Diet and Skin Health- Raw? Vegetarian? Paleo?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:47 pm

For transparency I am an omnivore who works in/ qualified in lifestyle healthcare; my previous cat was partially raw fed and the current little carnivore is grain-free. Cool

I am not aware of compelling evidence that humans need meat, but I do believe we evolved to rely on animal products, so must seek suitable substitutes should we choose to avoid whole food groups. I don't believe any processed supplement - powder or capsule - can take the place of real foods and it concerns me when people rely heavily on them. Eliminating whole food groups can particularly be a problem when the person or a member of their household dislikes or tends not to eat another food group, or they do not have easy access to a wide choice of wholefoods (= food desert). This goes for omnivores just as much as, say, vegans or paleos because MANY omnivores are actually consuming a very narrow range of foods.

All animal protein can be inflammatory/ acidifying IF excessive portion sizes are used. Actually many governments recommend a palm size portion of meat (~100g) and a matchbox size portion of hard cheese (~30g). Very few Westerners adhere to this! Animal protein can and should be balanced with anti-inflammatory, alkalinising foods such as fruit, veg and sources of essential fatty acids. All cells in the body need complete protein (animal OR a combination of plant sources), and we cannot store spare so this should be taken in the diet little and often. IME omnivores, vegetarians and vegans alike - women particularly - do not take in sufficient protein during the morning, sometimes not until the evening meal.

Obviously I tailor my recommendations to individual health concerns, goals, needs and tastes but - given totally free reign with a basically healthy client - I would have them eat a low glycaemic index wholefood diet. An emphasis on pulses rather than grains, complete protein primarily from oily fish, live yoghurt and perhaps omega-enriched eggs. Obviously tons of brightly coloured fruit and veg, raw or cooked taking into consideration ORAC.

There is a ton of published research into this area, you might find it interesting to trawl PubMed, Google Scholar and/ or purchase a good degree level nutrition textbook. Many alternative diet or commercial diet books cherry pick from the research instead of considering the complete picture. Paleo sounds interesting in theory, but the two lifestyles are chalk and cheese. For example few men get anything like the level of exercise our ancestors did, nor are young women permanently breast feeding or pregnant. Hunter-gatherers might not have eaten dairy but they likely ate fish bones, the mineral-rich liquor from boiling up larger ones and so on.

What essential nutrients do you think meat supplies that other foods do not, Jenp7? Do you believe skin needs different nutrients to our other organs?

free skin care · Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:25 am

My absolutely uneducated and unqualified opinion is this: Humans have eaten meat ever since they first discovered how to sharpen a piece of stone to use as a weapon. I think we should eat "tribally" - that is, eat fresh, unprocessed food from all available food-groups - in moderation. Moderation being the absolute key word.

I live in a very hot climate, so tend to eat lots of salads. However, there is no way I could survive on a raw diet. To not have the joy of cooking would be awful. Humans have also cooked since the discovery of fire - so I happen to think that eating raw is just something of a fad - but that's just me.

free skin care · Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:01 am

Thanks Jom, I read the links about the coffee, peanuts and tuna - but I'm choosing to look the other way!. I don't think it matters what the food is, somewhere, someone will tell you it'll kill you! I know that larger fish can contain mercury, but the Japanese have been eating it raw for centuries - and theirs is considered the healthiest diet in the world. Same with cutting out cheese and red wine - they haven't done the French any harm. For me, it's still "everything in moderation".

I'm also not into the "alkalizing" thing either - or detoxing. Our stomachs contain acids so that our food can break down. And our kidneys are our body's built-in detox machine.

In fact, I don't believe in any of the fad stuff. Humans have survived for centuries by eating what they could either grow, hunt or gather. The main worry the human race has had throughout history is avoiding starvation. Now we have an abundance of food around us and we simply eat too much of it.

free skin care · Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:43 pm

jenp7 wrote:

I also believe dairy is inflammatory and acid-producing and should be generally avoided or used in moderation.

