Slashdot Mirror
Low-Cal Diet Extends Life... As Long as You Don't Eat
There has been a lot of research recently showing that a restricted calorie diet can extend the lifespans of various creatures. Sadly, it seems that as soon as they start eating again, the benefits are lost.
studies have shown that research causes cancer in rats.
Kind of redefines the term "lifetime" too
I mean hey, a complete starvation diet is one to last a lifetime!
(a very short lifetime)
Here's the google link directly to the story.
- b
Research also shows that eggs are bad for you .. no wait, make that good. Wait, here is a new study....
Who knows what to believe half the time? A low-calorie diet is good if you need to lose weight, plain and simple. Otherwise, eat the amount of calories you need to maintain your weight. It's not an exact science, but if you avoid the junk food and make half an effort to eat sensibly, there shouldn't be much to worry about.
We'll live longer if we don't eat, drink, smoke, fuck and so on...
/rumagent
But what is the point of having life if you don't live it? Boring people may live longer, but they live less.
... it just seems that way
Diets which you do for a short period of time to lose weight before reverting to your normal eating habits just do not work. The only way to permanently lose weight is to change your lifestyle permanently -- what you eat and how much exercise you do.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This one defines pointless research
with all the pizzas and cokes and donuts everyone eats around here, expect a early death.
Can anyone really usefully apply this information to their lives? I don't mean this sarcastically, but in order to practically apply what was learned in this article, we'd have to know our date of death given our current diet. Then, 48 hours before the date of death (assuming we work the same as a fruit fly, which I doubt), we would begin our life-extending diet.
Maybe when we reach a day where we can tell our date of death and are able to keep any permanent damage from happening in the meantime, ie: a heart attack, kidney damage, etc, this would be useful.
On top of that, I didn't see a mention as to what kind of calories the fruit flies were being fed. Does a person who has 1200 calories of McDonalds a day vs someone who has 1200 calories of fruits/veggies/grains a day get the same "armour" effect?
So as it is now, the message is: Restrict your calorie intake NOW and you might live longer. We can't say if you were going to die at 25 given your diet or 90, but start NOW.
In other news: Not skydiving, driving, and living near a coal plant can extend your life.
this thread makes me hungry !!! whos down for some pizza?
d035 7hi5 100k 1ik3 4n l337 5i6 2 j00 ?
That brings up another issue... when does life stop being worth living?
This is the question that the euthanasia folks would dearly love society to answer... but they can't; it's an individual decision. This is part of the drive behind people getting living wills, durable powers of attorney for healthcare, and advance directive, etc.
I'm not quite to mid-life, without a single health problem. I run, work out, don't smoke, or drink to excess... and I have a living will, AND advance directives. Why? Because, as a physician, I have SEEN life that's not worth living (at least it wouldn't be for me), and I would never want to get to that point. I encourage people, even healthy ones, to think about a living will... and to have the necessary conversations with their loved ones and significant others. Once you're critically ill/vegitative, unable to make that choice for yourself, and others are trying to deal with the emotional trauma of your incapacitation... that is NOT the time to attempt an objective conversation about it.
Yes, you can diet, and deprive yourself of all the "good things" in life, but is that really a life worth living, particularly if it only buys you a small, arbitrary gain? Again, it's an individual decision.
I think I'll keep eating my cheeseburgers.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
that Einstein studied dieting, that face sure does get around
On my "lifesyle" change I had lost 60 pounds. I wobbled a bit and gained 5 back, but I'l losing 1-2 pounds a week again.
There is one things that keeps getting hammered into my head.
We don't need all the food we eat to survive or even be full. Once your stomach learns what it needs, it won't keep asking for more more more.
People with the "supersize" this and the "extra large" that are slowly killing themselves each time they order more than they need.
But let's face it. I'd rather die in my 60's then to live 20 years longer in a nursing home.
Just remember slashdotters, you can have ONE slice of pizza for dinner and still be ok for your daily caloric intake.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Studies have shown that male animals (of various species) that are kept separated from females all their lifes can live up to 20% longer. In other words having no sex lets you live longer. The combination of forced abstinence and strict diet can add decades to a person's life.
As a Belgian Radio announcer commented when this result was published, this finally explains why Catholic priests have a surprising tendency to die around 28.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
It means we can eat much, much more without any woory about calories...
This type of study makes me think that the body can only consume a finite about of food in its lifetime. Go through that amount slowly and you extend your time here; go through it quickly and reduce your time here.
A study on dogs showed a 16% increase in life span for a calorie restricted diet -- thats a couple of extra dog years or perhaps decade or two of more life for a person. Sounds good, right? The problem was that the dogs had to eat 25% less than normal to get 16% more life than normal.
As someone who enjoys his kibble, I would argue that less chow = lower quality of life. So for 25% less quality of life, I get 16% more quantity of life. Sounds like a bad deal to me.
Moreover, the report said nothing about the energy levels of these poor long-starving mutts -- do starved creatures have any energy for fun and games? Due to the realities of physiology, I'd bet that a 25% reduction in energy input leads to a more that 25% reduction in energy available for discretionary, fun activities. On a restricted diet, a greater fraction of the meager intake is diverted to basic maintenance of the body.
I'm not saying that obesity is not a real killer of both quantity and quality of life. I'm only saying that restricted calorie diets come with tradeoffs.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
cool! :)
...
and to add to being hungry:
testing hungry male mice with "normal" female mice showed that hungry mice where better/more-eager to perform than "normal" or "fat" male mice
of course this depends on our life-style and your partner (since we are humans). some people perform better after taking their date to dinner. the blood-suger levels go up -> get horny.
but then we know that there are at least two types of muscle cells. one typ that burns calories with oxygen and the other muscle typ that does not need oxygen. something
not all sex is created equal!
I would gladly lower my calories entries if only I could cut my appetite. What science needs to create now is a pill that cuts appetite without any side effects.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Be chaste, eat right, excerise, die anyway....
Sorry, I think I'd rather enjoy these few short years than try to extend them knowing we all meet the same end.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
C'mon people, I like to eat as much as the next guy or gal! The point is, just stop stuffing yourself silly--restricted calories != starvation, just limiting your intake so that you're not pushing yourself past full when you eat. I'm so sick of seeing fat Americans everywhere I go. We really have to do something about our problem. It's gross and embarressing, and *extremely* unhealthy.
Look both ways before you cross the road.
Low-cal diet extendes life, expands consciousness. Low-cal diet is vital for space travel.
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
Will the circle be unbroken? ;)
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Every time I turn on the news "Scientists say X is good for you. No, wait, it's bad for you. Wait, it's good for you."
