Fruit- good or bad?

[brimstoneSalad]

A study can also be funded by an interest group and find the opposite of what they want. They won't promote the study to the media so it may get dusty in some forgotten corner of an obscure journal somewhere, but in terms of the science the study still stands and it can still be found for use in meta-analyses.

Why would they make it available anywhere? Are they somehow obligated by law?

Studies are pre-registered, and the results are expected. Registration is often required by law now. Wiki has some generatl information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trials_registry

Credible journals will not publish non-registered trials, and the FDA mandates registration for a lot of cases.

Whether the trial could just be ended and the results hidden if it didn't look like it was going the right way?
I think it's a matter of professional ethics; mysteriously canceling an industry funded study and not making the results available after you preregistered it and said when it would be completed is pretty sketchy.
Also, because it was registered, doing something like this would result in reviewers seeing a few positive studies, and then a list of very suspicious canceled studies which they can assume demonstrated against whatever hypothesis the sponsor wanted proved if they're being conservative.

[Steve Wagar]

The evidence on methionine restriction with a normal amount of calories is that it has about the same results as calorie restriction.
It's just certain nutrients that are of concern, it seems.

I hadn't heard of methionine restriction; I read a few articles about it. It makes sense that certain nutrients would be the problem, and it seems methionine tops the list. In any case, it seems vegan diets are lowest in methionine anyway, so I agree that vegan with normal calories is a better strategy (for now) than mostly vegan and low calories.

I am aware of the study showing that overweight (BMI 25-30) people live longer than those with normal weight, but I have attributed that to average diets being nutrient poor.

Average diets are pretty nutrient rich within the population studied.
The issue probably came down to a little extra weight meaning the patients were monitored better, and it being protective in illness when the patient's appetite is poor (a reserve of energy). That is, skinny people may get sick less, but they die really fast when they do and that shifts the number.

Based on this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-a-few-extra-pounds-help-you-live-longer/, I could reduce my hazard ratio from 1.4 to 1.0 if I regained the 45lb and pushed my BMI up to 27, which is where it was before I started to eat "healthy". Let me try a different theory: I would say that my weight, if I ate only to satiation, will migrate to a set point based mostly on the proportion of dietary fat and levels of refined fat and sugar. On my fruitarian diet that pushed my BMI to 20. Before that, on a fairly healthy SAD diet it was 27. I am guessing that if I up my ratios to 60-20-20 but still minimize refined fat and sugar it will only go to 21 or 22 at most. If this theory is right, but it is also true that 27 in the most protective BMI because weight is protective during illness, then I will need to increase avocados, nuts and seeds possibly up to 20-20-60 to get there. Does that make any sense?

Yes, but that's not a problem with science, it's a problem with the reporting.

Yes, I agree with that point overall: funding with the intent of finding specific results may produce a lot of silly or unhelpful science, but doesn't negate from good science that is being done, which will still move inexorably forward. I guess the most I could claim is that it is a major distraction. I could speculate on just how distracting, but I don't have any info on that.

The reality is that the more recent adaptations carry more weight. An animal can go from herbivore to carnivore and back in a few thousand years.

As a complete coincidence, I read this blog post today and at the end it made the same point you made (not to say random people on the internet lend credibility, but this guy has some credentials): http://blog.yalebooks.com/2017/08/23/the-paleo-diet-in-ancient-civilization/

• Author’s Note: There’s another line of thought, much in dispute, about diet, crowding, and evolution. It is asserted that prior to roughly 10,000 years ago ALL homo-sapiens were of blood type “O”. Further it is asserted that blood type A came into being around 10,000 BCE and is associated with a slightly higher resistance to density dependent diseases. It’s further asserted that blood type B only arose around 5,000BCE and is associated with pastoralism and dairy-diets. (Blood type AB, it is claimed only arose in the last 500 years.) [See D’Adamo and Whitney, Eat Right 4 Your Type] I and others are skeptical of this argument but, in general terms, it does make sense that we should have adapted physiologically to radically new living conditions made possible by the Neolithic “revolution”. We are today increasingly aware that such evolutionary adaptation can occur more rapidly than we had previously assumed.

[brimstoneSalad]

It makes sense that certain nutrients would be the problem, and it seems methionine tops the list. In any case, it seems vegan diets are lowest in methionine anyway, so I agree that vegan with normal calories is a better strategy (for now) than mostly vegan and low calories.

Yes, and having enough calories improves quality of life a lot.
There are only a couple high methionine vegan foods, and things we don't/can't eat much of anyway (a few sesame seeds on a whole wheat bun or a tablespoon of tahini in a cup of hummus isn't going to do much of anything, and we can't eat a lot of brazil nuts due to the selenium anyway).

Based on this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-a-few-extra-pounds-help-you-live-longer/, I could reduce my hazard ratio from 1.4 to 1.0 if I regained the 45lb and pushed my BMI up to 27

I wouldn't go back into overweight because of this stuff, but I wouldn't worry about being 24 or so and that may be optimal.
You can mitigate your risks by looking at the actual causes and paying special attention to those, for example by not being lax about check-ups, colonoscopies, etc. just because your risk is lower (you could still have bad luck despite a low risk, and if it's not caught in time your mortality would be higher; less medical attention is thought to be one of the main causes of the paradox).
Also, if you do get sick you can pay extra attention to getting enough calories to prevent weight loss (so that buffer of extra body fat won't be as important). If you're good at forcing food down even when you're not hungry or nauseous, and good at not throwing up, you can probably manage it.