Firefox7275 wrote:

All animal protein can be inflammatory/ acidifying IF excessive portion sizes are used. Actually many governments recommend a palm size portion of meat (~100g) and a matchbox size portion of hard cheese (~30g). Very few Westerners adhere to this! Animal protein can and should be balanced with anti-inflammatory, alkalinising foods such as fruit, veg and sources of essential fatty acids.

SeanySeanUK wrote:

In juicing what happens is that the fibre is removed from the vegetable but to me this is a good thing because it enables the goodies from the juice to penetrate into the blood faster as a result. Its also very alkalising and most of us who eat some not so good things often have digestive problems we’re not even aware of (like parasites, high/low stomach acid production not to mention any remains of wheat or dairy which act like a barrier and can prevent things being absorbed). I don’t tend to juice fruits as such but go for vegetables both because they help to build powerful blood, are very hydrating and also are alkalising too.

jenp7 wrote:

I also agree with SeanySean in that it is an easy way to get nutrients to your system while alkalinizing your body as well.

Keliu wrote:

I'm also not into the "alkalizing" thing either - or detoxing.

SeanySeanUK wrote:

Its definitely about moderation or balance. I think the “alkalizing” thing like most things has some definite truth to it, and as Keliu rightly points out, our bodies are designed to break food down. The real issues start happening though when we go into overdrive with very processed foods etc. For example when you cook anything you destroy some of the nutrients in the food, and this as a result when consumed encourages the body to go into overdrive to get rid of the food. What happens with a lot of the readily made meals or processed foods nowadays is that it’s a lot more acidic or causes more acidity in the body when consumed, whereas if you go back several hundred years where people were consuming a large part of their diets from naturally grown things like vegetables and fruits the alkalinity was naturally better.

What does all this "alkalizing" and "acidifying" talk mean? What exactly are you effecting (blood; stomach/digestive system; urine; "the body")? Is everyone using these terms in the same way? Have any of you read any science-based articles like this:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/09/your_friday_dose_of_woo_acid_base_or_woo_1.php

Sean: parasites ... really? Oh my!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parasites_of_humans

What is "powerful blood"?

free skin care · Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:15 am

Much like the Glycaemic Index, dietary acid load/ metabolic acidosis has been hijacked and b*st*rdised by authors of commercial diet books. So Lacy53 makes a good point, we should be discussing the literature! Embarassed

Not a comprehensive literature search, just a few full text articles with a couple of examples of the potential implications across the lifespan.

Diet, evolution and aging--the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet (2001)
http://www.mendeley.com/research/original-contribution-diet-evolution-aging-pathophysiologic-effects-postagricultural-inversion-potassiumtosodium/
Dietary animal and plant protein and human bone health: a whole foods approach (2003)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/3/862S.long
Standardizing terminology for estimating the diet-dependent net acid load to the metabolic system (2007)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/6/1491.long
Alkaline diets favor lean tissue mass in older adults (2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2597402/?tool=pubmed
Plant based dietary supplement increases urinary pH (2008)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585554/?tool=pubmed
Review: Diet-induced metabolic acidosis (2011)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21481501
The Alkaline Diet: Is There Evidence That an Alkaline pH Diet Benefits Health? (2012)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195546/?tool=pubmed
Long-term dietary potential renal acid load during adolescence is prospectively associated with indices of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in young women (2012)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22223573

HTH! Wink

free skin care · Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:38 pm

gretchen wrote:

Balance, that's a 90s Oprahesque catch phrase- so over. Mostly just a bunch of mumbo jumbo b.s.

Balance has been around since time began. It's not a trend. It is the cornerstone of Chinese philosophies. In the US people are constantly trying to find balance in work/family/play. The best diet is one that has a variety of foods from all food groups. That is a balanced diet. It is also possible that having some junk food in your diet is OK as long as you eat plenty of good foods to keep the balance.

The b.s. is the "Bulletproof Executive." People who try to preach that an extreme diet is the best way to maintain health.

free skin care · Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:47 pm

jom wrote:

gretchen wrote:

Balance, that's a 90s Oprahesque catch phrase- so over. Mostly just a bunch of mumbo jumbo b.s.