One day there will be a study claiming that bacon is good for you. You will then find me on the roof with a rifle.
(another overweight computer nerd)
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
When Hillary Clinton asked Strom Thurmond his secret to staying fit, he replied that he never ate anything larger than an egg. I guess it worked for him.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
Alternatively, find some fast food outlet that serves E. Coli and Salmonella with its food.
this is the proof
I'll never eat again
I'll be thousands of years old
god I'm so afraid of death
I can hardly move
When It comes to improving your health, regular fasting may be just as beneficial as counting calories. In a recent study, mice that were fed only every other day (but could gorge on the days they did eat) experienced similar health benefits to ones that had their portions of food reduced by 40 percent. Researchers believe that going without food imposes a mild stress on bodily cells, which respond by increasing their ability to cope with more severe stress. The fasting mice also showed an increased resistance to Alzheimer's disease and diabetes, and earlier studies found that mice that fasted every other day had extended life spans.
Source: National institute on Aging
Ron Paul
Don't forget to get up and move every now and then, as well. People don't realize that this is a major factor in health. Why does the Atkins diet work for so many people? Because you don't need carbohydrates if you sit in an office all day. The food pyramid should practically say, "For an active lifestyle."
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
After my birthday next week, I am hoping to lose 50lbs using the very low carb Adkins type of diet. Our Unix God at work has lost 46lbs so far and kept it off.
No pizza, chips or donuts, but you can eat eggs and meat all day.
The bizzare thing is it lowers your cholesterol. My dads cardiologist has been on it for 6 months and his cholesterol has dropped 30%. Eating eggs and red meat.
I will miss bread and french (sorry, FREEDOM) fries, but it will be nice to be able to take a deep breath...
Research showing the life extending benefits of a low calorie diet has been known for a long while. What wasn't known was exactly why it works. One leading theory is that eating food (which contains oxidants) led to the gradual breakdown of cells and other important biological structures. This study seems to suggest otherwise.
If the reduction in the aging process was simply caused by a reduction in oxidation of cells, that means you wouldn't expect to see the same benefit for someone who suddenly went on a restricted calorie diet. That changes the focus to suggest that restricting the diet triggers biological pathways within the organism that has this protective effect.
It may be something very simple, or it may be far more complex. Reduced diet organisms tend to not reproduce and generally slow down. It could be that simply being able to reproduce can lead to forms of mortality that shortens lifespan (e.g. it causes cancer, takes energy away from cell repair, or something else). If it's something that basic, I could see a drug therapy that everyone starts taking after a certain age that switches people's metabolism into "restricted calorie" mode, even if they're eating normally.
Of course, these things are rarely that simple. Even if it was possible to create such a drug, it may simply make people feel too bad (starving isn't usually fun). The few individuals who have decided to go on a restricted calorie diet tend to have pretty poor quality of life, not being able to do really active things or enjoy a meal.
Finally, the research I've seen that relates to long-lived men tend to have one thing in common. They are all in excellent physical shape, regularly exercising an excessive amount. Women evidently have more flexability and don't have to be quite so active, but men seem to need a large amount of physical exercise. It could be that there are two different paths to longevity, one involving eating little and staying still, and the other eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Me, I'm going with the second approach. Food tastes too good to me.
(and yes, I do have a master's degree in biology, though it is collecting dust these days)
The funny thing is that although fruitflies on a restricted diet live much longer, they basically stop all reproductive activity -- which, arguably, is the whole point of this "life thing". So the longer lifespan, in some sense, is more like a drawn out death.
If that's not irony I don't know what is.
I think some of the people here are missing the point of the research.
Scientists have known that restricting your intake of food helps leads to a longer lifetime. Note that the emphasis is not on eating correctly or better, but just less. Based on my limited biochemistry/metabolism knowledge, this is thought to be a consequence of how your GI system breaks down food and the long-term effect of the potent chemical processes on your body; this is also briefly restated in the article.
Where this differs is that they have shown that benefits can be had at any time in an organism's life cycle, indicating that something else is afoot. So no, this is not yet another study that says you should go on the Atkins/grapefruit/carrot soup/wicker chair & bagels diet.
on your willpower... would that more people had the same drive to stay fit.
However, instead of willpower, people are going the bariatric surgery route... I've seen more TV news magazine reports recently about this trend than I've ever seen before. Danger, Will Robinson.
Apart from the obvious complications of surgery (bleeding, wound dehissence, infection, obstruction, etc, etc), stomach stapling changes your lifestyle permanently. Some of these things would be real burden for slashdotters... for instance:
You become nable to drink during meals (your stomach is so small after the surgery, it cannot hold both food AND drink)
Carbonated beverages are to be avoided (same reason as above... no Mountain Dew, no Jolt, no Bawls.)
No alcohol (beer will stretch your now-tiny stomach as much as regular carbonated beverages). Also, about half of consumed alcohol is broken down in the stomach via alcohol dehydrogenase... theoretically, you could find that your whiskey sours pack about double the punch as before (not necessarily a good thing).
You are also not necessarily done with surgery after your stapling. Ever see a person who has lost 150lbs or so? They have skin folds just hanging off of them... plastic surgery is required to get rid of the redundant skin. The potential also exists for nutritional deficiencies, like B-12. To be fair, the liver stores a fair quantity of B-12, so this might only show up 10-15 years down the road. Bottom line: The true long-term effects of this operation are not known.
I don't even know what to say to the people who purposely make themselves fatter so they can qualify for the surgery... it's madness.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
It's pretty damn obvious that a good diet will result in a healthier body which in itself will result in a longer life span, but as many have stated, at what cost ?
:)
I guess it depends how much you really do like your 'damaging' food ?
With a bit of wisdom, however, you can have your cake and eat it - within reason.
Read into the research of the Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Insulin and Serotonin and you'll find out that you can still eat the 'good stuff' and be healthy, resulting in a longer life.
So, effectively, there is little cost to being healthy.
For geeks, a diet based on the research into HGH has shown that you will attain better stamina, concentration and energy.
So all you 'what the heck, I'm going to enjoy my life and pig out' people - have a nice short life !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Many people are missing the point of CRON (calorie restricted, optimal nutrition) diets. The goal of these diets is not to make you skinny. The hypothesis is that even a skinny person who eats a LOT but exercises a LOT is still worse off than someone who just eats very little, even if they end up weighing the same. The idea is that the very processes of digestion is incredibly stressful on the human body, so if you minimize it, you can extend your lifespan.
