Oxidative stress (damage) is the ongoing damage to our proteins, lipids and DNA due to free radicals which are generated under normal conditions. Oxidative stress is the basic source of aging and diseases associated with aging. We found striking reduction in measures of oxidative stress in an eight week study (see article) of subjects following our diet. The chart below shows a 90% decline in nitrotyrosine levels over an eight week period. Nitrotyrosine is a commonly used indicator of oxidative stress. It is elevated in people with heart disease and has been shown to be 100 times more sensitive an indicator of impending heart attack than the standard Framingham risk factors - cholesterol, blood pressure, etc (see article).There wasn't a control group (other than the initial population on day zero), but "No other dietary intervention or drug has been shown to produce this degree of reduction in oxidative stress."
It's great that there is so much research happening around these kinds of diets right now. And not just one type, but variations - ADCR, various lengths of fasting, alternate-week systems, etc. They all work via similar mechanisms, so each piece of evidence for one is evidence for all of them (Warrior Diet, etc.) And don't think this is just about weight, or even "just" about lifespan:
"Based on a variety of sources of evidence, following the Johnson UpDayDownDay Diet™ will prevent, delay or improve a wide range of diseases associated with age. These include asthma, arthritis, atherosclerosis (heart disease, stroke), allergies, auto-immune disease, infectious diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin, diabetes, cancer and central nervous system disorders such as Alzheimers, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis."
Keep in mind that pre-industrial populations eating their natural diets *don't get cancer or artherosclerosis*. These are the two major killers on our culture, and they are caused by our toxic environment (most likely diet). Time after time, when a population like the Inuit has switched over to a more western diet, cancer and heart disease have suddenly appeared (along with appendicitis, gum disease, diabetes, and a number of other illness). I'm no Luddite, obviously, I love technology, but the evidence that some aspects of modern life are deeply harmful is very compelling. Fortunately, I think it is mainly diet, so we may be able to keep most aspects of our lifestyle, while greatly improving our health.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
patrissimo- Patri Friedman
- Patri's World
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif){kind=small}
Comments
I've got to ask--did their life expectancy go up at the same time? Many of the diseases you mention aren't major killers in pre-industrialized/non-Western societies because other things kill people first. Cancer and heart disease aren't a major concern when your expectancy is less than 50 years.
On the one hand i can see why our diet could be bad: it was chosen for reasons of economy without being able to calculate the long terms effects, and a malcalibrated sense of taste. On the other hand, it comes with a much increased variety. Even though our diet was 'intelligently designed', im not sure its all that bad (depending on what you make of it, of course).
If overall life expectancy goes up, I don't care what deadly diseases have an increased rate! ;-)
I don't know if overall life expectancy went up, that's a good question.
Certainly, but the number of data points we have on that combination (while keeping everything else equal) are scarce. If you're into it, great. I support experimentation and gathering more data.
Meanwhile, I'll eat my carbs. :-)
That's a remarkably bold claim, which I find so ridiculous, that I'm going to ridicule it!
I'll buy that oxidation is a source (not THE source) of diseases associated with aging.
But, for my money, THE basic source of aging is found in the structure of DNA-polymerase, and it's inability to code the final 4 nucleotides in every transcription.
My favorite story about DNA-polymerase is based on Asimov's suggestion (made long before DNA-polymerase was well-understood) that a progressively growing rate of DNA misreplication (as a mechanism for aging) might have evolutionary fitness advantages... That essay somehow always stuck with me. Then, decades later, I'm sitting in the molecular bio class, and learn about how DNA-p does just that... Yoikes!
But aging is due to oxidative stress overwhelming the DNA replication AND the error correction systems in cells.
Figures, though-- it was the popular theory when I was in grad school, 10 years ago. Popular ideas change. And the cascade of mutation errors as a cause of aging DID seem to me to be underplayed, at that time and in that university.
I only discovered this fact a week ago when he and I were catching up after a few months of incommunicado -- that was when we both swapped stories about our adventures and discoveries about health, him about Johnson's UDDD and me about IF/low-carb.
He was still working through all the details about Johnson's program, but it seemed as though the low-carb aspect was less important in UDDD. For me, I prefer the binary on/off of intermittent fasting as compared to the alternating days of caloric restriction (say sub-500 calories) and regular eating. But perhaps that's just the bias in me. I should probably try it out.
I've started Crossfit. I reached the tipping point on Crossfit after reading your posts on the subject and then googling to my surprise that my city just got a Crossfit gym. Yay! But after doing it for a week, I wanted to see if you wouldn't mind sharing how you've mixed your nutrition with crossfit. I've been sticking with my paleo-esque routine, but I'm wondering if I haven't been eating enough fruit. Anyway, since you've been doing this for awhile, maybe you could share?
Thanks-
Glad to hear you're trying CrossFit, I hope it works for me.
I worry a bit that UDDD is "IFOC" (Intermittent Fasting On Crap). That is, they say IF is so powerful that you can eat crap and still show improvement. But that doesn't mean you should eat crap - it's probably bad in the long-term. UDDD saying you can eat anything on the up day, and should eat shakes on the down day, makes me worry about the food quality. If I did it, I'd try to eat at least moderately healthy on the up day.
Something I'm trying to figure out:
If fasting uses the same metabolic pathways as heavily restricted-carb diets, can you still achieve the same benefits of caloric restriction merely by pursuing low-carb? I haven't seen this answered anywhere.
One thing I'm skeptical about w/r/t UDDD is that chronic, every-other-day caloric restriction can induce the hormetic benefits of an unexpected (more random) full-on fast.
Thanks for the CF tip. My first CF workout was at the end of a 24 hour fast -- it was *very hard*, but I had no real basis of comparison. I don't plan on repeating that any time soon. Unfortunately, my CF gym is too new and too little to be open in the morning, which makes the morning fasted workout impossible at this time.