Balance has been around since time began. It's not a trend. It is the cornerstone of Chinese philosophies. In the US people are constantly trying to find balance in work/family/play. The best diet is one that has a variety of foods from all food groups. That is a balanced diet. It is also possible that having some junk food in your diet is OK as long as you eat plenty of good foods to keep the balance.

The b.s. is the "Bulletproof Executive." People who try to preach that an extreme diet is the best way to maintain health.

BRAVO....WELL SAID!!!!!

free skin care · Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:57 pm

Balance is imperative!

Thank you, Jom. Cool

free skin care · Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:01 pm

HippoMe wrote:

Balance is imperative!

Thank you, Jom. Cool

Exactly! It's not only imperative, it's logical and has common sense. It applies to everything in our universe - in CTM it's the Yin/Yang combination.

A balanced diet is the cornerstone of sensible nutrition and good health - it is the furtherest thing from mumbo jumbo BS.

free skin care · Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:36 am

And here all this time I thought it was:

"all things...in moderation" Smile

BFG

free skin care · Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:39 am

Seriously,

I try to think of eating the way my great grandparents (and their parents did)...before corporations started tweaking and processing our foods.

My ancestors grew or raised their own foods, supplemented by a few staples they bought at a store (like salt, spices etc.)...preserved for the winter months - ate a fairly simple diet of meats, poultry, dairy, fruits and vegetables...

BFG

free skin care · Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:55 am

jenp7 wrote:

As for me, I still wonder if meat is needed in this whole foods diet.

You don't have to wonder, though. The American Dietetic Association reviewed the science on this years ago and concluded that well-planned vegan diets (with a couple of supplements like B12) are nutritionally adequate for ALL people through all stages of life:

ADA wrote:

t is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs.

And remember that the ADA is the professional organization for dieticians in the U.S., and they are over 90% meat-eaters, so this is a conservative and scientific group.

Like Keliu says, I wonder if some small part of you has lingering doubts of some sort. Because rather than trust what trained scientific professionals have stated in reviewing the scientific literature and case studies, you repeatedly keep bringing up anecdotal stories to try to counter this...I'm not sure why you wouldn't trust people who have devoted their entire lives to studying nutrition and reviewing the scientific literature??

Again, I will say that there will always be a difference between theory and practice--that is, even though a well-planned vegan diet is nutritionally adequate, there will always be people who eat a vegan diet without sufficient planning. These people who not plan sufficiently run into deficiencies and hence do better when they eat meat. This is not proof that a vegan diet does not work, but rather it indicates that many people are not eating a balanced vegan diet.

Finally, I don't think that a vegan diet is automatically nutritionally superior or inferior to a diet that includes meat. There is amazingly broad diversity even within the category of vegan diets that you can always design a vegan diet that is far better or fat worse than a diet that includes meat.

I hope this helps.

free skin care · Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:15 pm

gretchen wrote:

For most people carbs are going to be one of the causes of aging due to their shortening effect on *telomere length*. In fall, winter and early spring anyway..... Wink

A lower carb/less refined diet is better for everyone and sure.

An inflammatory diet, or one that increases oxidative stress, will shorten telomeres faster. This includes refined carbohydrates, fast foods, processed foods, sodas, artificial sweeteners, trans fats and saturated fats. A diet with a large amount and variety of antioxidants that improves oxidative defense and reduces oxidative stress will slow telomere shortening. Consumption of 10 servings of fresh and relatively uncooked fruits and vegetables, mixed fiber, monounsaturated fats, omega-3 fatty acids, cold water fish, and high quality vegetable proteins will help preserve telomere length.

Not just refined carbs but carbs in general.

FWIW, my two cents on this issue...

It's refined carbs, not whole-food carbs (e.g., fruits) that are positively associated with chronic disease and shortened telomeres. "Good" carbs like fruits and whole grains (even though I'm not a big fan of the latter for digestive reasons) are usually associated with reduced cancer risk, cardiovascular disease risk, etc., or are at least neutral.

In addition to the source posted above, here's another study showing that increased fruit composition is correlated with longer telomeres:

The association between leukocyte telomere length and cigarette smoking, dietary and physical variables, and risk of prostate cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19493248

So whole-food carbs tend to be great for health--not all carbs are bad.