CONGRATS!
how much "living" are you really going to be accomplishing after 80, and based on what standard would you define it?
I've met some pretty spry 70-80yo folks... if you take care of yourself your whole life, you really can extend it in a quality way... I truly believe that.
However, you will not be living the same way you are now. Simple age will intervene at some point; virtually everyone develops medical problems if they live long enough. Even if you didn't work at a nuclear plant, you receive enough background radiation during your life that cancer is always a possibility... genetic damage accumulates. Osteoarthritis will set in eventually, it's a wear-and-tear phenomenon that will get you if you live long enough. Your bowels may not function like they once did (never underestimate the value of a properly functioning GI tract). Your prostate will gradually enlarge (eventually necessitating a procedure to open it up). Your eyesight and hearing may start to decline. You may outlive many of your friends (this can be real problem for the octogenarian+ group, and contributes to isolation, depression, etc). You may develop a heart attack or stroke (much of the body's cholesterol level is genetic, and only partially affected by drugs and diet).
Simply put, living may not be as fun when you are 80+ years of age. This sounds cliche`, but moderation may simply be the key to the whole game. Enjoy yourself, but don't go nuts... that way you'll live a long time (barring genetic defects and accidents), and you'll have plenty of stories about your adventures to bore your grandkids.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
There has been a lot of research recently showing that a restricted slashdot experience can extend the daily amount of sleep enjoyed by various creatures. Sadly, it seems that as soon as they start slashdotting again, the benefits are lost.
Hunger is the best sauce.
I had a horse trained to never eat at all, but then he died, which was a terrible coincidence because it was a great breakthrough.
1. Eat less.
2. Shit more.
"That brings up another issue... when does life stop being worth living?
.
.
.
I think I'll keep eating my cheeseburgers."
your macdonald's appetite just makes a sewer connoisseur - but it works for you. man! ain't that living!!! good times!!!
Great, now we know that fruit flies are adapated to withstand a season of drought or poor fruit production and still not have the entire species die off. Nifty.
The article did not say if the flies could sustain the same level of activity while they were starved.
After all, if you have ever grown drosophila you know that they do not have much more than a quarter liter of living volume, hardly enough room to work up a good sweat, or whatever fruit flies do fo exercise.
Can the fruit flies also do complex computation on an empty stomach? The article did not address that either.
I know that if I went on the calorie restricted diet, I would get cranky, loose focus at work, be a general pain to be around.
As has been stated before in this discussion, where is the real benefits to us, that is humans?
The only thing we know for sure is that if you skip breakfast, you will live until lunchtime.
Science has now solved the long-standing problem of obesity in flies.
...will quit eating trash and junk when it causes pain and hardship.
Welcome to The New York Times on the Web!
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
As a member, you'll enjoy:
In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE
Please enter your Member ID:
Please enter your password:
Remember my Member ID and password on this computer.
Forgot your password?
That's exactly what this study does NOT suggest.
If this result was because flies could only consume a finite amount of food in their lifetime, then the flies which had been starved their entire life would be different from flies who had only been starved for 48 hours. The article quite explicitly says this is not the case - there is no difference between the lifetime dieters and 48hr dieters.
So how can your claim possibly be true?
"I'd prefer to literally spend several years dying of painful heart disease or cancer than give up my corn dogs!" - Ok... backing away... backing away...
"They're a scientist; so what do they know? I knew a scientist that was wrong about eggs being bad for you once, and they've even been wrong on other occasions!" - trust me, it would be more scary if they were always right
"Low calorie diets don't extend life - they just seem that way" - sounds good, especially if I'm a healthy 95 year old with the illusion that I'm living longer
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Okay... we've uncovered yet another truth in nature... organisms are designed to withstand famine.
Although the human intellect has improved over the millenia, the genetic script for our bodies has been nearly unchanged since the last ice ages. We only see organisms today that can resist famine because evolution has weeded out those strains that couldn't survive. If the creature can't find food or water, it's in the best interest to "pause" some life functions so you can survive until nourishment can be found.
Our bodies are evolved to be fat-storage machines; we have to, because nature can never guarantee the next meal. Our noses, though not as good as some other creatures, are still very receptive to spoiled food. Salt tastes good because our body needs it for cellular processes. Sugar tastes good because it's high energy "food" rare in nature.
But we've broken the cycle. Our insulin proceses the sugars, but never before has so much sugar been available, so now we see diabetes where our insulin receptors are over-exposed and develop a tolerance. We still have fight-or-flight mechanisms, but most of us live such a mundane existance, we release stress chemicals over the slightest event. Then we try these starvation diets, and our bodies don't burn the fat, because it thinks there's real hard times ahead, not realizing we have more food than we can eat.
It's a battle of intellect over evolved chemistry... but slowly we understand what is really going on behind the scenes, and with knowledge comes the power to correct it.
I'm 29 years old and weighed 496lbs 4 weeks ago. As of this morning (I weigh on saturdays after waking up) I weigh 480lbs. I'm averaging 1750 calories a day right now and it seems to be working well. I'm taking delivery of a recumbent cardio bike today and hopefully that will get me to around 5 or 6lbs a week. I've been obese my entire life and never really had a problem carrying my weight cuz I'm 6'6" but now that I'm getting older the pain is starting. Hopefully I can stick with it. That or I'm probably going to kick the bucket alot sooner than my friends and family would like.
Perhaps the media is at fault for people making this conclusion, but the point of such research is not "Shame on all of you for eating too much -- if you stop eating so much you will live longer."
The point is more like this: "We've noticed that in controlled lab environments, feeding animals a restricted calorie diet lengthens their life. Our goal is to find out what body process is involved in this so that we can potentially come up with a way to lengthen the life of humans, without having to put ourselves on such a diet."
For example, here is an article about research into using the drug metformin (which is used to treat diabetes) to reproduce the anti-aging effects of a calorie-restricted diet. The article goes into much more technical detail than the NY Times article.
There are some researchers who beleive they've found the mechanism for this.
When the organism is stressed by lack of food, genes that encode heat shock proteins are activated. HSPs are used when a cell is overtemp, or otherwise stressed, to repair damage to the DNA due to the stress.
The thinking is this: an organism is getting too few calories. The cells start making HSPs due to the stress. The HSPs soak up free radicals, as well as repairing DNA damage. Since the lack of calories is not causing undo damage to the DNA (unlike heat), the net result is more damage due to other environmental effects (radiation, replication errors, toxins) is undone.
In short, the organism's metabolism set to allow it to survive beyond the "famine" to maximize the chances of being able to reproduce once food is available.
