2

votes

Dr. Davis and butter yet again - exogenous AGEs - is it a problem?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created October 22, 2010 at 3:48 PM

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/anti-ageing-diet.html

"Therefore, cooking foods at lower temperature (e.g., baking, sauteeing, or boiling), eating meats rare whenever possible (not chicken or pork, of course), eating raw foods whenever possible (e.g., nuts) are all strategies that limit exogenous AGE exposure. And minimize or avoid butter use, if we are to believe the data that suggest that it contains the highest exogenous AGE content of any known food."

Is he right - or off the deep end?

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on October 29, 2010
at 06:31 PM

Just read, that's a really good article actually.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on October 23, 2010
at 03:33 AM

Yes, tribal people often died young. Many died at birth! The birth death rate alone drastically affects average lifespan. Others are killed in accidents. But that does not change the liklihood that some people living to be old is probably beneficial to the tribe. And since most tribes members are related and carry related DNA, the success of the whole tribe really does strongly improve the chances of one's DNA passing along. In order for your DNA to travel, not just your kids, but the kids of your kids must ALSO survive. This is what living a longer time does for your DNA.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:58 PM

Eades post here...http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:57 PM

Eades did not critically review the AGE paper he mentioned. The vegetarian group was significantly older, ate a ton more fructose, etc. Glycation and aging is not about correlation, there is an interesting and specific biological plausability there.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:42 PM

Hold on, what? What does the glycation and aging have to do with fat, cholesterol, or bandwagons? And yes, if you eat calories above your metabolic requirement, you get fat. Whether those calories come from fat, protein, or carb.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:28 PM

Correlation =\= Causation.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:10 PM

Back on topic. The main point here is that you're jumping on the fat makes you fat, cholesterol raises cholesterol bandwagon with no proof. Don't blame the firemen for the fires.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 07:44 PM

Melissa- that paper is about modern hunter gatherers, not paleolithic people. Have you seen any papers about fossil records indicating a mean paleo lifespan much longer than ~34 years? I don't think I've seen any.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 07:38 PM

here is one good read http://bit.ly/dbXs2o?r=td

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 07:37 PM

I'll pull up some papers when I get some time, but the age estimations of many studies are off because of data mistakes. Unfortunately pop culture didn't get the memo.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 07:20 PM

Ambimorph--that is most definitely true. But that doesn't effect the mean lifespan of paleolithic people as compared to modern people. If cumulative glycation due to using lots of butter and pan-fried meat hits you when you're 65 years old, that is a big problem for us and not a big problem for most ancient paleos. I love paleo, but don't understand paleo dogmatism. Our lives are different and longer than those of our ancestors, and there are some dietary tweaks that might benefit us.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 22, 2010
at 07:11 PM

I think the point is that it can be a survival win to have older people around. Anyone with children must be acutely aware of this. If you die early, even if you have successfully reproduced, it can still affect the viability of your offspring.

D30ff86ad2c1f3b43b99aed213bcf461

on October 22, 2010
at 06:51 PM

Hard now to conceive of life without Kerrygold!!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:47 PM

Eva- this isn't an issue of paleo tribes having elder members. As an analogy, Parkinsons is probably a bigger issue for modern people than paleo people, because the disease spikes with old age. AGEs aren't so important in your twenties or thirties, but could be an important factor for diseases of old age (which is one reason why some people eat paleo, coincidentally--that chronic effects of nutrition should be considered in addition to acute effects).

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:41 PM

Violence solves nothing. I'm going to accept an oatmeal cookie from the next person who realizes that the average upper paleolithic lifespan of ~34 years is less than half of the current US lifespan of ~78 years, and AGEs would be WAY more important for us. Are my facts off? Are you going off life expectancy at 15 instead of at birth? Will I be attacked any time I don't view paleo life in a glittering light?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 06:31 PM

You know what's great? Raw beef tartare topped with raw butter. MMmm.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 06:30 PM

I'm going to force an oatmeal cookie down the throat of the next person who parrots the outdated/discredited "cavemen died young."

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:23 PM

They didn't all die young. Modern tribes have elders and likely so did paleo tribes. Elders seem to be very important for stability and guidance of the tribe. In most tribal societies (all I've seen), elders are respected if not revered and make the rules for the tribe. The older ones also have knowledge of events that only happen occasionally, like maybe only once every 30 or 40 years and so are better able to deal with unusual problems.

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on October 22, 2010
at 05:38 PM

Heh, good call Patrick.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on October 22, 2010
at 05:05 PM

Okay, that's just funny.