Being in overweight will make you feel worse all the time for the sake of a speculative safety net for when you may get sick. Doesn't seem worth it as long as we can do the things that are likely lowering risk without having to be overweight.

I am guessing that if I up my ratios to 60-20-20 but still minimize refined fat and sugar it will only go to 21 or 22 at most. If this theory is right, but it is also true that 27 in the most protective BMI because weight is protective during illness, then I will need to increase avocados, nuts and seeds possibly up to 20-20-60 to get there. Does that make any sense?

Makes sense. I'd aim for 24 or 25 at the most, though. I don't think the evidence is good enough to go into the overweight category.

45-20-35 might do it. 60% from fat would probably be nauseating amount of nuts and avocado anyway and might backfire and cause weight loss because of not wanting to eat.

[Steve Wagar]

I wouldn't go back into overweight because of this stuff, but I wouldn't worry about being 24 or so and that may be optimal.

Well, I'll see what some small adjustments to my diet will do to bring that number up, but I agree there is no reason to go all the way to overweight.

not being lax about check-ups, colonoscopies, etc. just because your risk is lower (you could still have bad luck despite a low risk, and if it's not caught in time your mortality would be higher; less medical attention is thought to be one of the main causes of the paradox).

I have put off having a first colonoscopy (I'm 55) on the grounds of being at lower risk. It's not that I won't, it's a matter of picking when to do it. I'm concerned that there are risks of infection from the procedure since they can't sterilize their equipment, but I have no way of assessing the risk tradeoff. But yes, I'm five years behind schedule and perhaps that isn't wise.

[brimstoneSalad]

I have put off having a first colonoscopy (I'm 55) on the grounds of being at lower risk. It's not that I won't, it's a matter of picking when to do it.

Yep, that's the reason that despite a lower risk vegans end up with about the same mortality. Less likely to get it, but more likely to die from it due to complacency because of the low risk.

It's kind of like the compensation (eating more junk food) many people do after eating a healthy meal or exercising.

I'm concerned that there are risks of infection from the procedure since they can't sterilize their equipment, but I have no way of assessing the risk tradeoff.

Well, I think the study found a pretty small number of colonoscopes were dirty:
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100798338

Researchers for the study analyzed 275 flexible duodenoscopes, gastroscopes and colonoscopes. They found a cleanliness failure rate of 30 percent, 24 percent and 3 percents for each type of those endoscopes respectively.

3% doesn't seem too bad, particularly given the risk from infection if it's a little dirty is far lower, but I definitely get your point.
You should be able to talk to your doctor and express your concerns, or choose another place to get it done if they're not able to relieve your concerns.
Paying a little extra should be well worth it when we consider the risks of not doing it.

[Steve Wagar]

3% doesn't seem too bad, particularly given the risk from infection if it's a little dirty is far lower, but I definitely get your point.
You should be able to talk to your doctor and express your concerns, or choose another place to get it done if they're not able to relieve your concerns.
Paying a little extra should be well worth it when we consider the risks of not doing it.

It remains a judgment call to pick the greater net risk, but I'll talk to my doctor again about doing it and will raise that concern.

Let me try a different theory: I would say that my weight, if I ate only to satiation, will migrate to a set point based mostly on the proportion of dietary fat and levels of refined fat and sugar. On my fruitarian diet that pushed my BMI to 20. Before that, on a fairly healthy SAD diet it was 27.

This ad hoc theory is somewhat supported by this picture I just found in a Mic. the Vegan video:

http://www.steve.wagar.com/snap0687.jpg

(Sorry I couldn't link the picture; the img tag just gives me an error ("It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image. Please verify that the URL you entered is correct.") and I couldn't get past that.)

So it doesn't say just what the data means, but it suggests that vegans average a BMI of 23.5 while normal SAD meat eaters are more like 29, with variations of degree in between. This is in line with what I was getting at, that meat/dairy push the weight up. If we take 27 as a median for somewhat healthy meat eaters, then those with a BMI below 27 would be undernourished and so putting their body at risk, hence the improved mortality at 27 regardless of the fat reserve in time of illness possibility. But for vegans the number would be 23.5. Of course, this is all generalization and really depends on what the graph means and what balance of fats in the vegan diet.

Also, it strongly suggests vegans are just thinner, presumably not for lack of eating all they want. Until we get a study that links vegan BMI to mortality I (like you) can't see the wisdom of moving into the overweight range.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think nutrition status has much to do with the increased survival, but that's it's more just about the fat reserves that keep you alive longer when you're under-eating due to illness (pneumonia, cancer, recovering from surgery, etc.), and possibly even physical padding (if you fall, you might be protected by a little cushion). That, and more medical attention for the overweight because they're at higher risk.

There are just too many variables to say for sure, but I go for the simplest ones we know exist before speculating on something unknown that's causing it.