The researchers have some good candidate genes for the proteins, and perhaps one day may be able to stimulate the production of these proteins without the need to starve ourselves.
Now, whether the world needs a bunch of long-lived , fat, self-indulgant slobs is another question for which many of the residents of this forum are curiously well-equipped to argue.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Not sure if you are genuine but if so - good luck, it will be worth it. Ahhhhh, you will feel so much better! I don't know about lbs, but I went from about 100kg to 81kg now (6'1" I think I am) and it is WELL WORTH IT!
...if you move seminal fluid daily by whatever means necessary.
Dr. Walford UCLA is the poster boy for calorie restriction. Check out his site at walford.com. Calorie restriction is the only technique found to actually extend life in every species that has ever been tested. Many snake oil salesmen want to get you to pay for the latest supplement or herb, but none of these have any significant research backing up their claims. Dr. Walford's comment to any of these hucksters is show me the mouse studies. I believe that Chimp studies are in progress and preliminary results show that the technique is working -- for full results we will have to wait 20 or 30 more years. That is why there are a large number of humans already practicing calorie restriction including Dr. Walford and presumably has grad students. The big news for those over 25 is that we now have some evidence that the technique works if started later in life.
...this means I should pig out all my life, and stop eating just before I die, so I won't have any time to back-slide.
Wait!....
it has to do with reducing the radical ions produced during the normal food 'burning'/calorie buring in the human body..
..the net efect is loss in wieght but still failure to live longer in years..
Radical ions trigger runaway cell growth(press calls it cancer) that cannot be killed off by the normal cell killing mechanisms(doctors call this process cancer), they accomplish this set of bad effects by damamging DNA beyond what DNA repair enzymes and methods can handle..
In summary Fat/Eating challlenged people will live less in terms of number of years...
While increasing metabolish can cause wieght loss..unless reductions in calorie and food intake is made
Don't Tread on OpenSource
It used to be 'common knowledge' that fully differentiated cells of a given tissue type would each live for a specific length of time and then die.
I argued that this was not so. I suggested that fully differentiated cells of a given tissue type would divide a specific number of times and then stop dividing (Hayflick Limit). I hypothesized the existence of a counter in each cell that kept track of how many more times that cell could divide. Today, those counters are called Tellomeres.
The reason you live longer on a low calorie diet is because your individual cells don't have the fuel to go through their life cycles as quickly. Give them the fuel and they speed up again.
So the idea of waiting until 48 hours before your natural dead would not extend your life by much at all. Sorry.
Tellomeres are like a chain of knots at one end of the DNA. Each time the DNA divides, there's one less knot on the chain. If the cell does not become cancerous, when there are no more knots, the cell ceases to divide. The real answer to life extension will be when we learn how to add knots back onto the Tellomeres.
I expect this problem to be solved within the next 15 years. At that point, it will become possible to slowly roll back the age of the body as, for example, 46th generation smooth muscle cells divide and become 17th generation smooth muscle cells. Over a period of several years your body would effectively become younger.
Good luck! I was up at 250 lbs before I started biking, and I'm down to a more reasonable 180-190. (Depending on whether I'm biking or not.)
I've got to tell you a few important things:
1. It's going to suck. The first few weeks will be the toughest. You'll want to stop a LOT. Do it. Don't kill yourself. Rest if you have to. I had to take 17 breaks on my first ride. It wasn't very far - only about 8 km. There were times when I thought I was going to die. There were a few times when I was sure that I just had. Now I can go almost any distance, any terrain, any incline in town.
2. Get one of those dinky waving flags. It's the best safety device money can buy. The buys in the cars don't care about running you down, but they do care about scratching their finish.
3. Find out if there's a cycing coalition in town. They should have road safety classes or general advice. They should have biking maps, which show the inclines of local hills.
4. Bike shorts are worth the money. I have ones with an outer layer of loose fabric so I'm not a walking sausage.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
If I'm reading the article right, it means that the extension effect has no memory: If a caloric restriction can extend your life by 40 years, then you can choose to apply that at 40, (when you need to lose weight *anyway*) rather than when you're 20, and energetic.
So that, the end result seems to be no matter when you start the diet, you will still only live to 140, but you don't have to do it your whole life to see the benefits; the other effect of starting late is that you can still enjoy quite a bit of life... and then when you feel like dying again, you just start eating cheeseburgers again.
One other point of the story is that if there's no memory effect, then it's possible you can recreate the effects with a drug or treatment, because it doesn't require weeks/months/years of application, but only a single use, and then constant repeated application, for the effect to kick in.
IE, birth control pills have no memory effect, you can use them any time to retard pregnancy and stop any time to get fertile again.
GPL Deconstructed
Are you implying that I spammed this discussion? ;-)
When you work in the healthcare field, and witness the sequela of various medical conditions, it takes a real case of denial to allow yourself to indulge in them... I see way too many withered elderly folks on oxygen tanks to even consider smoking, for example.
Honestly, I think it makes you appreciate your own good health (it certainly does me). When you see how quickly life can change, and what kind of tragedy can happen in the blink of an eye... it reminds me every day to be thankful for what I've been given. Few things are more valuable than your good health.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
This isn't exactly new research. Studies on calorie restriction have been done for decades, and a real-world study was acidentally done in Biosphere II several years back when they couldn't produce as much food as they predicted. Dr. Roy Walford has written a popular book or two on the subject, and he sells a nutritional program called DWIDP to help with the diet. (I actually got my first real programming experience with Java back in 1998 writing my own CR software that used nutritional data from the USDA database, because DWIDP was pretty buggy.) There used to be a CR mailing list called cran@something-or-other for people who were actively doing it; for all I know it's still around.
The good: It really does have a significant impact on health. At my lowest weight I was down to around 115 pounds. At 5'8" with a medium build, this put me 25-30 pounds below "normal" weight. I was *really* thin back then--people would regularly comment on it, and sometimes it was a little difficult to convince people I wasn't anorexic. However, my health was *really* good. I got regular checkups, and ended up educating the doctor on CR because he was a bit surprised at how healthy I was. Blood pressure, resting heart rate, and cholesterol levels were extraordinary for someone who only rarely exercised.
The bad: It's *hard*. I did CR for 2-3 years, and you think about food a lot. If you're really serious about the diet, to the point where you're doing 25% restriction or so, you are almost always hungry. I eventually stopped practicing hardcore CR and started eating more freely, letting my weight get to around 135 (moderate CR). This doesn't have the phenomenal benefits that are seen with the rats on 33% CR, but the general healthiness is still there. But on the other hand, you aren't always thinking about food. After practicing extreme CR, I'm convinced that the amount of extra life you get is going to be less than or equal to the amount of time that you spend thinking about food.
