> all these data come from nonhuman lab animals

Though what I have see so far is far from everything that could be learned from these surprisingly-humanlike mammals. Still need more research on timing. Maybe protein metabolism is not that different from the better studied methods of derailing glucose metabolism. Maybe the damage is set and done after any prolonged phase of inappropriate diet, and later minor adjustments in consumption have very little additional effect, after controlling for weight and caloric intake.

Maybe all humans need to do is watch their protein intake until puberty.. and then only 60 years later, as failing to retain muscle strength becomes more likely to kill them than any detrimental effect of excessive protein intake.

https://archive.is/c8Pep (avoid the popups)

I don't know. Is there really a signal here when it comes to humans? It seems most of the arguments come from one study? Would be interesting to hear those here at HN that are smarter than me comment on this one.

>Think of the body like a car, suggests Clemence Blouet, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Cambridge in the UK. You can drive fast, using lots of fuel and putting wear and tear on the auto. Or you can stick to a gentle 15 miles per hour, and the car lasts longer. Living in a high-protein or high-calorie fast lane, she muses, could lead to the accumulation of those pro-aging oxygen radicals. Protein, in particular, also turns on systems that promote growth as well as aging. Restricting the diet could mean fewer of those damaging radicals and less pro-aging actions, keeping the body in smoothly working order for longer.

The implications here for quality of life are pessimistic. Also, the "extension" in the study is about 10%, but driving responsibly can make your car last many times longer.

I think that fasting-mimicking diets are a way to potentially get some of these benefits through occasionally engaging these "slower speed" repair mechanisms without permanently living with bare minimum protein intake. But I also think that at this point so far we've seen fat, sugar, and then all carbohydrates villainized. I don't think that excessive protein is going to turn out to be a good idea either and it will likely also have its turn as villain, especially after all of these new high protein fad foods that are still highly processed junk run their course. People just need to balance their damn nutrients and eat whole foods. There aren't many real shortcuts to health, but we're just desperate to find them due to time poor societies obsessed with hyper-optimization.

Radicals, i think mostly caused by high carbohydrates, ie Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) which probably mainly are generated by overconsumotion of carbohydrates.

You can have a keto/carnivore diet which, will minimize AGEs, is the meat/protein actually bad for you? (Assuming you avoid the std diet carb overconsumption ofc)

> Protein dominates the grocery shelves: Protein chips. Protein cookies. Protein water.

Yeah and most of it is incomplete plant protein missing amino acids.

> Protein restriction, Phillips says, is a sort of “lite” version of a more well-known longevity hack — caloric restriction.

I'm confused by this since protein is much lower calorie than fat or carbs.

>Yeah and most of it is incomplete plant protein missing amino acids.

Common misconception. Soybean, quinoa, buckwheat provide all essential amino acids in good proportions

almost all plant proteins contain all nine essential amino acids, just in lower proportions.

protein and carbohydrate are both 4 calories per gram?

When you include the thermic effect of food protein is closer to 3 calories per gram. Ie it burns about a calorie to digest a gram of protein

Protein serving size is generally lower than carbs in a typical meal. It's not that simple.