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on October 22, 2010
at 04:28 PM

except that butter isn't actually paleo ;)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on October 22, 2010
at 04:08 PM

He has dared to question the sanctity of the holy paleo butter and must now be branded as a heretic.

  • A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

    asked by

    (20436)
  • Views
    3.2K
  • Last Activity
    1426D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

best answer

3
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on October 29, 2010
at 04:53 PM

I commented on Davis' original post, so I'm going to allow myself the indulgence of quoting myself:

First, that very paper says that only about 10% of exogenous AGEs actually make it into circulation, so that automatically takes butter down to 26.5KU/g. Of course if a patient has advanced kidney failure then worry about exogenous AGEs should be a concern, but so should protein, potassium etc etc.

Secondly, the focus on exogenous AGEs in this table is obviously one-sided. Saying that butter contains more AGEs than a bowl of fructose, ignores the fact that once inside the body, the carbohydrate will cause immeasurably more glycation than the fat. These researchers are quite obviously pushing an lipophobic agenda here and I wouldn't fall for it.

Third, it's not just butter, apparently, but olive oil is also 120KU/ml or about 900 times more than an apple. But it would surely be absurb to think that apples will glycate less then olive oil?

Fourtly, there something extremely suspect about the fact that whole milk contains 5300 times less AGE than butter. This should make us think twice before thinking that there's something uniquely bad about dairy fat that this study has discovered.

So the findings about butter (and olive oil) are highly dubious.

On the exogenous AGE controversy, it is certainly plausible that exogenous AGE intake is biologically significant, even though it's a small portion of overall AGEs for people on a normal diet. Fwiw, I do treat high-temperature cooked meats as probably less healthy than gently cooked equivalents and do prefer offal to muscle meat (which also produces fewer AGEs) and like to throw as many herbs and spices onto my meat as possible (although technically this might only refers to HCAs not AGEs) for the same reason, but it certainly doesn't seem that this is a major factor in overall health. A high AGE diet might well fall into category of paleo but non-optimal.

4
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on October 22, 2010
at 04:27 PM

It's not just butter it's virtually ALL cooked food, which is why my gut(stomach and brain) both tell me somethings wrong.

I believe I was reading Eades talking about ingested AGEs not being the concern, but rather internally created ones.

He cited studies showing fructose consuming veg*ns had more AGEs than omnivores.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:58 PM

Eades post here...http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:28 PM

Correlation =\= Causation.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:57 PM

Eades did not critically review the AGE paper he mentioned. The vegetarian group was significantly older, ate a ton more fructose, etc. Glycation and aging is not about correlation, there is an interesting and specific biological plausability there.

3
100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 22, 2010
at 04:10 PM

What evidence is there that dietary AGEs result in AGEs in our tissue? Is this another case like dietary fat and dietary cholesterol?

We did grow up on a campfire, though I don't know to what extent exposure to AGEs would effect our evolution, since ageing is not always a reproductive problem.

2
3864f9a2af09b1b447c7963058650a34

(3703)

on October 29, 2010
at 02:47 PM

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/is-butter-high-in-ages.html

I have to give some credit to Davis as being otherwise visionary in helping folks get off their addiction from wheat and get some sun/vit D. RE: ANY nutritional studies -- as the Jersey folks say FUHHHGEDABOUTIT.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on October 29, 2010
at 06:31 PM

Just read, that's a really good article actually.

1
3864f9a2af09b1b447c7963058650a34

(3703)

on October 29, 2010
at 02:43 PM

Consider reading: http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/10/melissa-mcewen-says-women-need-manly.html

Davis is not paleo FYI (the paleo links were all advised by me)

1
21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:05 PM

AGEs don't matter because we'll die at a young age due to hunting accidents and whatnot.

HOLD ON...that's ancient paleos. This is a potentially important issue for us modern paleos, and slightly nudges me to slow cook things more to avoid the extreme AGEs caused by medium-high temperature cooking.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 07:44 PM

Melissa- that paper is about modern hunter gatherers, not paleolithic people. Have you seen any papers about fossil records indicating a mean paleo lifespan much longer than ~34 years? I don't think I've seen any.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 07:20 PM

Ambimorph--that is most definitely true. But that doesn't effect the mean lifespan of paleolithic people as compared to modern people. If cumulative glycation due to using lots of butter and pan-fried meat hits you when you're 65 years old, that is a big problem for us and not a big problem for most ancient paleos. I love paleo, but don't understand paleo dogmatism. Our lives are different and longer than those of our ancestors, and there are some dietary tweaks that might benefit us.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:23 PM