Unless they come up with some kind of drug that allows a person to be 25% under their normal weight without feeling hungry, I doubt CR is ever going to be practical for humans. A couple extra decades just isn't going to be worth the suffering. Quality over quantity.
You do realize that, at this rate, you'll disappear entirely within 2.5 years.
Good luck with the diet. It takes a lot of dedication, but it will be worth it.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Normal rate for weight loss is about 1lb/week, though you could probably expect to drop more rapidly than (maybe 2-3lb/week) that because you're very fat. I think you're going to find it hard to sustain a rate of 5-6lb/week though. Think long-term , be patient and persistent. Given your present state, it will probably take you a few years to get in good shape, but it will be well worth the effort, and those couple of years of hard work will make the remaining years of your life (which will be longer if you lose the weight) much more enjoyable.
I spent many hours on PubMed before going on the Atkins. While there is a tremendous amount of editorializing in the literature (similar to your linked articles) on the Atkins diet, the clicinal studies of low glycemic index/low carbohydrate diets is remarkably rare given how popular these diets are. (What this says about research priorities of our government is an issue in itself).
Generally speaking, all the editorial articles are very negative and all the clinical studies are cautiously positive or could not come to any conclusion because the sample sizes were too small and they were derailed by drop outs. The only relevant recent clinical studies that pointed to a potential pitfall tested a very high protein diet and found calcium excretion. This happens because a high protein diet leads to blood acidity, and the body, which uses the bones as a calcium bank, makes withdrawals to neutralize. This diet did not match the Atkins diet, which is relatively higher in fat and lower in protein. However it might be advisable for people who maintain a long term diet that is low and carbohydrates AND fat to supplement calcium (insert standard disclaimer about my not being a doctor here).
With respect to Atkins being unpalatable, this depends. The problem is that most people eat a very limited diet, and when you take things out of the diet, variety suffers. Many people come home from work and automatically reach for the pasta as a quick and easy solution that they can dress up with different sauces. If you take that out of their routine, they end up having bacon and eggs for breakfast lunch and dinner.
I had no such problem, since I come from a very food savvy family in the restaurant business. Rising to the challenge of creating variety was not has hard for me. On my birthday, when my family was eating cake, I made little rollups of smoked salmon and cream cheese, set on their ends and decorated with festive dollops of black and red caviar. This was perfectly satisfactory to me, but most people would have missed having cake and ice cream.
The biggest challenge to staying off the white flour/sugar bandwagon is that these unnatural foods are so available, often to the exclusion of other foods. Social and business engagements that involve eating (often in restaurants) are particularly a challenge. If everyone wants to go to a Chinese restaurante (not real Chinese cuisine mind you, but the General Gau's Chicken kind of place), you're pretty much going to have limited choice from the menu since everything's packed with sugar.
Unfortunately, Atkin's book invites this kind of editorializing, with its revival tent atmosphere and handwaving scientific explanations. As one researcher quipped -- the diet is far better than the book. The problem is that most of this editorializing is straw-man stuff that is even less scientific than the Atkins book, although the arguments may be tarted up in scientific language. For example, most of these arguments simply don't get the details of the book's recommendations right.
I think Atkins could be improved by a greater emphasis on the ratio of vegetable to animal fats, and probably could be liberalized with respect to whole grain foods later on in the diet. Unfortunatley, while Atkins is not as good as it should be, the standard recommendations (low fat, high carbohydrates) are very bad. Although they are prompted by research results, they have no convincing scientific evidence supporting them. That is because they are based on inferences and assumptions that are unjustified. For example, studies showing the cardiovascular risks of saturated fats lead to the recommendation of low fat consumption. There were three extremely shaky assumptions used here. First, that by reducing fat, people would reduce calorie intake. Second, that they would replace calorie dense fatty foods with low calorie, unrefined carbohydrate sources such as leafy vegetables. Third, that fats in general played no positive role in maintaining health. All thes
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Read any Biochemistry text book (Voet & Voet is/was a good one) on metabolism and you'll BEGIN to understand the foundation for the work just published. The lower the calories consumed, the less oxidation is taking place in our bodies. This is why junk food, Ho-Hos, Twinkies, bleached white bread, Softbatch cookies, gummy bears & worms, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and basically all modern refined sugars ARE BAD FOR YOU. These "foods" are pure energy and have little if any nutritional value. When these foods are consumed, the sugars enter the blood stream where insulin and sugars combine, enter our cells, and are metabolized. For some people, the sugars are converted to fat for later use. For others (including myself who is hypoglycemic) the sugars are burned immediately. What happens when you burn things? They (the fuels) oxidize, and our cells also sustain some oxidative damage, leading to decreased life span. What should you do to live a long high-quality and healthy life? Don't eat junk food, exercise, eat lots of fish and dark green leafy vegatables, take vitamins, and minimize the stress in your life. Eating beef is one of the fastest ways of getting iron into our bodies for preventing amemia. Taking iron vitamin supplements is very much less efficient since the iron isn't absorbed as well into the body. In beef the iron is bound in hemoglobin (blood). Our digestive enzymes are designed for tearing apart hemogloblin and efficiently extracting the iron from it. In vitamin form, iron is usually a salt and not very soluble in water, hence most of it passes right through the digestive system.
This study is not really surprising at all, but is very useful. It's just that someone finally took the time to do a research project and publish their findings.
What I want to know is how does a person get that fat in the first place? I would think that a sane individual would realize, once they couldn't see their own feet, that maybe, jsut maybe, they're a bit fat. I mean, you got to 500 lbs before you did anything about it? Jesus Christ.
This is nice and all, but not practical for those of us who do normal, physical work and exercise outside of work. Maybe if I was an office drone, sure, but I lift and move shit, and walk all day long. At night, I lift weights. I actually do all that I can to eat as much as possible, and I'm having a hard time eating *enough*.
I recently watched a tv show from National Geographic with the name Scientific American Frontiers : Fat and Happy (Episode Title.)
They said that you must get a low calorie (or measuring the average calorie for your daily needs like 2000 Calories) but *high* nutrition.
You do not just starve yourself but you will need to eat foods that have low caloric content but high vitamins and minerals.
They are still doing tests for mice and monkeys. They are still ongoing. They are comparing two groups with one having a regular diet and the other having a low calorie but high nutrition diet. Of course, the one having the higher nutrition and low calorie is doing better (because they are already old.)
