Friday, December 4, 2009

Dr. Rosedale Replies

A few months ago, I posted link to an article by Dr. Ron Rosedale and made a few comments about it. Dr. Rosedale has sent a reply to my comments, which I have agreed to publish as a new post because they may be of interest to readers. In the following exchange, my numbered comments are in quotes and Dr. Rosedale's replies follow them.

Dr. Rosedale's Comments

1. Dr. Rosedale says that insulin's ability to regulate blood sugar is a minor role, and that other hormones do the same thing. Tell that to a type 1 diabetic. Excessive blood glucose is Not Good, and that's what you get if there isn't enough insulin around.
What I have said was that insulin does not control glucose levels in the blood, and that insulin's biological purpose (not ability) plays only a minor role in BS control... and that is a correct statement. Insulin reduces blood glucose by storing it for a rainy day as glycogen and fat, but not for the purpose of regulating blood sugar levels. The control of BS is in an upward direction, not a downward direction. The problem in our evolutionary history was to have enough BS for emergency anaerobic respiration and for those tissues that require it such as red blood cells. Lowering blood sugar was never a priority in our history. For one, it didn't rise much very often. There wasn't much glucose around. Uncooked rice and potatoes, etc., are mostly indigestible. The sugar that was around, such as in fruit, required considerable effort to obtain therefore lowered the sugar prior to obtaining it. Also, the sugar that is in fruit is largely fructose which doesn't convert that much into glucose but rather into fat in the liver. Even if it did raise blood sugar levels, even if it did cause diabetes in evolutionary time, nature would consider that irrelevant as it wouldn't have killed people prior to the reproductive years, only post-reproductively when nature doesn't give a damn.

Furthermore, insulin's major purpose goes way beyond sugar. At the very least, it is a nutrient storage hormone being relevant not only in glucose storage, but also in fat and protein (amino acid) storage. It also plays a significant role in micronutrient storage and conversions. However, overwhelmingly more important, is insulin's role as a nutrient sensor greatly influencing genetic expression and modifying the rate of aging by up or down regulating maintenance and repair.
2. I'm not convinced by the theory that organisms balance reproduction and repair, emphasizing one at the expense of the other. The amount of energy it takes to fuel cellular repair processes is negligible compared to the amount it takes to maintain body temperature, fuel the brain and contract skeletal muscles. Why not just have the organism eat an extra half-teaspoon of mashed potatoes to fuel the heat-shock proteins and make a little extra catalase? I think the true reasons behind lifespan extension upon caloric restriction will turn out to be more complex than a balance between reproduction and repair.
Stephan does not have to be convinced. Almost everybody who studies the biology of aging is convinced that there is a dichotomy between reproduction and maintenance and repair and that biologically a cell can spend the majority of available resources towards one or the other, but not both. This can actually be shown genetically as the up or down regulation of the expression of genes regulating heat shock proteins, intracellular antioxidant systems, DNA repair enzymes, "garbage collection", etc versus the up or down regulation of genes which regulate reproductive behavior. It should also be noted that excessive reproductive behavior is, in individual cells of multicellular organisms, a strong predisposition to cancer. Furthermore, Stephan’s statement that it takes negligible energy for maintenance and repair is very wrong. In fact one could make the argument that almost all of the energy spent by both individual cells and by the cell societies of multi-celled organisms when not reproducing is towards maintenance and repair.

3. I disagree with the idea that carbohydrate itself is behind elevated fasting insulin and leptin. Just look at the Kitavans. They get 69% of their calories from high-glycemic-load carbohydrates, with not much fat (21%) or protein (10%) to slow digestion. Yet, they have low fasting insulin and remarkably low fasting leptin. I believe the fasting levels of these hormones are more responsive to macronutrient quality than quantity. In other words, what matters most is not how much carbohydrate is in the diet, but where the carbohydrate comes from. The modern Western combination of carelessly processed wheat, sugar and linoleic acid-rich vegetable oil seems to be particularly harmful.
It is not where the carbohydrates come from, but where the carbohydrates go. In other words, what carbohydrates are digested into, i.e what the cells are being fed. Feeding them glucose, fructose, galactose and amino acids as energy (as opposed to using the amino acids whole as structural components) is bad.

Stephan himself could answer this one. It's not the percent of calories from carbohydrates that is relevant; it is the absolute amount of non-fiber carbohydrates that is relevant as the glycemic load.

A few further comments on the Kitavans, though I really am not an expert on their diet:

I find that indigenous diets are only partially helpful as there are so many variables that can go unaccounted for. I prefer the more elementary sciences to form opinions. However, it sounds like there really isn't that much non-fiber carbohydrate in the diet and there is considerable fiber, fish and coconut oil, and moderate to low protein, all of which are quite fine for health. If it is known, the total gram quantities of macronutrients would be good to know. Another important point; what is their lifespan? It sounds like it might be long, but it would be nice to know a more accurate figure. It is not weight loss that we should be after, it is health as indicated by a long and youthful lifespan. Another point; though they (the Kitavans) may be doing well if one defines well as better than most human counterparts, it isn't really saying much. The majority of society eats so badly that it really is not difficult to eat a diet that is better. What I am after is not just better, but best. Perhaps one could take the Kitavan diet and improve upon it by reducing the non-fiber carbohydrate content and perhaps adding more beneficial fats and oils. It is quite possible, in fact probable, that there have been no human societies that have eaten an ideal diet. We can only use what modern science is telling us to come up with this.