What is confusing is that because sugar can do damage in the body (e.g., glycosylation of proteins), it seems to make sense that consuming sugar or carbs must be bad for you. But what really matters is the kinetics of glucose in your blood--e.g., both how high your blood sugar is over the course of the day and how quickly that sugar is transported out of your bloodstream and into your cells.

The way you can think about it is that the longer the sugar is in your bloodstream knocking around and causing damage, the worse off you are. So what you care about are both how much sugar and how quickly you are putting it into your bloodstream AND how quickly your body's insulin is able to remove sugar from your bloodstream and deliver it to the cells where it is needed. Both the input and output steps are important in the process, but in the lay press, you mostly hear about the input step.

So this means that to improve your blood sugar, you can consume sugar more steadily throughout the day (the input step) AND/OR optimize your body's ability to transport sugar from your bloodstream into your cells (the output step, known as your insulin sensitivity).

The former can be done through eating small regular meals with high amounts of fiber and low glycemic load portions of foods. But what about the latter and how does this relate to diet? In the scientific literature, if you inject sugar directly into the bloodstream, while you can temporarily increase blood sugar, insulin is still going to be able to quickly move that sugar out of the bloodstream and into the cells. As a result, after the temporary spike in blood sugar, your blood sugar levels return to normal. However, if you inject fat directly into the bloodstream, you impair the ability to transport sugar from the bloodstream into the cells, which therefore keeps your blood sugar levels elevated for much longer. In these studies, often palmitate (a saturated fat) is used, but other lipid combinations have been used as well. (As an aside, this is where I think that intermittent fasting is particularly effective as it makes your body's insulin very sensitive--i.e., good at transporting sugar out of the blood stream and into the cells. This may explain why people see good results with both small, frequent meals, spaced throughout the day OR with intermittent fasting.)

So what this suggests is that while things like refined carbs or a high-calorie meal may spike your blood sugar, it's the high fat that will keep your blood sugar levels elevated and allow the sugar to knock around in your bloodstream for longer and hence do more damage (i.e., "insulin resistance").

So it seems like the solution is not favor fats over carbs, but to focus on whole food carbohydrate sources with a much lower but still healthy level of healthy fats.

free skin care · Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:20 pm

Whatever happened to the old adage of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away"?!!

It's a shame to see a whole food such as fruit thought of as something to be cautious of. If everyone would substitute a piece of fruit instead of eating a processed snack bar, we'd all be better off.

As for not eating bananas in December - I'm not even going to go there.

free skin care · Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:56 pm

Keliu wrote:

As for not eating bananas in December - I'm not even going to go there.

I

you Keliu. That's exactly what I thought when I read that, I'm not even gonna go there. Bananas are good for you 12 months a year! They are one of the best sources of potassium.

On the subject of diet, my favorite quote from stuff I read on the Internet this week was from Karl Lagerfield, he said in a Harper's Bazaar interview that I read on a blog ”I drink Diet Coke from the minute I get up to the minute I go to bed. I can even drink it in the middle of the night, and I can sleep.” It's good to know that you can be rich and famous and fabulous and still have a bad nutritional habit. I can relate all too well to his quote. Maybe Diet Coke is a great equalizer. I go through phases with Diet Coke. I've been able to go cold turkey and not drink any and then there are times when my consumption is the same as Karl's. Fortunately I also drink enough water each day to try to balance out the Diet Coke. But I know I have to stop drinking it.

On another note, I am going to really try to cut down on my intake of added sugar after watching 60 Minutes tonight. Excess sugar consumption has been linked to heart disease and the growth of tumors. Turns out sugar is as addictive as cocaine and the more you eat the more you have to eat to feel satisfied.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57407128/preview-is-sugar-toxic/?tag=pop;stories

free skin care · Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:32 am

Whenever I hear about someone giving up carbs in their diet, I always think of something like this:

Each Organ Has a Unique Metabolic Profile

The metabolic patterns of the brain, muscle, adipose tissue, kidney, and liver are strikingly different. Let us consider how these organs differ in their use of fuels to meet their energy needs:

1.Brain. Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state. Much of the energy, estimates suggest from 60% to 70%, is used to power transport mechanisms that maintain the Na+-K+ membrane potential required for the transmission of the nerve impulses. The brain must also synthesize neurotransmitters and their receptors to propagate nerve impulses. Overall, glucose metabolism remains unchanged during mental activity, although local increases are detected when a subject performs certain tasks.