I think it is not very difficult to follow a diet this way (maybe hard for Americans because of their lifestyle with too much fast food and fat full foods.) You can still enjoy eating good food but you must manage what you eat.
If you are going to start a diet, *consult a physician.* Based on the show, they will need to get your metabolic rate, etc, to determine your daily neeeds without starving you to death or getting you undernourished.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
Is fasting and praying going to become more popular now?
The easiest way to cut calories is not to drink them. Cut the sweet drinks. Drinking sugar water messes with your blood sugar levels. When your blood sugar goes crazy, your appetite mechanisms do too. If you are thirsty, drink plain water or unsweetened beverages. BTW don't drink too much water - it's dangerous.
Seems to me that the sizes of US-folk have grown with the sizes of their drinks over the years.
Ok. Yeah, life might be difficult for the average 70-80 year old compared to when they were younger, but when I'm 70 years old in 2050 all I can say is:
BIONIC IMPLANTS, BABY!
Seriously, in 47 years medical technology (provided the world's scientific knowledge continues to grow like it does today) will have advanced so that it will offer at least a stepping stone to greater technology down the road.
Good things come to those who wait (and take care of themselves in the meantime).
but you do not know what you are talking about.
Have you had any recent experience with an ER in the United States?
Every state where I have ever practiced has a DNR law, and as I stated earlier, I generally honor patient wishes. If a person has a DNR bracelet and the appropriate paperwork, and there are no question marks, I don't resuscitate them... period. They might have terminal cancer, they might simply be deathly afraid of ventilators, or they might have a religious preference... whatever. If they state their intentions that clearly, then I can literally be arrested and charged with assault if I go against those wishes. Besides, who the hell am I to foist myself on another person who made an objective, conscious, and well-educated decision about so important an issue?
If a person tells me they want to walk out of the hospital, and quietly die from their illness in their car in the parking lot, I cannot stop them, so long as they are of sound mind and understand the risks/benefits. If they are actively suicidal, drunk, or otherwise not in their right mind, then that is a very different story. If I smell a rat (ie. they have DNR home-made tattoed on their chest, look otherwise healthy, and have slit their own wrists), or there is otherwise doubt that the situation is as-advertised, I'll err on the side of resuscitation. Death is irreversible, so in case of doubt, I err on the side of safety... not to be flippant, but they can always live to die another day. Something else to consider: plenty of people have been taken to court for wrongful death... but I'm not aware of a single successful suit brought for wrongful life.
In the setting of chronic illness, cancer, etc, and the abscence of mental impairment, DNR means DNR... I would not so violate another person against their expressed wishes. I've got too many other patients take care of, and I can't take care of them from a jail cell.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Good luck, and best wishes to sticking to it and living a happier life
But let's face it. I'd rather die in my 60's then to live 20 years longer in a nursing home.
You're only saying that because you're not 59.
Uh, hate to break it to you; they don't do a complex computation on full stomach either. Lazy good for nothing insects; they just can't be bothered, that's their problem. Born idle they are.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.
equating a 25% caloric reduction with a 25% lower quality-of-life is simply shocking. if the equation is so linear for you, i bet you could consume 200% to perhaps 300% more calories than you are eating now, thereby creating a 200 - 300% increase in quality of life!
i think the mistake is your equation. food is enjoyable, but that doesnt mean that more food is more enjoyable. i love classical music. but i think if you put my living quarters in a concert hall, and i was to listen to live performances all day long, everyday, would my life be better? actually it would probably get terribly annoying. does that mean that i dont really like classical music? no. pleasures are not linear in this way.
i think i could have just as much pleasure as you visiting a restaurant and eating about half of the plate (standard portion sizes are absurdly large) while you ate the whole thing, and spent the rest of the night in a overstuffed stupor.
Oxygen is a pretty harsh molecule/element/radical, and their hypothesis was that it basically damaged the cells/DNA - so the more you received of it, the more oxidation damage your cells received. They did not look into the effects of exercise when I was there.
..........FULL STOP.
What if you fast every other day and eat to make up on the days in between? The article says the protective effect wears off after two days but if it kicks in after one day then it may be possible eat a time averaged normal amount while still getting the life prolonging effect.
The interesting thing about this research is that once the exact mechanism by which this effect works is found it may be possible to extend life by taking a pill that tricks your body into thinking its on a restricted diet when it's not. That'd have some interesting consequences.
Hold on a sec, my wife tells me that the diet didn't last thirty years but a mere week. Well, it feltlike thirty years. Does that count?
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
So is it natural to conclude that an increase in caloric consumption yields an early death? Many gym buffs go through regular "bulk" and "cut" cycles to gain mass and decrease bodyfat respectively. Thus can we exercise a myth? I know Dr. Walford denounces it. Seeing as I am a wannabe bodybuilding currently bulking (increasing calories above matenance) I have a vested interest in this.
bla
I could have said that from my own experience.
I think exercise is the same.
check out my website!!
http://www.beautipage.com/escape2spa/
I once spent 2 weeks with no food, water only. After a couple of days I simply didn't get hunger pangs any more.
It was nice to eat again mind you, the food tasted better but I could do it again very easily. A very low calorie diet is no bother at all, my biggest problem with it was working out what to do with the extra time it gave me.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
In fact, more chow = lower quality of life.
If you have food in your stomach, your body needs to process it, haven't you noticed how you feel lethargic after a meal?
More calories only increases your quality of life if your life is nothing but watching TV.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The basic idea of calorie restriction is that your body isn't exerting all it's energy digesting food.
you can get the same benifits from periodic fasting. Plus, all the energy that is saved from metabolizing food is directed tword healing and eliminating toxins.
fasting 3-4 days every 2 weeks will leave you in better spirits than calorie restriction.
With fasting, only the 3rd and 4th days are uncomfortable, because of ketosis.
cronic calorie restriction downsides are permanent: metabolism is ALWAYS slow, your reproductive system is shutdown, so you won't want any (worse than not getting any), your cold and clammy and not much fun to be around and look pretty much strung out all the time.
going off on a tanget, who else was afraid that the benefits are lost link would point to a picture of CowboyNeal?
Okay, I'm probably too late for anyone to see this but...
So anorexia isn't a disease, it's a survival mechanism?
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Theres nothing wrong with eating, but unhealthy diets (of which there are infinite combinations) are more dangerous than eating VERY little, or almost nothing at all. There are of course parameters not being taken into account in my post, but it simple terms, the less you need to eat to survive is likely to extend your life. No matter what you eat, if you eat like a bird (Some birds eat many times their weight, I'm only using this as common metaphor) and do not indulge in other damaging behaviours, you can expect to live longer than your insatiable food-soaked cousin.
