Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment



Proton Soup wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >DRS wrote:
> >
> >> Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > 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


--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Luna wrote:
> :: In article <[email protected]>,
> :: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ::
> ::
> :::::
> ::::: Aside from proper nutrition and exercise, I think the number one
> ::::: thing most people can do to both improve their health and their
> ::::: enjoyment of life is this: Get enough sleep!!! This gets
> ::::: overlooked a lot in our busy lives, but it's so important to
> ::::: every aspect of health, both physical and emotional.
> :::
> ::: Yeah, but how much is enough....it varies...
> :::
> :::
> ::
> :: You know . . . . enough. People can generally tell when they're
> :: getting enough sleep, right? Can't they? I can . . . I just
> :: assumed that it was, um, obvious?
>
> I've been able to train myself to use less sleep. Also, I've been through
> periods when I felt drowsy even after having lots of sleep. I think a lot
> of people assume they can, but that doesn't make it so.
>
>

By training yourself to use less sleep, do you mean training yourself to
become accustomed to the effects of not getting enough sleep and learning
how to function through them? If you don't have the side effects then you
obviously _are_ getting enough sleep, it's just less than you thought you
needed. If I don't get enough sleep I get headaches, and a particular type
of ache in my muscles that feels qualitatively different from a workout
ache. I can't quite describe the ache, but I know it when I feel it and I
know what it means, I think the term "bone tired" is apt. I can't imagine
any way of training myself not to get headaches and muscle aches, but
perhaps it could be done. One rule of thumb I read for determining if you
are getting enough sleep is if can you wake up on time without an alarm
clock.

--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:

>DRS wrote:
>
>> Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [email protected]
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > 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.

Physicians should read the literature rather than speculating:

Giles GG, Severi G, English DR, McCredie MR, Borland R, Boyle P,
Hopper JL. Sexual factors and prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2003
Aug;92(3):211-6.
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Proton Soup wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >DRS wrote:
>> >
>> >> Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> [email protected]
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > 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"
> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> 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/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
In sci.med.nutrition roger <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> 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/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Wayne S. Hill <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DRS wrote:
>
> > Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > [email protected]
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > 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"
> <[email protected]> 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/
 
Wayne S. Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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).

How does this contradict CR?

> 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?

In the absence of other information available this far, yes it does
tell me - chances are it should work in humans too.

DZ

>
> > 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?
>


--
Wheel discovery department
 
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

> 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

When there is disuse atrophy. This does not occur with modest reduction
of food intake.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"John M. Williams" wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >DRS wrote:
> >
> >> Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > 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.
>
> Physicians should read the literature rather than speculating:
>

Physicians do that. Then they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs.

Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"John M. Williams" wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Proton Soup wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >DRS wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> [email protected]
> >> >>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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?
>

It actually isn't.

>
> 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?

Ask the author(s) of the newscientist.com article.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John M. Williams" wrote:
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >DRS wrote:
> > >
> > >> Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> > 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.
> >
> > Physicians should read the literature rather than speculating:
>
> Physicians do that. Then they treat prostate cancer with
anti-testosterone
> drugs.

And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

> Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.
 
Tim Tyler wrote:

> In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> 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?
>

Is that what I have written?

>
> That is unlikely to be the case.
>

Correct. However, we do treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone drugs that achieve chemical
castration. Moreover, prostate cancer is virtually unheard of in castrated males.

>
> However, I don't think prostate cancer /is/ known as the priest's disease ;-)
>

I know it isn't, writing as a physician.

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

> In sci.med.nutrition roger <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> 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.

That remains to be seen.

> However there's good
> evidence that it will extend our lives - since it has done so in
> practically every other animal tested.

Correct.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back