Glucose is transported into brain cells by the glucose transporter GLUT3. This transporter has a low value of KM for glucose (1.6 mM), which means that it is saturated under most conditions. Thus, the brain is usually provided with a constant supply of glucose. Noninvasive 13C nuclear magnetic resonance measurements have shown that the concentration of glucose in the brain is about 1 mM when the plasma level is 4.7 mM (84.7 mg/dl), a normal value. Glycolysis slows down when the glucose level approaches the KM value of hexokinase (~50 μM), the enzyme that traps glucose in the cell (Section 16.1.1). This danger point is reached when the plasma-glucose level drops below about 2.2 mM (39.6 mg/dl) and thus approaches the KM value of GLUT3.

Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain.

(from Biochemistry. 5th edition. Berg JM, Tymoczko JL, Stryer L. New York: W H Freeman; 2002.)

Food for thought, quite literally!

free skin care · Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:56 am

From all I've researched, I think vegetables and some fruits are really important for fiber, polyphenols, antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, etc.

I think Omega 3 fats have too many important benefits to be excluded from the diet

and lastly, protein is necessary to stay alive.

beyond that? ..negotiable,up for grabs, still debatable.

BFG

free skin care · Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:05 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

I agree with you Keliu that much of this is common sense - humans were designed to eat what nature gave us.

That said, I do see some merit to the argument that the widespread use of agriculture...some 10K years ago may have evolved into a current situation which is contrary to the way humans were/are supposed to eat.

BFG

PS - did you see my note about the dermapen and PRP?

But if we didn't have agriculture, most of us wouldn't be able to feed ourselves. Urban sprawl has taken away the habitat of many animals. Lack of arable land is also the cause of hunger in third world countries today.

Do you mean the thread you started on the Dermapen? Point me in the right direction!

free skin care · Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:06 pm

Two things:

1 - yes, the Dermapen is being used to administer PRP - also see the YouTube video showing this

2 - Gretchen, what does a typical day look like for you, foodwise, when you consume no carbs? I am curious.

BFG

free skin care · Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:03 pm

There is nothing wrong with sugar. All foods, even if they are 100% fat, are converted into sugar in the bloodstream. What really matters is what is your blood sugar level throughout the day (plus also your antioxidant defenses).

And this is determined by how quickly you put glucose into your bloodstream AND how quickly you can remove it, along with how much total calories (carbs/fat/protein) you put in. Some fats greatly impair the removal process and can keep your blood sugar elevated for hours and hours through insulin resistance.

Are the people who demonize carbs unaware of the fact that when scientists want to study diabetes in rodents, to make the rodents diabetic, they usually feed them a high-fat, high-calorie diet (sometimes coupled with refined sugar)?? How come the low-carb gurus never mention this? A simple search on PubMed will reveal hundreds of scientists around the world feeding rodents high-fat diets to give them diabetes or to increase their inflammation.

Regarding the fear that fruit increases glycation and skin wrinkling, here is one study that finds that milk, butter, margarine, and meats--all usually high-fat foods--correlate with increased wrinkles and actinic skin damage. Refined sugar also correlates with increased wrinkles. Foods that seem to be protective against wrinkles or actinic skin damage include legumes, cereals (grains), vegetables, olive oil, fruits, and fish. Note that even though refined sugar correlates with increased skin damage, both fruit consumption and cereal consumption DO NOT and instead protect against skin damage or are neutral. That's why whole-food carbs like fruit and whole grains should never be equated to sugar. While the statistical power of this study is weak, note that of the correlations within each of the ethnic groups, the strongest of the 40 correlations was for fruit consumption and reduced wrinkles for the fairest skin people living in Australia--suggesting that fruit may be particularly important in protecting the skin from the sun's rays in lighter skinned people.