My Reply to Dr. Rosedale

Thank you for your comments.

1. I agree with you that control of blood sugar is not insulin's only purpose, and that there are other mechanisms of blood glucose control. There were several papers published recently showing that type 1 diabetic rats (lacking insulin) can be restored to a normal blood glucose level and near-normal glucose tolerance by infusing leptin into the lateral or the third cerebral ventricles (1, 2). This was totally independent of insulin, because the rats weren't producing any. And yes, insulin signaling influences lifespan in a number of animal models.

However, insulin is still the primary controller of blood sugar under normal circumstances, as shown in type 1 diabetes where the primary defect is in insulin production. Furthermore, excessively elevated glucose is damaging per se, due to protein glycation, competition with vitamin C, etc. Therefore, the glucose-controlling function of insulin is important.

I do not agree that glucose from starch and fruit played an insignificant role in human evolution. A number of modern hunter-gatherers eat a significant amount of starch, and our ancestors probably did as well, as soon as they could cook. The timeline of cooking is debated, but we've probably been doing it for at least half a million years, or as long as Homo sapiens has existed. Fruit sugar is roughly 50% glucose, as is honey.

2. As someone who spent two years in the field of aging research, I don't see a scientific consensus on the idea that reproduction and aging are in balance with one another. The two correlate with one another in some, but not all models. I was at a seminar just the other day by Dr. Linda Partridge, from the Max Planck institute, and she was talking about her lifespan experiments in fruit flies. She was able to independently modify lifespan and fecundity using amino acid restriction, leading her to the conclusion that there is no link between the two in her model. She published these data recently in the journal Nature (reference).

Regarding the energy required for cellular maintenance, a little math is instructive here.
I eat maybe 3,200 calories a day, which is normal for an active male of my weight. My basal metabolic rate is roughly 1,700 kcal per day. So 1,500 of my calories have already gone to moving my skeletal muscles. Of the basal metabolic rate, the vast majority comes from maintaining body temperature. Thermogenesis is why cold-blooded animals only need to eat a fraction of the calories mammals do. Then there's cardiac function, and smooth muscle activity, which eat up more calories. Then there are the energy-intensive cellular processes of maintaining ionic gradients across cell membranes (which is why the brain eats up 20% of our calories) and protein synthesis.

After you subtract out all those functions, only a small fraction of total caloric intake is left for other cellular processes. So the caloric needs for processes that combat cellular aging (DNA repair, etc.) are quite low, compared to overall energy requirements. This is consistent with the fact that naked mole rats, which live ten times longer than
Rattus norvegicus, have a similar basal metabolic rate to one another. Keeping cells from being damaged is not a particularly energy-intensive process, and so we have to look elsewhere for the reason why it hasn't been prioritized by evolution.

3. The Kitavan diet is high in digestible starch. The foods they eat have been characterized for starch content, glycemic index, and fiber content. Their diet overall has a high glycemic load, is 69% carbohydrate by calories, and is similar in calories to the American diet. They have a low BMI, a low fasting insulin and low fasting glucose. I agree that there are many factors at play here, and the example of the Kitavans doesn't necessarily give carbohydrate a free pass in all situations. But it does show that a high carbohydrate intake, at least under certain circumstances, is compatible with low fasting insulin, high insulin sensitivity, leanness, and apparent good health.

I also agree that the Kitavans are not really a good model of longevity. Although they live a long time relative to other non-industrial cultures, and have individuals exceeding 95 years old, they don't have a longer average lifespan than people in affluent nations. One can guess that it's due to a lack of modern medical care to treat infectious diseases, and I think that's likely to play a role, but ultimately it's speculation. It's an open question whether you could improve their lifespan by reducing the non-fiber carbohydrate content of their diet, but I'm skeptical.

In the end, it's also an open question whether or not you can extend life by restricting carbohydrate. For the typical overweight American who responds well to carbohydrate restriction, it's reasonable to speculate that it might. For an insulin-sensitive, lean American, it's not clear that it would have much benefit, outside of reducing potentially harmful foods such as gluten and sugar. Although insulin signaling is probably tied up with lifespan in humans, as in many other species, no one has shown that post-meal insulin spikes caused by carbohydrate, as opposed to chronically elevated insulin and insulin resistance, is harmful. The story is not as simple as "more serum insulin = shorter lifespan".

Is there any evidence that carbohydrate restriction extends lifespan in a non-carnivorous mammal such as a rodent or monkey? I'm open to the possibility, but I haven't seen any studies. I'll look forward to them.

2 comments:

  1. 3 Studies SHOW How Coconut Oil Kills Fat.

    This means that you actually burn fat by consuming coconut fat (also coconut milk, coconut cream and coconut oil).

    These 3 researches from big medical magazines are sure to turn the traditional nutrition world upside down!

    ReplyDelete
  2. New Diet Taps into Revolutionary Plan to Help Dieters Lose 20 Pounds within Only 21 Days!

    ReplyDelete