What the Science Says

Have you, or are you considering, having your DNA tested? If you are, I urge you to wait. The current tests only focus on a few specific genes, like MTHFR, BRCA, APO, and a few others that have drawn attention for their possible or potential connection to things like cancer and Alzheimers. This is just immature science that isn’t ready for prime time. Having a potentially problematic SNP on one of the more “popular” genes does not mean that gene will express and does not mean that said gene even had the power to cause a problem all on its own. A defective BRCA gene can double a woman’s odds of breast cancer from 1% to 2% but unless it is epigenetically triggered, it won’t manifest. Meanwhile, a diet loaded with sugar, artificial flavors, and manufactured shortenings rich in linoleic acid will increase your odds of cancer of one type or another by a much greater margin, making it statistically likely for you to experience cancer by the age of 70, and increase the probability of cancer even younger.

What’s important here is understanding that we are, as I published a short time ago, way out over our skis (https://www.fittrimimmortal.com/blog/out-over-our-skis). We think we know way more than we actually know, and we’re trying to implement technologies that are nowhere near being fully fleshed out. In a few years, I expect to see genetic tests that will look at a much larger segment of the gene structure, the over 100,000 genes, rather than just a dozen or so as current testing does. And perhaps they’ll begin looking at the linkage which explains why two people with identical SNPs on a specific gene, express that difference in a different manner, or one expresses it and the other doesn’t. That’s epigenetics.

DNA was discovered in 1860, but we weren’t able to identify the full human genome until just a few years ago. And we’re still a long way from knowing what each gene does, and even further from understanding the interrelationships of how multiple genes cooperate or fail to. We have 100,000 genes; tweaking just one of them may resolve a simple issue today but cause a myriad of problems down the road. Attempting to toy with this technology, as we did during the pandemic, is reckless beyond your wildest nightmare.

This is exemplified almost daily as new papers are published detailing how we can play with metabolic factors to achieve a specific result, like weight loss, muscle gain, hair growth, or better erections. Often the next paper shows that the same results can be achieved in other ways, or that the achievement of the desired result today means other problems down the road. Back in the ‘70s, when my buddies at the gym and I were pounding protein powders and creatine to get huge, things were so much simpler. And most of that was derived from natural sources, not beakers.

A few weeks back, I wrote about science running amok (article linked abover). A generation ago, we didn’t know about the machinations of DNA. Today, some short-sighted scientists think that we do. But we don’t. The interrelationships are far too complex for the current state of our knowledge. A recent paper — peer reviewed and published in Nature Metabolism — underscores my point perfectly. This is a story about running with “brand new” science without completely understanding all that’s involved.

Identification of a leucine-mediated threshold effect governing macrophage mTOR signalling and cardiovascular risk (with apologies, this study is behind a paywall)

The paper claims to show that a high protein diet is dangerous because a high protein diet stimulates excess mTOR activation, which they show as causative for arterial plaquing and resulting in greater potential for ischemic heart disease or stroke. Except that what it shows is the danger of a little bit of knowledge, even if that “little bit of knowledge” is generated by a collection of PhDs.

What they got right is that mTOR activation stimulates muscle growth, and part of that process involves elements consistent with plaque buildup. Excessive mTOR activation can be highly problematic for cancer patients, because mTOR will help tumors grow as well as muscles. mTOR activation also interferes with autophagy, that process by which our bodies clean house, ridding us of marginal senescent cells, including potential cancer cells, allowing for their replacement with newer and better cells. And to this end, I salute the study, because it underscores an important factor, even though the researchers missed it.

Activating mTOR promotes healthy body composition and consequently healthy glucose metabolism and reduced levels of basal inflammation. Bodybuilders (a hobby I consider basically unhealthy) want maximum activation of mTOR, IGF-1 and HGH. mTOR also boosts the immune system protecting from infection and disease. It has been theorized, but not proven that some of these practices enhance the potential for cancer. I’m not sure there’s much evidence there either.

What the authors missed is that mTOR, like every other hormone, neurotransmitter and cofactor of human metabolism operates in rhythmic cycles. We want to be parasympathetic at night and sympathetic during the day. We want high levels of melatonin and low levels of cortisol at night to help us sleep, and the opposite in the morning to help us start our engines. Suppressing mTOR activity in a cyclic manner can be effected by simply fasting, for 16+ hours, or even a few days. And looking at mankind’s historic patterns, virtually every civilization had to deal with a certain amount of seasonal depravation and hardship. Fasting has been a part of the human experience since our expulsion from the Garden, right up until the twentieth century, in most western cultures. Fully understanding mTOR’s role in both muscle synthesis and suppression of autophagy helps us understand the need to give our digestive system a break and allow our bodies to stop digesting food for an extended period of time on the majority of our days, which suppresses mTOR for several hours each day, triggering autophagy as well as giving a bit of a rest to other systems.

mTOR also activates thyroid hormone production, which leads to higher LDL receptor activity, and is thereby a central protection against atherosclerosis. So mTOR all the time is bad; mTOR in cycles is good. What was done in the study was to feed a high protein diet (focusing on leucine, one of the branch-chain amino acids (BCAAs) the others being isoleucine and valine. This study stands to cause problems for athletes who quite often supplement BCAAs, based on earlier research that credits them with the ability to help build muscle, and also to help endurance athletes avoid loss of muscle mass that can accompany extreme events like marathons, ultramarathons, long-course triathlons and extreme cycling events. But the reality is that given a traditional (for thousands of years) diet which did not include three meals a day plus snacks, our bodies can handle mTOR, and literally requires it to maintain healthy muscle mass.