----------------------------------

J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):71-80.
Skin wrinkling: can food make a difference?
Purba MB, Kouris-Blazos A, Wattanapenpaiboon N, Lukito W, Rothenberg EM, Steen BC, Wahlqvist ML.
Source
International Health and Development Unit, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences and Asia Pacific Health and Nutrition Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
This study addressed whether food and nutrient intakes were correlated with skin wrinkling in a sun-exposed site.
METHODS:
177 Greek-born subjects living in Melbourne (GRM), 69 Greek subjects living in rural Greece (GRG), 48 Anglo-Celtic Australian (ACA) elderly living in Melbourne and 159 Swedish subjects living in Sweden (SWE) participating in the International Union of Nutritional Sciences IUNS "Food Habits in Later Life" study had their dietary intakes measured and their skin assessed. Food and nutrient intakes were assessed using a validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Skin wrinkling was measured using a cutaneous microtopographic method.
RESULTS:
SWE elderly had the least skin wrinkling in a sun-exposed site, followed by GRM, GRG and ACA. Correlation analyses on the pooled data and using the major food groups suggested that there may be less actinic skin damage with a higher intake of vegetables (r(s)=-0.31, p<0.0001), olive oil (r(s)=-0.29, p<0.0001), fish (r(s)=-0.24, p<0.0001) and legumes (r(s)=-0.16, p<0.0001), and lower intakes of butter (r(s)=0.46, p<0.0001) and margarine (r(s)=0.24, p<0.001), milk products (r(s)=0.16, p<0.01) and sugar products (r(s)=0.12, p<0.01). Similar findings were obtained using regression analyses, except fish was no longer significant; 32% of the variance for actinic skin damage was predicted by six out of the ten major food groups. In particular, a high intake of vegetables, legumes and olive oil appeared to be protective against cutaneous actinic damage (collectively explaining 20% of the variance); a high intake of meat, dairy and butter appeared to be adverse (explaining <5% of the variance). Prunes, apples and tea explained 34% of variance amongst ACA.
CONCLUSION:
This study illustrates that skin wrinkling in a sun-exposed site in older people of various ethnic backgrounds may be influenced by the types of foods consumed.

--------------------------------

And if carbs are so "bad" for you, then why do almost all the longest lived cultures consume less than 20% fat and around 70% carbs?
Definitely food for thought.

That's why I think people should eat "good carbs" like fruit and potentially legumes and whole grains (depending on digestive issues, e.g., gluten) and "good fats" in lesser amounts, while staying away from "bad carbs" and "bad fats".

I hope that this is helpful.

free skin care · Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:26 pm

Sorry, I get frustrated when popular health books don't know the first thing about blood sugar metabolism and then go saying that all fats are good and all carbs are bad--this is terrible advice!

Because of these books, people end up thinking that:

carbs -> sugar -> AGEs and diabetes

The real pathway is:

elevated blood sugar for hours -> AGEs and diabetes

So if BOTH carbs and fats turn into sugar in the bloodstream, the question is what elevates blood sugar for hours?

The problem appears to be high-fat diets in particular, but refined sugar is also problematic, and the two together are a recipe for disaster.

Here are some articles to support this:

(1) "Pathway to diabetes through attenuation of pancreatic beta cell glycosylation and glucose transport"
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n9/full/nm.2414.html

"A connection between diet, obesity and diabetes exists in multiple species and is the basis of an escalating human health problem. The factors responsible provoke both insulin resistance and pancreatic beta cell dysfunction but remain to be fully identified. We report a combination of molecular events in human and mouse pancreatic beta cells, induced by elevated levels of free fatty acids or by administration of a high-fat diet with associated obesity, that comprise a pathogenic pathway to diabetes. Elevated concentrations of free fatty acids caused nuclear exclusion and reduced expression of the transcription factors FOXA2 and HNF1A in beta cells. This resulted in a deficit of GnT-4a glycosyltransferase expression in beta cells that produced signs of metabolic disease, including hyperglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, hyperinsulinemia, hepatic steatosis and diminished insulin action in muscle and adipose tissues. Protection from disease was conferred by enforced beta cell–specific GnT-4a protein glycosylation and involved the maintenance of glucose transporter expression and the preservation of glucose transport. We observed that this pathogenic process was active in human islet cells obtained from donors with type 2 diabetes; thus, illuminating a pathway to disease implicated in the diet- and obesity-associated component of type 2 diabetes mellitus."