Flatworm and fruitfly studies exist which show that extenstions to lifespan are possible by continually fasting the creatures and then feeding them a moderate amount to build them back to 'normal' size.
Eating a great amount of any food will kill you soon enough. Drinking too much water will kill you as well.
"Three square meals a day" is probably the stupidest thing I have ever had to live through.
I've fasted on at least 12 occassions, with anywhere from 6-14 days as the duration, and during the fast I have never felt better in all my life. Once food gets introduced, the brain stops working and the body begins to slow down.
I've never had a cavity for fucks sake, despite what some would call vitamin depletion. (I'm 33)
I'm not trying to sound righteous, I just think that food intake self-regulation is a massive problem in ALL the developed world. Eat nothing but rice ONCE per day, and you may well live to be 80 or more without any other regiment.
Try fasting just once you'll see...
They tried a low calorie diet with high nutrition and everyone was starving...they where licking their plates clean literally. The man that came up with the idea is still doing the diet...low cal/high nutrition. He beleives he'll live till about 120 or so...but when he was on an interview with American Frontiers the guy was so SLOW...he acted like he was tired all the time!
I've been on starvation diets before trying to loose weight and it is the worst fealing one can have...you're tired all the time...you get a foggy head...it's not fun. I have since adopted atkins and lost about 35lbs on that....and today I'm happy with my weight at 170 and 13% BF.
I suppose the one question that I don't think was really addressed here was the reason why a low calorie diet extends your life....perhaps it has more to do with what they are eating than how they are eating? Everyone knows about free radicals and how anti-oxidents do nothing to stop them....perhaps this study combined with others will help truely extend everyones lifespan 25% without having to starve ourselves by preventing the production of any free radicals. Then all we have to worry about are the time bombs we have on our DNA...
I can honestly say that I think immortality is just around the corner...but hey that's just sci-fi like cloning animals that are long past dead right?
It seems every now and again /. finally runs an article on CR and its life extension benefits. Sorry, I didn't read the article(free reg, blah blah) Having tried several times in my life to completely switch over to CR from a mostly vegan well disciplined diet (no meats, just fish) I can tell you CR is no easy task by any stretch of the imagination. Not surprisingly, it is not for most people who cannot make the time to eat correctly in the first place. It is worth it though as you will feel like you've never felt before after about a month or two of adjustment.
There is plenty of research on the benefits of CR and the clinical studies going on about it at various US universities and their gerontology labs. Worth a read and the effort. Look up Lisa and Roy Walford or Calorie Restriction on Google to get started.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
The real answer to life extension will be when we learn how to add knots back onto the Tellomeres.
Telomerase. The real question is how do we get the Telomeres back on the healthy DNA.
That is not why the Atkins diet works. That doesn't even make any sense.
I'm never getting prostate cancer! I knew jerking of 15 times a day was good for something!
If you enjoy this piss they serve as "wine", you should really try and get some really good wine. You get great wine even in the $5-$15 price range, just go to a good wine shop and get advice on what to buy by explaining to them a bit what you like about the wine you know so far. Spend $25 a month on wine, invite a friend to talk and drink, have a nice evening and learn about wine.
Enjoy. BTW, yes, you can impress women with knowledge about wine. Might be a reason for some more /.ers to explore this part of human culture.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
You are a dumbass. Go to www.lowcarber.org and READ a little. Might save you from talking out of your ass.
...visiting in a nursing home was assisting one of the elderly residents with her wheelchair so she could get back inside--after smoking a cigarette.
She wasn't the only one either. There was one man in there who could actually walk out to take his smoke. Most people there could not walk at all.
Of course these are the exceptions, not the rule. I think perhaps there are a few people who are geneticly resistant to lung cancer. They can smoke all they want. They won't get cancer.
I've also heard that nicotine can actually help with ADHD. Perhaps, for a very small segment of society, tobacco could be safely "prescribed" as a beneficial medication.
Of course, any scientific proof of such a theory is likely to be met with the same sort of hesitancy that very solid evidence for the benefits of alcohol are currently being met. This is partially because it would only apply to a small number of people, and partially because it goes against the medical orthodoxy.
So. If gran ma smoked a pack a day, drank wisky, and lived to be 110, maybe you shouldn't feel so guilty about smoking and drinking; but don't come crying to me if it turns out you didn't get the lucky gene.
Of course, someday we may find such a gene, which opens a whole new kettle of fish...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yeah, but what about the long-term effects on vision.
What I plan on is to stay with the induction phase (20mg of carb max a day) for a couple of months.
Do not stay at the 20g carb/day for more than 2 weeks. Atkins stresses the point that the 20g diet is only to be used to get into ketosis. After that you have to increase the carb intake. 2 weeks won't harm you, but a couple of months is something else again.
The Atkins diet works because it forces the body into a very unusual state. Altering the diet without understanding the consequences or the mechanisms involved is a free ticket to the Darwin lottery, which like any other lottery has a lot more loosers than winners...
http://tinyurl.com/mdyb
If I stop eating I'll starve to death... not live longer! My god.. Is SCO in the medical research business now?
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
We would all be sitting at home, no wait - more accidents happen at home than anywhere else, it can cause death. So we'd be sitting at work over our computers - no wait, that can cause eye strain, back strain, muscle and bone problems, not to mention stress. That can cause death (albeit if someone goes postal).
Someone needs to tell the safety nazis - life causes death. It's inevidable. Life it to the fullest while you can. If that means you chose to be a veggan, so be it. But damn it I'm having steak and potatos for dinner! So get out of my kitchen!
- Spring
Many Americans use the word "eating" in place of "over-eating". Don't ask me why. I don't know.
So "As Long as You Don't Eat" and "as soon as they start eating again" doesn't mean what it says. It means something along the lines of 'as soon as they start eating like they used to'. In other words, "eating" is not "eating" when you're on a [this] diet. Or... something like that.
- I am made of meat.
is typically used to refer to "mercy killing" of sick or ill individuals, whether by an act of commission, or ommission. I object to performing an act that will directly result in the death of another person. You seem to have a serious problem with that stand, even accusing me of "unethical" behavior in that situation. I can't be ethical in my stand, but you can? "Think a bit further" indeed...
I have considered these issues, both in ethical discussions with my colleagues, and various bio-ethicists. I have a personal ethical bent against killing other persons with my art of medicine... I took the Hippocratic Oath in its original form, and as stated in the oath, I "will give no deadly medicine, if asked, nor suggest any such counsel."
