Found in humans, they are bio markers for quite a few diseases, including diabetes (type 2 = insulin resistance).
Food sources are animal products.
Wiki says vegetarians have been shown to have more than non-vegetarians, discounting dietary reasons for high levels in humans. This study suggests otherwise.
What's interesting about them is that if you microwave your food, you get fewer of them[1]. That's because they are primarily produced by the mallard reaction which is caused by food, such as bread, getting toasted[2]. The worst foods for this are barbecued stuff. Also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke!
> they are primarily produced by the mallard reaction
Hmm, I wonder if the propensity to poach, velvet or steam meats aligns with some of the discrepancies we see in diabetes and longevity among otherwise similarly-eating populations.
The infographic in the article suggests they occur in aged cheeses, fried foods (including chips and french fries), roasted nuts (including peanut butter), and seared tofu. I believe those are all vegetarian staples.
The infographic also blames it on seared meats and fried eggs, so not exclusively an issue for vegetarians. The link to diet in general does seem a little tenuous though?
For the uninitiated in Advanced Glycation Ends (AGEs):
> AGEs can also be ingested from food, especially food cooked at high temperatures and with little moisture, like grilled meats, fried foods, and baked goods.[23] The Maillard reaction is the main nonenzymatic reaction known to form AGEs in cooking and is famously known for the distinct browning color and complex flavor and aroma of roasted coffee, French fries, seared meat, and other favorites.
That's a good first-order approximation, but is missing some nuance.
An example they use is eggs: Pan-fried eggs are listed as high in AGEs, whereas scrambled eggs aren't. Admittedly my diet isn't the best, but I wouldn't have expected a meaningful difference between ordering my eggs scrambled vs sunnyside-up.
Or for meat, stewed meat would be healthier than roasted meat.
I'm suddenly curious about coffee, now that they mention it...
I haven't read the full paper, but do they control for fat intake? Because pretty much everything on the "high AGE" side of the infographic is also high in fats, and we already have studies that show high fat diets have a negative effect where diabetes is concerned
No, "calories in, calories out" is a popular myth, usually used as a way to insult and degrade people who are overweight.
You could drink your body's caloric needs in gasoline each day, but you'd quickly find out that WHAT you consume affects your body's response too. Biology is surprisingly complex.
The "calories in" part is usually understood to mean "metabolically available calories from food (& drink) in a human or other animal's diet". Calories from heat, electricity, gasoline, etc., wouldn't count.
There can be some edge cases around water retention, foods an individual happens to metabolize more/less effectively than average, & practical considerations like negative-satiety foods (things like candy or beer that contain calories but end up making you more hungry after a short while). Metabolic & activity level changes are another confounding variable one might need to track. But overall the CICO model gives accurate predictions for weight change in most cases as far as I know. I pay attention to my diet & weight & it's been perfectly reliable for me (although maybe that makes me biased to think it's a better model than it really is -- sorry if that's the case)
Anyway, you'll need to provide some evidence other than a straw-man/non-sequitur about drinking gasoline if you want to convince me CICO is a "myth"
Spreading "cope" hurts other people who read it and believe. Bomb-calorimeter energy is an upper bound on what your body can extract from the food, and limiting an upper bound works.
But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. It's more for the purpose of maintaining some muscle mass as you drop weight. But junk food companies like to skew perception ("balance what you drink and do") to make it seem like a Big Gulp would be ok if only you ran more. Yeah, they're happy to shame and mislead overweight people, so long as they keep buying.
For others who also don't know what advanced glycation end-products are/are a bit confused by the headline:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-produ...
Found in humans, they are bio markers for quite a few diseases, including diabetes (type 2 = insulin resistance).
Food sources are animal products.
Wiki says vegetarians have been shown to have more than non-vegetarians, discounting dietary reasons for high levels in humans. This study suggests otherwise.
What's interesting about them is that if you microwave your food, you get fewer of them[1]. That's because they are primarily produced by the mallard reaction which is caused by food, such as bread, getting toasted[2]. The worst foods for this are barbecued stuff. Also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke!
[1]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3704564/
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction
> they are primarily produced by the mallard reaction
Hmm, I wonder if the propensity to poach, velvet or steam meats aligns with some of the discrepancies we see in diabetes and longevity among otherwise similarly-eating populations.
> also, carmel color is very rich in advanced glycation end products, so avoid Diet Coke!