TRANSLATION: This article says that high-fat diets directly cause high insulin levels and high blood sugar levels by affecting the function of pancreatic beta cells, and cause fatty liver, thereby leading to diabetes

(2) High-fat diet enhances visceral advanced glycation end products, nuclear O-Glc-Nac modification, p38 mitogenactivated protein kinase activation and apoptosis
http://www.uwyo.edu/renlab/z_ren_publication/2005_dom_li_age.pdf

"High-fat diet intake often leads to obesity, insulin resistance and hypertension, which present a common and detrimental health problem. However, precise mechanism underlying tissue damage due to high-fat diet-induced obesity has not been carefully elucidated. The present study was designed to examine the effect of high-fat diet intake on visceral advanced glycation end products (AGEs) formation, nuclear O-Glc-NAc modification and apoptosis in heart, liver and kidney. Adult male Sprague-Dawley weight-matched rats were fed for 12 weeks with a high-fat diet
(45% kcal from fat) or an isocaloric low-fat diet (10% kcal from fat). High-fat diet feeding significantly elevated body weight. Blood pressure and heart rate were comparable between the two rat groups. Competitive enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay showed significantly elevated serum AGE levels, visceral AGE formation, caspase-3 activation and cytoplasmic DNA fragmentation in heart and liver but not kidney samples of high-fat diet fed rats compared with those from low-fat diet fed group. Western blot analysis further revealed that high-fat diet feeding induced overt nuclear O-Glc-NAc modification and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase activation in heart and liver although not
in kidney samples of the high-fat diet-fed rats. Collectively, our results indicated that high-fat diet intake is associated with obesity accompanied by elevated serum and visceral AGEs, visceral post-translational nuclear O-Glc-NAcylated modification and apoptosis, which may contribute to high-fat diet-induced tissue damage."

TRANSLATION: High-fat diets lead to increased glycation of proteins or AGEs in the bloodstream, in the heart, and in the liver.

(3) Intramuscular injection of soluble receptor for advanced glycation endproducts expression vector prevents the development of streptozotocin-induced diabetes mellitus in rats on high fat diet

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-0407.2011.00153.x/abstract

Abstract
Background: In order to study if advanced glycation endproducts (AGE) in high-temperature cooked high fat diet could be the cause of type 2 diabetes, a expressing vector encoding soluble form of receptor for AGE (sRAGE) was injected intramuscularly, and the incidence of streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes mellitus in rats on high fat diet were observed.

Methods: Rat sRAGE gene, cloned to a pLNCX2 expression vector (pLNCX2-sRAGE), was injected into the hind leg muscles of Sprague–Dawley rats. Rats were fed with high fat diet for 8 weeks before pLNCX2-sRAGE injection (designed as T group), or pLNCX2 (as H group), and rats on normal chow (as N group). The diet remained the same until end of the study. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels were studied in one serial of rats (n = Cool

under the treatment of different vectors without STZ injection. For a second serial of study (n = 20), rats were injected with 30 mg/kg STZ intraperitoneally 2 weeks after the second injection of vectors, and tail blood glucose was detected 1 week later.

Results: Malondialdehyde levels were found to be decreased 1 week after injection of sRAGE and lasted for at least 3 weeks after each injection. SOD activities were found to be increased slowly in the second week after each injection. As determined with fasting and random glycemia only two rats were in diabetic level (fasting glycemia ≥7.0 mmol/L and random glycemia ≥11.1 mmol/L) in T group while eight mice were in the diabetic level in H group.