I asked your background to ascertain your level of experience with end-of-life issues. I don't know if you have ever stood by and watched a person die, or personally turned off their ventilator and inotropic drugs and watched them slowly expire... I have. It's difficult, to say the least. I'm simply trying to gauge how much credence to give your statements, since some of them seem to have been made in an experential vacuum. Experience and knowledge DO count... and to some extent this discussion is based on them. After all, information is the basis of consent, without knowledge, there can be no choice.
I certainly don't object to your personal opinion. I strongly object to your condemnation of my medical practice, and impugning of my ethics, particularly when you haven't experience or bioethical credentials to lend support to such an indictment. I am a non-programmer, thus I make no judgements about program flow or design... I could read a few books, and then attack your programming technique, but I would be manifestly arrogant to do so, since I would lack the credentials and experience to lend my judgement any weight. You will, of couse, understand if I ignore your condemnation.
You would have me participate and actively cause death amongst the patients I'm sworn to aid, and condemn me should I refuse. I will not do as you ask. Where, pray tell, is my right to self-determination? My right to a principled ethical stand? I hardly have a monopoly on the means to suicide... there are dozens of ways to die in the aisles of any department store, some of them quite painless, and books have been published on that very topic. I am not blowing in the wind with this latest ethical shift; I base my practice on a judeo-christian set of ethics, bound by hundreds of years of tradition, following in the footsteps of my predecessors. If you wish to overturn such a long-established ethical standard, seting aside the weight of history, expert opinion, and real-world experience, then the burden of proof is on YOU... YOU must prove your case. Even if we, as a society, decided that euthanasia was acceptable (it was practiced in Nazi germany, and the horrors that resulted are well-documented), I would still not personally participate in the active killing of patients.
Ah, yes, there is the "proper" way to die, the medically and legally approved one, the one based on "sensitivity and compassion". It doesn't seem to occur to you that different people have different preferences.
The irony of your exhorting me to consider the "different preferences" of others while simultaneously attacking my preference is not lost on me. Are physicians not entitled to their ethical stands and preferences if they differ from yours?
I practice within my ethical and professional bounds and within the standard of care, because I happen to agree with those standards, and because to do otherwise would cause patient harm, and sanction/loss of my ability to practice. At that point, I couldn't help anyone, and there are too many other patients out there who need me. Philosophical debates are fine, but legal issues are real, and physicians MUST consider them. It's not simply a matter of establishing suicide as an individual choice. Physicians largely pra
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
...Stray dogs are the best! ;)
Assume you eat 25% less and gain 16% more lifetime. But you gain that 25% for reuse too!
Assume you eat 25% less but insteadm, not wasting that time - have 25% more sex thanks to saved pleasure time. Plus another 16% more sex thanks to prolonged life.
25% less food, 41% more sex, seems like a bargain to me!!!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Guns N' Roses' lead guitarist "Slash" wastes thousands of you mean working whores.
are vegetarians, some such as whales live on krill and (sperm whale) squid. Man is an omnivore meaning we can eat most anything. The object I would think would be to eat better foods and to include plenty of fresh water. There are studies that include the foods eated after such instances as WW I. All the food animals were destroyed or eaten and for a few years only fresh grains, fruits and vegetables were available. Infant mortality dropped as well as general illnesses. once the food animals recovered and meat and dairy was available infant mortality and illness went back to the previous level. The book for this information and reference is titled "Survival into the 21st Century", I do not remember the author. Going from cold blooded protien to warm blooded protien is a step towards most sat-fat. I have had a lacto-ovo-pecto (dairy,mostly cheese,egg, fish) diet for 25 years and I feel pretty good, 48 and told I look early thirtys. To bad we have been pissing in the ocean for so long. The beat fish are down the food chain, and especially shrimp, they grow fast.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
Dr. Linda Partridge, the professor in charge of the research asked "What is killing them when they eat too much?"
(Note that "too much" is actually more than 2/3 calorific RDA)
The presupposition here is that eating "too much" is the main cause of death of these flies. Consequently, it is probably a major cause of death in human beings.
The other thing that is really noticeable in CR experiments is that the CR animals don't get ill.
Now this becomes VERY interesting.
"What is killing them when they eat too much?" might be the wrong question.
What is making us ill when we eat too much?
The only possible answer is the way our bodies respond to the excess food.
Assuming 100,000 meals in a lifetime, what if each time you overeat had a 1 in 1000 chance of making you ill? And each illness, depending on the strength of your immune system, might have had a 0.1 to 1% chance of killing you?
Of course, the telomere problem still kills off everyone eventually. And some people have found other innovative ways of dying: smoking, becoming a gang-member etc.
Walford has been researching and writing up his results with mice for years. His retort to fad discoveries is to "show me your old mouse".
Recently, an article appeared describing how he' subjecting himself to his own regimen of reduced caloric intake to improve longevity.
He admits it's difficult for people to restrain their diets, but he believes it's necessary if you want to live to be 120 years old.
In addition to quantity, there's the whole issue of diet composition, which is the second part of Calorie Restriction Optimum Nutrition.
The USDA food pyramid is an improvement over the basic 4 food groups I learned when I was young, but it's still been criticized, there are serious profits in making up our current set of foodstuffs.
But others have suggested alternatives that place the carbohydrate group as a smaller portion and put fruits and vegetables as the pyramid base.
The latter would be much more consistent with a hunter gatherer diet that predates agriculture and, IMHO, probably is more closely aligned with the way our bodies were meant to digest food. Our bodies have only recently begun to adapt to the advent of agriculture adn they certainly haven't adapted yet to modern high sugar diets (witness especially the incidence of diabetes among ethnic groups with less exposure to agriculture).
Oh well, soon enough we'll re-engineer ourselves to take power from whatever is highest energy density. Maybe nitromethane:)
"Provided by the management for your protection."
He wanders around a hospital, wondering where his granola and sprouts are, and the Drs. tell him that oh no,everything we thought was bad for you, we now know is actually good for you, and everything bad for you is actually good for you, as they polish off donuts etc. Somehow makes me think of the Atkins diet, dunno.
Even if it weren't so ridiculous, I think the whole problem with the Atkins diet, and other fad diets, is that there simply *isn't* 20 years of research, because it's simply the latest fad diet.
As a matter of fact, the food pyramid is currently being revised, and it does include exercise.
Yes, but we have yet to begin a debate on this topic about the merits/perils of a 1-button mouse. It just wouldn't be /. without it. Longevity de damned, how many buttons did these mice have?! THAT'S what's important here!