Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

Proton Soup wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

DRS wrote:

Proton Soup wrote in message


[...]

Masturbate daily to lube the prostate and prevent cancer.

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.


Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

This is what we're talking about. I'm sure more studies will follow.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993942


Retrospective questionnaire type studies brought us the information that
Vitamin E and C may prevent heart attacks. We now know better.

If cigarette smoke carcinogens are concentrated in prostatic fluids (as an
explanation for the cancer), the solution is to stop smoking instead of
masterbating.


Proton Soup

Here's a review about prostate cancer from a more reputable peer-reviewed
source:

http://tinyurl.com/q4kl

Since when is the British Journal of Urology International not a
reputable, peer-reviewed source?

And since when do things like "cigarette smoke carcinogens ... in
prostatic fluids" have as much effect on prostate cancer as DHT levels
and 5-alpha-reductase gene expression?

roger wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:


Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

And now for a dissenting opinion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm

Roger

See my response to an earlier post in the same thread.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

In sci.med.nutrition Wayne S. Hill wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:
In sci.med.nutrition Ignoramus wrote or quoted:

I am aware that there is some scant evidence that living on
calorie restricted diet (1500 or so calories per day all
the time) also can help one live longer.

There's better evidence for that than for practically any
other intervention. Maybe more evidence for it than all
other interventions combined!

I think this conclusion will be reversed when researchers
realize that sarcopenia and osteopenia are much greater
threats to longevity in people over, say, 60 years of age than
bodymass per se. IOW, extrapolating animal models to humans
is not reasonable here.

``Calorie Restriction Reduces Age-Related Muscle Loss''

- http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=4748

Osteopenia might be a bit of a problem. However I strongly suspect
that a technological solution to this one is imminent, or is already in
use - and thus that young people approaching CR should not be overly
concerned about it.

Low calorie intake is a minor risk factor anyway. Take your vitamin D,
avoid your retinol, get a good dose of minerals, do weight bearing
exercise, and you should not have too much to worry about.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

In sci.med.nutrition DRS wrote or quoted:

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

? My sources say "priest's disease" - "non-specific prostatitis".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote or quoted:
DRS wrote:

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

Are you assuming testosterone is the *only* risk factor?

That is unlikely to be the case.

However, I don't think prostate cancer /is/ known as the priest's disease ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

In sci.med.nutrition roger wrote or quoted:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

Mice live *twice* as long in captivity if they are given only half as much
as they would eat ad libitum.

Not only do they live longer but they a physically more active in their
older age. Imagine humans doubling their lifespan to 150 years and
playing tennis when they are 120 years old.

You certainly have an active imagination. There is no objective
evidence that caloric restriction in humans would have the same effect
as in mice.

It almost certainly won't make us live to 150. However there's good
evidence that it will extend our lives - since it has done so in
practically every other animal tested.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In sci.med.nutrition Wayne S. Hill wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler wrote:
In sci.med.nutrition Ignoramus wrote or quoted:

I am aware that there is some scant evidence that living on
calorie restricted diet (1500 or so calories per day all
the time) also can help one live longer.

There's better evidence for that than for practically any
other intervention. Maybe more evidence for it than all
other interventions combined!

I think this conclusion will be reversed when researchers
realize that sarcopenia and osteopenia are much greater
threats to longevity in people over, say, 60 years of age than
bodymass per se. IOW, extrapolating animal models to humans
is not reasonable here.

``Calorie Restriction Reduces Age-Related Muscle Loss''

- http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=4748

Osteopenia might be a bit of a problem. However I strongly suspect
that a technological solution to this one is imminent, or is already in
use - and thus that young people approaching CR should not be overly
concerned about it.

Low calorie intake is a minor risk factor anyway. Take your vitamin D,
avoid your retinol, get a good dose of minerals, do weight bearing
exercise, and you should not have too much to worry about.

