Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sirt food diet
Oishii
Posts: 2,675 Member
in Debate Club
This diet was in all the papers and magazines this New Year in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere. Is it 100% mumbo jumbo or are there elements of truth to it?
0
Replies
-
-
any diet that says that certain foods are going to turn on your fat burning gene is a bunch of woo woo ...
why not just use MFP to track your calories for free, eat in a 500 calorie deficit, get a food scale, exercise, and hit micros and macros.....????
0 -
"Welcome to the official Sirt Food Diet - the revolutionary way to lose 7lb in 7 days. Add healthy Sirt foods to your diet for effective and sustained weight loss, incredible energy and glowing health.
Switch on your body's fat-burning powers, supercharge weight loss and help stave off disease with this easy-to-follow diet developed by the experts in nutritional medicine who proved the impact of Sirtfoods.
Dark chocolate, coffee, kale - these are all foods that activate sirtuins and switch on the so-called 'skinny gene' pathways in the body. These are the same pathways more commonly activated by fasting and exercise - meaning they help the body to burn fat, increase muscle and improve health.
Based on trials that showed an increase in lean muscle, as well as consistent weight loss of 7lbs over the course of just one week, The Sirtfood Diet is revolutionizing sports nutrition and healthy eating."
you. are. fricking. kidding. me
:bigsmile:0 -
"Welcome to the official Sirt Food Diet - the revolutionary way to lose 7lb in 7 days. Add healthy Sirt foods to your diet for effective and sustained weight loss, incredible energy and glowing health.
Switch on your body's fat-burning powers, supercharge weight loss and help stave off disease with this easy-to-follow diet developed by the experts in nutritional medicine who proved the impact of Sirtfoods.
Dark chocolate, coffee, kale - these are all foods that activate sirtuins and switch on the so-called 'skinny gene' pathways in the body. These are the same pathways more commonly activated by fasting and exercise - meaning they help the body to burn fat, increase muscle and improve health.
Based on trials that showed an increase in lean muscle, as well as consistent weight loss of 7lbs over the course of just one week, The Sirtfood Diet is revolutionizing sports nutrition and healthy eating."
you. are. fricking. kidding. me
:bigsmile:
As usual--you. done. good.
1 -
Looks like they have all the buzzwords and ridiculous nutrition industry cliches covered. Even has celebrity endorsements and a clever marketing hook. This should sell a lot of copies.0
-
If it was truly a revolutionary diet breakthrough we wouldn't have to buy a book to know all about it. Public health organizations would be spreading the word for free.1
-
Dark chocolate and coffee? SMH - I should look like I have an eating disorder by now then.1
-
Are your body's fat burning powers like Wonder Twin powers? Do you have to fist bump to activate them?0
-
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.0 -
The so called skinny gene pathways......................................
1 -
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
Can you find any peer reviewed scientific study with decent numbers of participants and protocols that supports the notion of SIRT foods?
or identifies a skinny gene?
or supports any single contention in that book blurb?0 -
This diet was in all the papers and magazines this New Year in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere. Is it 100% mumbo jumbo or are there elements of truth to it?
Sirtuins appear to be a thing http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/72/483.long and there's some connection with metabolism (at least in animal models) :-
1 -
An RCT of resveratrol http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311100386X shows various changes not all of which would be beneficial to weight loss but reduced liver fat content and improved insulin sensitivity were observed. Metabolic rate reduced in a similar way to it does on calorie restriction.1
-
Gain lean muscle while losing 7 lbs in a week? Oh I wish that is how it worked1
-
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
if you are losing weight faster then you "should" then why is the answer that you are logging too many calories? If anything that you indicate that you are not logging enough calories…
do you use a food scale?
log every bit of food you eat?
what is your activity level?
finally, a calculator is just that a calculator is meant to be a guideline for people, it is not going to peg everyones TDEE exactly, because calculator….0 -
If the diet worked I would weigh 98 lbs soaking wet . . .0
-
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.1 -
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
I may or may not be very knowledgeable, but here is my opinion of the mechanism described.
First, you find a find an obscure component of human biology that is somehow related to the vector you want to exploit as a basis for your argument, and is documented in some scientific literature as having potentially desirable benefits, but very under-researched.
