Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

"roger" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:21:17 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:47:51 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:


Christ lives.

Prove it.

Why should I?

Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.

It is not my claim but the Word of God.

Please provide proof that it is the Word of God and not the word or
someone who claims that it is the Word of God.

Roger

Roger - it is impossible to try to be logical with people who are imbued
with religious belief.

Quite correct. But his response should make it clear that he has a
double standard for proof. He seems to want others to provide proof of
their assertions but does not do likewise.

Religion is simply a matter of faith although some think that their
belief is objectively true. The only problem is that they cannot
provide the objective proof of their assertions.

Roger

Exactly. If Neil Armstrong on his moon landing managed somehow to seed life
on the moon - then in coming milleniums to the moon people he would be
"god". So even if it could be proved that there is a 'god' as such it goes
against my grain that he has to be worshipped.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:35:57 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:17:03 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:12:39 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
wrote:


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

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

DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in
message
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your
christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

Why should I?

Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.

It is not my claim but the Word of God. If He choses to prove it to
you,
He will.

He is not a He ; it is consciousness without an object or subject.

Greater minds than ours have grappled with this vexing concept since
man's earliest comprehension of his own mortality.

The simple answer is that it is all way beyond our futile aspirations
to make some meaning to what is meaningless.




I think you mean it is pointless to try to conceive of the inconceivable
("meaningless" would be the wrong word, right?)

It is probably semantics David, as either way would indicate that we
are all in deep ****! ;o)


not wishing to be a troll, but I was hoping that Hoffy might help us shed
some light on all this

The last post I had from "Hoffy" was quite conciliatory, so true to my
word I shall not be offensive unless further provoked! ;o)

The excitement in the land of Oz must be gathering pace, as the great
competition is about to explode upon us. I do hope it lives up to
expectations; the anticipation is palpable in my own club.

What a feast to look forward to; and England are turning their best
side out against lowly Georgia - that could be asking for trouble! I
do hope not! nervous grin

"John HUDSON" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:35:57 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:17:03 GMT, "David"
wrote:


"John HUDSON" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:12:39 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
wrote:


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

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

DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
wrote
in
message
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your
christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

Why should I?

Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.

It is not my claim but the Word of God. If He choses to prove it
to
you,
He will.

He is not a He ; it is consciousness without an object or subject.

Greater minds than ours have grappled with this vexing concept since
man's earliest comprehension of his own mortality.

The simple answer is that it is all way beyond our futile
aspirations
to make some meaning to what is meaningless.




I think you mean it is pointless to try to conceive of the
inconceivable
("meaningless" would be the wrong word, right?)

It is probably semantics David, as either way would indicate that we
are all in deep ****! ;o)


not wishing to be a troll, but I was hoping that Hoffy might help us shed
some light on all this

The last post I had from "Hoffy" was quite conciliatory, so true to my
word I shall not be offensive unless further provoked! ;o)

The excitement in the land of Oz must be gathering pace, as the great
competition is about to explode upon us. I do hope it lives up to
expectations; the anticipation is palpable in my own club.

What a feast to look forward to; and England are turning their best
side out against lowly Georgia - that could be asking for trouble! I
do hope not! nervous grin


yep, it's a big deal here alright - don't forget that $20 (US$)

Go look at the recommendations at www.mayoclinic.com you will find almost
anything you want there. Exercise, streching, diet and on and on..you don't
need a book..use your computer and find a regiment that you like and can
stick with.. mayo is world renown.

luck,

nathan
"Ignoramus20526" wrote in message
...
After returning from obesity to normal weight (223/177/180) due to a
eat no crap/eat less/exercise more approach, I am now thinking about
health in general. What I would like to know is, what are the things
that a person can do to maximize their life expectancy/enjoyment of
life via various natural means (no meds). I want to be clear that I
want the maximum life expectancy multiplied by enjoyment of life. So
any regimen that makes me live longer but makes me miserable is not
something that I would like to consider.

I will appreciate references to some non-kooky books that do not
advocate spending money on programs affiliated with their authors.

I am not interested in having an "extreme body", squatting 500 lbs,
etc etc. However I am interested in being fit, agile, strong, and
flexible.

My current thinking is that the cornerstone of such an approach is
doing lots of low intensity aerobic exercise such as walking, plus
calisthenics based strength training. Another cornerstone is staying
within the normal weight interval. The third cornerstone is eating
only natural and healthy food, according to some definition. To me it
means eating no heavily processed foods and no sugar. The fourth is to
have a stable life and to not work too much.

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. But smoehow I have a feeling that such a life is
either impossible or not satisfying to me. Right now I eat about
1900-2000 calories per day, walk 100 minutes per day, and my weight is
relatively stable for the last 3 weeks. I can live on that but not on
much less, I think.

Does anyone have any comments or book suggestions?

i

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

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 was talking about *preventing* age-related decline - e.g.:

``I have confirmed a loss of muscle function with aging that was
completely prevented in the old caloric restricted animals.''

- http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/ess/ces/muscle_phys/payne.html

*Reversing* age-related decline is a different ball game:
It's a lot harder to replace dead muscle cells than it
is to stop them dying in the first place.

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?

Not really.

Most of the models of sarcopenia invoke the effect of oxidative stress,
on mitochondria as the probable mechanism. If that is the case, then
there are good reasons for expecting CR to be protective in many
animals - since it is broadly reported to decrease mitochondrial
oxygen radical generation and oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA.

CR *does* extend lifespan in other animals besides rodents. Here's a
study in dogs, for example:

http://preventdisease.com/news/artic...iet_dogs.shtml

It would be a bit of an anomaly if it failed in humans.

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?

Because it does. For one thing, CR makes animals a lot more mobile.
One of the most graphic illustrations of the effect I am aware of is
the video at the top of: http://www.biomarkerinc.com/html/press.htm
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

In sci.med.nutrition Philippic wrote or quoted:
"Tim Tyler" wrote in message

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.

Isn't there an issue concerning *when* and *how* the individual starts their
CR regimen? [...]

The earlier the better - AFAICS - but it looks as though it will produce
life extension at almost any age - with the possible exception of the
*very* old.

There are some issues here, though. Anyone contemplating the diet should
look into the matter. In particular "sudden onset" is suspected to be
an incorrect approach.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:50:57 -0400, "John M. Williams"
wrote:


"OmegaZero2003" wrote:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:.
DRS wrote:
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your
christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

Why should I?

Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.

It is not my claim but the Word of God. If He choses to prove it to
you,
He will.

He is not a He ; it is consciousness without an object or subject.

Well, according to the reference which Chung cites, God IS The
Word. And The Word has been around since the beginning.

But that invites the question, "What is The Word?"



Buh buh buh bird is the word.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:51:50 -0400, Blue Mu_n
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:25:20 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

Dig up their respective graves. One has bones, the latter nothing.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Dig up Louis XIV's grave while you're at it. Bet his bones have
rotted. Does that make him an immortal space fairy too?

"Chupacabra" wrote in message
...

Buh buh buh bird is the word.

yyyyyyyyyyep.

(pah pah pah oom mau mau)


--
Bird
============================
Contact me at lindabird --- a t --- musician dot o r g

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:59:51 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

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.

You're ignoring the fact that there's a bunch of **** that works great
in mice (like every bodybuilding supplement ever) that's totally
ineffective in humans.