Interesting, why can't all of chemistry not provide a better formulation for darkening Coke? is there something difficult to mask in there?
1 reply →
Why do caramelized or otherwise 'yarded foods please us then?
The infographic in the article suggests they occur in aged cheeses, fried foods (including chips and french fries), roasted nuts (including peanut butter), and seared tofu. I believe those are all vegetarian staples.
The infographic also blames it on seared meats and fried eggs, so not exclusively an issue for vegetarians. The link to diet in general does seem a little tenuous though?
2 replies →
Don't over-cook your food. AGEs, PAHs, etc. are all bad.
but how else will we get that sweet sweet aroma from Maillard reaction....
6 replies →
Original paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39320860/
This definition of AGEs is interesting (linked from the article, same site):
"Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) form when proteins and fats (lipids) in the body react with sugar (glucose) and become glycated and oxidized."
So, maybe it's not so much the Maillard reaction but that sweetened brioche bun used in your fancy hamburger.
Or that bag of Doritos washed down with a bottle of Mountain Dew!
That's how AGEs are formed in the body. The article is primarily about dietary intake of AGEs that are formed in high temperatures with certain foods.
For the uninitiated in Advanced Glycation Ends (AGEs):
> AGEs can also be ingested from food, especially food cooked at high temperatures and with little moisture, like grilled meats, fried foods, and baked goods.[23] The Maillard reaction is the main nonenzymatic reaction known to form AGEs in cooking and is famously known for the distinct browning color and complex flavor and aroma of roasted coffee, French fries, seared meat, and other favorites.
In short, if it tastes nice and was man-processed, it probably will be bad for you?
That's a good first-order approximation, but is missing some nuance.
An example they use is eggs: Pan-fried eggs are listed as high in AGEs, whereas scrambled eggs aren't. Admittedly my diet isn't the best, but I wouldn't have expected a meaningful difference between ordering my eggs scrambled vs sunnyside-up.
Or for meat, stewed meat would be healthier than roasted meat.
I'm suddenly curious about coffee, now that they mention it...
5 replies →
Well, it was good for us when we first tamed fire, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Ain't greater modern cargo cult than "healthy food".
1 reply →
I haven't read the full paper, but do they control for fat intake? Because pretty much everything on the "high AGE" side of the infographic is also high in fats, and we already have studies that show high fat diets have a negative effect where diabetes is concerned
Wonder if these negative outcomes still exist if high and low AGE diets were iso-caloric
No, "calories in, calories out" is a popular myth, usually used as a way to insult and degrade people who are overweight.
You could drink your body's caloric needs in gasoline each day, but you'd quickly find out that WHAT you consume affects your body's response too. Biology is surprisingly complex.
The "calories in" part is usually understood to mean "metabolically available calories from food (& drink) in a human or other animal's diet". Calories from heat, electricity, gasoline, etc., wouldn't count.
There can be some edge cases around water retention, foods an individual happens to metabolize more/less effectively than average, & practical considerations like negative-satiety foods (things like candy or beer that contain calories but end up making you more hungry after a short while). Metabolic & activity level changes are another confounding variable one might need to track. But overall the CICO model gives accurate predictions for weight change in most cases as far as I know. I pay attention to my diet & weight & it's been perfectly reliable for me (although maybe that makes me biased to think it's a better model than it really is -- sorry if that's the case)
Anyway, you'll need to provide some evidence other than a straw-man/non-sequitur about drinking gasoline if you want to convince me CICO is a "myth"
Spreading "cope" hurts other people who read it and believe. Bomb-calorimeter energy is an upper bound on what your body can extract from the food, and limiting an upper bound works.
But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. It's more for the purpose of maintaining some muscle mass as you drop weight. But junk food companies like to skew perception ("balance what you drink and do") to make it seem like a Big Gulp would be ok if only you ran more. Yeah, they're happy to shame and mislead overweight people, so long as they keep buying.
3 replies →
I don't think "drink gas" is a reasonable rebuttal, better to actually provide some kind of a reference[1].
1: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/to-lose-weight-focus...
If I had to choose between sugar and meat that's been Maillarded, the properly cooked meats win by a landslide.
Stop the war on Maillard. Start the war on sugar.
better show the graphics to my kids, it's very well done
Page Not Found
I got that at first, but it worked on the second click.