They didn't all die young. Modern tribes have elders and likely so did paleo tribes. Elders seem to be very important for stability and guidance of the tribe. In most tribal societies (all I've seen), elders are respected if not revered and make the rules for the tribe. The older ones also have knowledge of events that only happen occasionally, like maybe only once every 30 or 40 years and so are better able to deal with unusual problems.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 07:38 PM

here is one good read http://bit.ly/dbXs2o?r=td

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 07:37 PM

I'll pull up some papers when I get some time, but the age estimations of many studies are off because of data mistakes. Unfortunately pop culture didn't get the memo.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:41 PM

Violence solves nothing. I'm going to accept an oatmeal cookie from the next person who realizes that the average upper paleolithic lifespan of ~34 years is less than half of the current US lifespan of ~78 years, and AGEs would be WAY more important for us. Are my facts off? Are you going off life expectancy at 15 instead of at birth? Will I be attacked any time I don't view paleo life in a glittering light?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 22, 2010
at 06:30 PM

I'm going to force an oatmeal cookie down the throat of the next person who parrots the outdated/discredited "cavemen died young."

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 22, 2010
at 07:11 PM

I think the point is that it can be a survival win to have older people around. Anyone with children must be acutely aware of this. If you die early, even if you have successfully reproduced, it can still affect the viability of your offspring.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:47 PM

Eva- this isn't an issue of paleo tribes having elder members. As an analogy, Parkinsons is probably a bigger issue for modern people than paleo people, because the disease spikes with old age. AGEs aren't so important in your twenties or thirties, but could be an important factor for diseases of old age (which is one reason why some people eat paleo, coincidentally--that chronic effects of nutrition should be considered in addition to acute effects).

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:42 PM

Hold on, what? What does the glycation and aging have to do with fat, cholesterol, or bandwagons? And yes, if you eat calories above your metabolic requirement, you get fat. Whether those calories come from fat, protein, or carb.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on October 23, 2010
at 03:33 AM

Yes, tribal people often died young. Many died at birth! The birth death rate alone drastically affects average lifespan. Others are killed in accidents. But that does not change the liklihood that some people living to be old is probably beneficial to the tribe. And since most tribes members are related and carry related DNA, the success of the whole tribe really does strongly improve the chances of one's DNA passing along. In order for your DNA to travel, not just your kids, but the kids of your kids must ALSO survive. This is what living a longer time does for your DNA.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on October 22, 2010
at 08:10 PM

Back on topic. The main point here is that you're jumping on the fat makes you fat, cholesterol raises cholesterol bandwagon with no proof. Don't blame the firemen for the fires.

0
566ec93d6f394186a7da1fc38669c131

on October 23, 2010
at 05:41 AM

I do believe there is something to it and I think it all stems from this grey area we have regarding Paleo being our guide to optimal health, and then the domain of extreme longevity (100+ years old) where Paleo or Evolutionary history & selection has almost no effect. I think AGEs is one of these.

Eat all the char-grilled and high AGE food you want and it will probably have a negligible effect on your health up until the upper-bound of Paleolithic human life span of ~80 years old. But set your sights on 100+ (which I am genuinely starting to believe is feasible for almost everyone if every aspect of aging is addressed) and the lifelong AGE consumption could negatively effect your goals. As Dr Davis outlined it is just basic biology when you get down to the nitty gritty.

I think as we all explore what it means to be healthy, and as such continue to be on the frontline of this investigation, we will continue to come up against issue such as these. Paleo doesn't stop aging, it just greatly slows it down. So there is nothing incompatible with Paleo in the idea that certain things minimising AGEs could also potentially further slow down this aging process. We have really good Paleo reasoning for why we love AGEs and burnt food; for our ancestors the risk from AGEs was FAR outweighed by the need to thoroughly cook food and ensure it was edible and free of parasites. This is why we all love crispy chicken skin, pork crackling, BBQ, a char-grilled steal, etc. However in the modern world we no longer have this constraint; so we can consider that this perhaps is no longer an optimal practice to eat burnt food.

Personally I am keeping this issue in mind as I explore new recipes and foods keeping a consideration to lower AGE containing foods like soups and sushi... but I write this after having just gnawed on a dripping char-grilled piece of meat ;)

0
F5698e16f1793c0bb00daea6a2e222a4

(678)

on October 22, 2010
at 06:39 PM

right or deep end is irrelevant imo, since i'm not giving up butter. :)

D30ff86ad2c1f3b43b99aed213bcf461

on October 22, 2010
at 06:51 PM

Hard now to conceive of life without Kerrygold!!

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!