake to bother as really exercies they do not do it and activity it simply is not there.
Now a oldster vegan who probably exercises, as they are health conscious, with a low to average BMI.....a plant doc should advocate for a higher end plant protein intake.
But they do not. Sarcopenia and it related condition osteoporosis is a likely general consequence. Which is a proven to lower life expectancy and quality of life in multiple studies and meta analysis of studies.
What is the functional result of that....a normal vegan who is older exercise perhaps moderately 3 times a week...try to eat more beans and probably soybeans are best, tofu tempah that sort of thing. Having a little bit of that with each meal would be fine, or chuck it all down if you have to, at one.
If a elite type athlete who is vegan and older, add specific aminos to add muscle growth ,add specific types of plant protein, several times a day at specific amounts and types each, combined with other aids such as creatine, consider TRT or other agents to confound that tendency....in short it could get very complicated.
But the real is we are almost all the first. Don't low ball protein because of animal protein results, in study of health and longevity, they in general do not apply.
We vegans, in this are special ;)
Is is activity or is it blood flow ... can we stimulate flow to muscles by FAR infrared activation ?
They have years ago done tests on electrical stimulation of muscles to produce a exercise like effect, and they failed.
It was a idea though, hook yourself up to a electrical muscle stimulation thing watch TV and go to bed.
Did not work. Though it has some limited application to return from injury or perhaps paralysis.
So I opinine no.
I’m puzzled by the lack of response to the statement that studies don’t show a relationship between animal protein and cardiovascular or cancer risk? Am I crazy, isn’t there a ton of studies showing the relationship between animal protein and all sorts of health issues? And if there are, why no rebuttal?
Well this is the overall problem with animal protein study and specific disease processes...in demographic study they show invariably people who consume more animal protein are what..overweight.
What do they also consume if the demographic is a american or UK population...ultraprocesseed foods.
Now other studies such as the widely published one (2015 I think) showing IGF-1 stimulation effect from protein did not isolate out IGF-1 from plant sources.
Point is, in study it is very hard to seperate out animal protein. Not that it is not fact, but to establish a control is very very hard. What do you have to do.......... produce a similiar cohort, which is at the same body weight as their animal consuming compatrio,t but eating planst only...which is impossible, as vegans have almost always a lower BMI.
So any rebuttal would have to be in a very limited context of sorts, which would not allow almost all demographic study. Overweight is such a large hinderance to long life, it is very hard to isolate out if your groups under study typical americans are almost always that.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32076944/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699048/
@@TonyYates Did either of those meta analysis discard studies which did not isolate out BMI differences?
In other words were they comparing in study different peoples by BMI?
Naturally we would assume those on more plant protein would have lower body weight as that is the norm for vegans.
So are we if they did not looking at a weight differential not a protein determination.?
Hard to tell from just the abstract but perhaps they did , seems not, but maybe a full look see of the studies would tell.
This from the second study seems to suggest they did not qualify BMI..
"Dietary data were collected using food-frequency questionnaires at baseline (1989-1993, 2000-2001, 2006-2008). Deaths were followed until 2018. Associations were examined using Cox regression. Additionally, we performed a highest versus lowest meta-analysis and a dose-response meta-analysis to summarize results from the Rotterdam Study and previous prospective cohorts. "
But they may have, I just do not see it in the abstract.
If they did not it is -pretty worthless as a guide to life expectancy. We already know fatter people live shorter lives. And who is fatter, those who consume more animal not plant proteins.
To mean a thing it has to be equal BMI peoples who consume animal or plant protein. A one to one comparison as closely as that can be done.
Preferably charted decade by decade, as end stage cancers and such would skew the BMI numbers downward regardless of any diet.
Rough comparisons of equal BMI's between the plant and animal studies up until a decade or so before death would probably serve for study purposes.
There’s no evidence that there’s no difference between animal and plant protein in terms of longevity? I guess if you ignore the evidence, it doesn’t exist.
Yeah, there's a mountain of evidence showing plant protein is superior. Very odd comment from Dr Phillips.
@@Mrm1985100 Just to venture a guess, perhaps it has a to do with how the studies are framed. Are they in relations to specific disease processes as opposed to longevity?
Anyway that is mine.
Absolutely a HUGE difference in longevity in favor of plant proteins. It's Peer reviewed science! Are u not paying attention or do u just want to ignore it?? Hmmmm
@@BryanMartinlaxcoach Show the longevity study meta analysis. I am not saying it may not be out there, but would like to get a look see. so find it and post the name of the meta analysis here. The study itself will probably be censored out but the name will not be.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32076944/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699048/
Animal sources lead to more cardiovascular disease.
The eternal question for eternal youth and immortality. The simple answer: You will die alone and no amount of money or "health gurus" will save you. There's your answer. Sweet dreams!
He clearly states slow, not stop.
One plant doc is selling a book by the title how not to age, and that following how not to die...which are two impossible things.
But simon is not saying that, nor is he that person saying those stupid things to sell his books.
Yes we all die and all age, the thing it to do both gracefully. That we may achieve perhaps.
8:50 there's no relationship between protein intake (be it from plants or animals) and mortality /longevity /cvd /cancer. he also critiques people who promote protein restriction as a way to prolong lifespan in humans.
I'm guessing the devil may be in the details. Has snimal protein been specifically isolated out in longevity study?
Lower body weight in america at least, would probably have a inverse relationship to mortality among all age groups excepting the very elderly over 80.More diabetes prelevence and more cardo vascular disease.
We can assume with higher body weight more protein is being consumed.
"Aging is a complex problem"😂😂😂
If anyone tells you they can stop aging or stop death itself, a reasonable conclusion is they are lying.
For what intention or purpose we could debate, but that is unequivocal...they are lying.
the next time i reincarnate as a rodent, i'll eat less protein.
If you have not the sense to completely avoid this place of human, where they kill children as if they were nothing more than pieces of wood we may throw upon a fire, I think you will not know to eat less protein.
In fact avoiding the traps may be the thing if we could remember a thing. :)
But I suspect those who forget what this place is about, will not remember a thing of it at all, as what they want in the most, is too forget not remember what it was they have just left..
So they are reborn not really with remembering a thing as that is their wont.
Those that remember they do not come here again.