The target audience sees the ad for your book, and thinks: "What is a SIRT? I don't know, but you say it is related to increasing metabolism and fighting diseases? Great! The only thing I can find out about it from Google is a bunch of info that I don't understand, because I am not a specialist in the field. Fortunately, now someone has written a book about how I can use that knowledge in practice to apply to my diet to lose fat and avoid disease!"
This is the marketing hook that I mentioned. Bonus points because the studies that do exist involve references to the possibility of manipulating sirtuins for treatment of cancer, diabetes, and aging. Sounds very impressive.
Now you just have to build a science-y sounding argument to support your claims. Since the claimed benefits of the topic in question are under-studied, this is pretty easy, because we have several preliminary papers that show possible benefits that warrant further study. How do we activate sirtuins? Resveratrol? Perfect! Everybody gets to eat chocolate and drink wine! The authors of the book claim to have Master's degrees in Nutritional Medicine, so building a somewhat plausible argument here should be easy for them.
I don't know anything about the authors, and I don't know anything about the scientific references they used in the book, but I would be willing to bet it is very heavily influenced by confirmation bias. This is a particularly annoying modern trend that is unfortunately very profitable. For example, take this criticism of the science research used by Dave Asprey, author of The Bulletproof Diet. From: http://gizmodo.com/bulletproof-coffee-debunking-the-hot-buttered-hype-1681321467
"There are no peer-reviewed studies that corroborate the idea that eating nothing but fat (and caffeine) in the morning, sets you up for burning body fat. Conversely, the majority of the studies Asprey sites for his diet were done on rats and mice. Some were four decades old. Some used humans, but in incredibly small numbers. One study's entire sample consisted of two people. One was just on rats with an auto-immune kidney disease.
This is what's known as confirmation bias. For those unfamiliar with the concept, it's when you start with a conclusion and then go looking for evidence to support it, generally ignoring evidence that may contradict it. It is the opposite of good science."
From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/the-bulletproof-diet-simplistic-invalid-and-unscientific/
"Prof Paul Garner, director of the Effective Health Care Research Consortium at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, describes the Bulletproof Diet as “extraordinary” and the references Asprey gives to support it “unreliable … highly selective, many over 30 years old, of one or two patients.
“Very few of the references are of current research, and most is picking out studies that are of low or very low quality, none of which is put into the context of other research or systematic reviews.”
Garner says it doesn’t take a scientist to point out that a study of two people published in 1976 is suspect. “It’s just not credible to build this kind of commercial fiction on this.”"
And you have this nice account from one of Asprey's former employees in charge of finding supporting references for Asprey's books:
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1keybu/armi_legge_tells_how_he_became_a_writer_for_a/
He alleged that Asprey would just use a bunch of scientific references that are somewhat positively related to his argument, even if they didn't make sense in the context of the point he was trying to convey. Most people don't read the references anyway.
I am not alleging that Asprey is full of it or that Bulletproof coffee is just a marketing gimmick. Maybe it is great, I don't know, I have never tried it. And maybe the Sirt Diet is great and actually lives up to all of its claims. I don't know, and I am not going to try it, because everything on the website describing the book tells me that it is completely marketing nonsense. Like Rabbit mentioned, if science ever develops a strong argument to support it, everyone will know all about it, and you won't have to buy a single author's book to read a single person's evaluation and application of the science.1 -
Thank you for all the well-thought-out answers.
I don't back this diet in any way (though it sounds pretty yummy!), but I have to say it's thoroughly naive to think that if something worked well we'd all know about it. What happened with fat? It was unnecessarily condemned while research showing potential problems with sugar and carbs was ignored. I suspect that plenty of forces would be busy trying to discredit anything that would end obesity forever.1 -
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.
1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.
2) taking place over years, so not this.
3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.
4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).
So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.
0 -
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.
1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.
2) taking place over years, so not this.
3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.
4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).
So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.
Re 3 ..my Fitbit underestimates my TDEE which is possibly because for my age and gender I have a greater muscle mass than expected at my weight ..remember it also works on a formula ..if you understand that it underestimates then you need to eat more than it estimates...in maintenance I consume 1500-2000 calories more per week than the MFP allowance with Fitbit adjustments
0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »Dark chocolate and coffee? SMH - I should look like I have an eating disorder by now then.