You forgot to mention vitamin K at doses equal to or greater
than a milligram for maximum benefits. The so-called
RDA for K is just way low. "Low" protein diets are associated with
reduced bone strength and density in the elderly.

DHEA supplements should help preserve bone density
as it is converted to estrogen in the bone. In men
replacement testosterone is also useful in preserving
bone mass.

As I recall, CR benefits disappears in animals when they
return to an ad libum diet. Which suggest one could
be hunger for a life time and then go on a diet vacation
can lose the effect:-(

Taking 10 milligrams of vitamin K per day....
.........................................William A. Noyes

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...
DRS wrote:

Proton Soup wrote in message


[...]

Masturbate daily to lube the prostate and prevent cancer.

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.


Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.


However, prostate cancers are more aggressive in patients who
have had lower testosterone levels. Or so goes the
clinical rumor.
PMID 11966629
PMID 12386917

If the testosterone levels
are elevated in respect to estrogen levels (please recall men
make some estrogen also......a comment for the lurkers),
the older male will be less apt to suffer from an enlarged
prostate. Don't read the Merck Proscar adverts as the
gospel.......anyway saw palmetto is the better choice.

Indeed, the high testosterone
association likely an instance of false correlation. If memory
serves me, blacks tend to have slightly higher levels of
testosterone but it is the dark skin and reduced vitamin
D status that yields the more aggressive prostate cancers.

And I suspect one poster is anti-masturbation and the
other is pro-masturbation. Both views represent biases and
(I suspect) each has its own supporting urban myth.

A cardiologist is not an endocrinologist ......
...tongue firmly in cheek.....William A. Noyes

Tim Tyler wrote:

Wayne S. Hill wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Ignoramus wrote:

I am aware that there is some scant evidence that living
on calorie restricted diet (1500 or so calories per day
all the time) also can help one live longer.

There's better evidence for that than for practically any
other intervention. Maybe more evidence for it than all
other interventions combined!

I think this conclusion will be reversed when researchers
realize that sarcopenia and osteopenia are much greater
threats to longevity in people over, say, 60 years of age
than bodymass per se. IOW, extrapolating animal models to
humans is not reasonable here.

``Calorie Restriction Reduces Age-Related Muscle Loss''

- http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=4748

In rats. IN RATS! RATS! RATS!RATS!RATS!RATS!RATS!RATS!

For cryin' out loud, studies have shown that elderly people
increase their lean body mass only with a combination of
increased protein intake and increased exercise (not one of
these alone). I sincerely doubt there's any evidence that
shows that feeding people less will reduce their loss of lean
muscle mass. If it's true in rodents, doesn't that tell you
something about using rats as a model of elderly people?

Osteopenia might be a bit of a problem. However I strongly
suspect that a technological solution to this one is
imminent, or is already in use - and thus that young people
approaching CR should not be overly concerned about it.

Low calorie intake is a minor risk factor anyway. Take your
vitamin D, avoid your retinol, get a good dose of minerals,
do weight bearing exercise, and you should not have too much
to worry about.

Hey, you're talking about trying to live to unheard of ages
here. Once someone gets beyond the age of about 70, the
number 1 concern is maintaining mobility. If you consider
that the main factors in maintaining mobility are maintaining
muscle and bone mass, why (oh, why!) would you consider it
logical to tell people to eat much less, and to claim that the
great body of research supports this contention?

--
-Wayne

roger wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:38:32 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:


Mice live *twice* as long in captivity if they are given only half as much
as they would eat ad libitum.

Not only do they live longer but they a physically more active in their
older age. Imagine humans doubling their lifespan to 150 years and
playing tennis when they are 120 years old.

You certainly have an active imagination. There is no objective
evidence that caloric restriction in humans would have the same effect
as in mice.


There is no objective evidence that it won't.


Roger

I am not an animal. I am a man.

Elephant Man

He like we *are* animals. To be more precise, we like mice are mammals.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/