Conclusions: Intramuscular injection of sRAGE decreases the MDA level and increases SOD activities, and decreases the STZ-induced incidence of diabetes in rats in high fat diet.

TRANSLATION: High-temperature cooked high fat diets cause AGEs which increase the risk of developing diabetes. Blocking the formation of AGEs reduces the risk of diabetes, so producing AGEs may be one way that high-fat diets lead to diabetes.

So morale of the story: don't believe everything you read about in popular health books. Some "health experts" have not done their research.

free skin care · Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:29 pm

gretchen wrote:

As for The French Women Don't Get Fat author, Mirielle Gulliano,

Thank you gretchen for sharing the pictures of this beautiful, vibrant, svelte (I don't see any fat) accomplished and very healthy-looking older woman. She's a real inspiration!

free skin care · Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:25 pm

I noticed the very same things in Italy during my entire trip. It was eye opening as an American and I have tried to incorporate many of their ways into my own life style.

I still tend to serve a meal all at once, rather than as courses, though lol - because I want to be seated with my guests, not spending time in the kitchen.

BFG

free skin care · Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:31 pm

fitgineer wrote:

How can fat ingestion cause glycation if the definition of glycation is the reaction between a simple sugar (say fructose) and a protein molecule?

Yes, I think we all agree that the process of glycation is the reaction between sugar and a protein.

So what matters is how much sugar is in your bloodstream and how long it stays there. Basically, you care about your blood sugar levels (as well as your antioxidant defenses) over the course of the day. A person with a couple moderate blood sugar spikes during the day but returns to a low level of blood sugar can be much better off than a person who doesn't have any spikes whatsoever but has a more elevated blood sugar level on average. That is, if a person's insulin is able to remove glucose swiftly from the bloodstream, then moderate spikes are not a problem. The problem comes when insulin's abilities are impaired (by high levels of free fatty acids) and so the sugar remains in the bloodstream longer--does this explain things better? If you speak math, what you care most about is the integrated area under the curve of your blood sugar levels--i.e., your total blood sugar exposure. Or said another way, you care about your average blood sugar level over the course of the entire day. (It's a little more nuanced than this, but this is the basic picture.)

The point that I am belaboring to make is that excess fat in the bloodstream--whether coming from a high-fat diet or if you simply inject free fatty acids into the bloodstream--impairs insulin's ability to remove sugar from the bloodstream. As a result, fat can cause your blood sugar levels to remain elevated for hours. This can be more problematic than a couple moderate but short spikes in blood sugar.

Quote:

If all you eat is fats and protein, your blood sugar level will stay close to fasting levels, hence lower AGEs, hence lower risk of diabetes. There are studies showing that, it's a state called ketosis that your liver goes into.

I just posted three peer-reviewed studies proving the opposite of what you claimed--showing that a high-fat diet produces more AGEs than a low-fat diet and increased the risk of diabetes. Moreover, one of the studies published detailed the mechanism for how high-fat diet increase insulin levels. And I could post dozens and dozens of more studies to refute your claim above. I think it's dangerous and not responsible to make claims like this when your claims are clearly contradicted by the scientific literature--that is why I am so vocal on this point.

I know that you are trying to be sincere and helpful here, but it's really important to be correct and know all aspects of what you're talking about before making such bold claims that people might actually follow but could lead them into trouble.

I have yet to see anyone who said that high carb diets (that are based on whole-food carbs, not refined carbs) lead to increased risk of diabetes or AGEs post ANY evidence of this, and quite the contrary, there are dozens and dozens of studies on PubMed that shows that this is flat-out wrong.

free skin care · Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:58 pm

To be clear, I don't like coming into conflict with what anyone says and I think it's great when people anecdotally report improvements from whatever they are doing, so I hope my post did not come across poorly. But my message is that I think we have responsibilities to back up our *sweeping claims* over issues that can make the difference between health and disease with real scientific evidence, not hearsay or anecdotal evidence. That's why a part of me revolts when people recommend to others to consume things like less than 25 grams of carbs a day or to go on ketogenic diets to avoid diabetes...in the long-term, that's a recipe to increase your risk of getting diabetes.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.