You and me both!
0 -
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.
1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.
2) taking place over years, so not this.
3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.
4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).
So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.
Re 3 ..my Fitbit underestimates my TDEE which is possibly because for my age and gender I have a greater muscle mass than expected at my weight ..remember it also works on a formula ..if you understand that it underestimates then you need to eat more than it estimates...in maintenance I consume 1500-2000 calories more per week than the MFP allowance with Fitbit adjustments
Now that Fitbit has a gain option when I eventually get to my goal weight again I'll probably set it on that.
I know what to do about the mismatch, but I'm still interested in why and I don't think it's muscle mass in my case.0 -
I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!
I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.
There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.
1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.
2) taking place over years, so not this.
3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.
4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).
So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.
Re 3 ..my Fitbit underestimates my TDEE which is possibly because for my age and gender I have a greater muscle mass than expected at my weight ..remember it also works on a formula ..if you understand that it underestimates then you need to eat more than it estimates...in maintenance I consume 1500-2000 calories more per week than the MFP allowance with Fitbit adjustments
Now that Fitbit has a gain option when I eventually get to my goal weight again I'll probably set it on that.
I know what to do about the mismatch, but I'm still interested in why and I don't think it's muscle mass in my case.
There are ways to get your RMR (almost the same as your BMR) tested.0 -
Interesting point though, there are drugs in the SIRT pathway inhibiting Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor (PPAR) including fenofibric acids and thiazolidenediones that do help transport visceral adipose to subcutaneous adipose (far less detrimental). Not surprisingly, all of these meds are effective for lowering both triglycerides and LDL (not nearly as much as statins though) and raising HDL. In a nutshell, they change fat distribution; there is no fatloss or weight loss
Whether food can do this seems far fetched; I'm sure ungodly quantities would have to be consumed to have a comparable effect to drugs. I'm just noticing some supplement companies trying to take this angle of a mechanism to promote fatloss products. Example: TTA & I believe another one is called Ursolic acid (some bull sh extract from Apple skin)
This reminds me of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin "mTOR" bull sh bodybuilders spew1 -
For those interested in biology - here is one of the foundational papers:
Sirt1 promotes fat mobilization in white adipocytes by repressing PPAR-γ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820247/
Note this is just biology - not a support for a SIRT diet.1 -
Interesting point though, there are drugs in the SIRT pathway inhibiting Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor (PPAR) including fenofibric acids and thiazolidenediones that do help transport visceral adipose to subcutaneous adipose (far less detrimental). Not surprisingly, all of these meds are effective for lowering both triglycerides and LDL (not nearly as much as statins though) and raising HDL. In a nutshell, they change fat distribution; there is no fatloss or weight loss
Whether food can do this seems far fetched; I'm sure ungodly quantities would have to be consumed to have a comparable effect to drugs. I'm just noticing some supplement companies trying to take this angle of a mechanism to promote fatloss products. Example: TTA & I believe another one is called Ursolic acid (some bull sh extract from Apple skin)
This reminds me of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin "mTOR" bull sh bodybuilders spew
Reminds of mTOR in the sense that it is a real thing but nothing anyone's going to manipulate much via diet or drug yet, particularly not to magically become jacked?0 -
Yep, mTOR inhibiting drugs exist, diet manipulation not soInteresting point though, there are drugs in the SIRT pathway inhibiting Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor (PPAR) including fenofibric acids and thiazolidenediones that do help transport visceral adipose to subcutaneous adipose (far less detrimental). Not surprisingly, all of these meds are effective for lowering both triglycerides and LDL (not nearly as much as statins though) and raising HDL. In a nutshell, they change fat distribution; there is no fatloss or weight loss
Whether food can do this seems far fetched; I'm sure ungodly quantities would have to be consumed to have a comparable effect to drugs. I'm just noticing some supplement companies trying to take this angle of a mechanism to promote fatloss products. Example: TTA & I believe another one is called Ursolic acid (some bull sh extract from Apple skin)
This reminds me of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin "mTOR" bull sh bodybuilders spew
Reminds of mTOR in the sense that it is a real thing but nothing anyone's going to manipulate much via diet or drug yet, particularly not to magically become jacked?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions