RomeoStevens comments on Lifestyle interventions to increase longevity - Less Wrong

120 Post author: RomeoStevens 28 February 2014 06:28AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (375)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 02 March 2014 03:17:25AM *  -1 points [-]

A lot of these studies point to the same small amounts of data. This article for example discusses a new study that again reanalyzes the Adventist study data http://www.nleducation.co.uk/resources/reviews/vegetarians-live-longer-and-healthier/

We don't really have anything better though. And what little evidence we have points towards ovo-lacto and pescatarians having better health.

Comment author: Xodarap 02 March 2014 05:26:35PM *  1 point [-]

And what little evidence we have points towards ovo-lacto and pescatarians having better health

Um, the article you linked seems to say that vegans are healthier:

  • Vegan All-cause mortality: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.92
  • Pesco All-cause mortality: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94
  • Lacto-ovo All-cause mortality: HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82-1
  • [Meat eaters presumably have an HR of 1]

The difference might not be significant, so I don't know that we would call this conclusive proof. But it seems like if you're going to lean one way, it would be towards vegans being healthier.

Especially since "animal products are bad" is a much simpler model than "animal products are bad, except for these few exceptions."

Comment author: RomeoStevens 03 March 2014 05:19:54AM 0 points [-]

I guess I completely failed to discuss that the studies I linked to do not constitute the entire set of studies I drew from for the recommendations. I will expand on some of the points when I have time.

Comment author: Xodarap 04 March 2014 01:34:26AM *  2 points [-]

Sounds good.

Just reading the wikipedia page#Health_studies) on eggs seems to indicate that evidence for their health benefits is questionable at best, (and even though you were trying to make the argument that eggs were healthy you couldn't find the evidence to do so at first) so given that you're only mentioning "the largest high level features of a diet that have positive or negative impact", I'm not convinced eggs are worth including at all.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 04 March 2014 05:29:04AM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, I believe choline is more important than the conventional wisdom suggests given its interaction with various nootropics. It's really hard to get enough without eggs. Eggs are also absurdly bioavailable compared to everything else.

Comment author: orthonormal 04 March 2014 05:58:24AM 1 point [-]

How many eggs per week would you need to eat in order to avoid choline deficiency?

Comment author: RomeoStevens 04 March 2014 06:19:21AM 0 points [-]

I eat 2-3 eggs a day. You do get a little choline from other sources.

Comment author: orthonormal 04 March 2014 04:57:34PM 1 point [-]

Er, that's not what I asked; averting a deficiency presumably takes less consumption than that. Do you have evidence about choline levels, and what does that evidence say about how many eggs you'd need to eat per week to avoid it?

Comment author: RomeoStevens 04 March 2014 06:57:25PM *  0 points [-]

Averting an acute deficiency is completely different from optimal for health. I don't have a simple cite saying this amount of choline is optimal. I have an impression based on peoples response to extra choline.

Edit: to clarify, choline is not the sole reason I strongly recommend eggs. It is possible to get enough choline without eggs, but the fact that the overwhelming majority of the populace does not meet the adequate intake makes me suspect most diets don't fulfill this.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 04 March 2014 06:47:37AM 1 point [-]

The last time I tried doing this I ended up with some constipation. It's possible I wasn't drinking enough water at the time, though.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 20 July 2014 10:46:36PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, I believe choline is more important than the conventional wisdom suggests given its interaction with various nootropics. It's really hard to get enough without eggs.

It seems pretty easy to supplement with soy lecithin. Is there any reason not to do that?

Comment author: RomeoStevens 21 July 2014 08:11:13AM 0 points [-]

Not particularly for choline other than my normal anti-processed-food-until-proven-otherwise heuristic, but eggs do also contain lots of b12, selenium, and a smaller amount of a ton of other nutrients.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 21 July 2014 09:07:55PM *  0 points [-]

Eggs are very high in methionine, though, and there's evidence that methionine restriction can increase both mean and maximum lifespan. Some very knowledgeable folk, like Michael Rae, have dropped eggs from their diet for this reason.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 21 July 2014 11:49:14PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for the pointer, I am reading the rat and mice studies. So far the evidence seems weaker than the CR evidence, which is pretty bad.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 22 July 2014 05:37:07AM 0 points [-]

Do you mean that the CR evidence is bad, or that it's bad that the evidence for methionine restriction is weaker?

Comment author: orthonormal 20 July 2014 04:10:48PM *  0 points [-]

Reminder to expand on this. (Someone sent me a link saying that eggs are terrible for life expectancy, and I found it dubious so I came back here to look for links to studies.)

Comment author: RomeoStevens 21 July 2014 05:46:18PM *  0 points [-]

Link added to parent thread. Still have more to investigate. This area is extremely frustrating because of the decade-plus lead times on studies.