Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment



Thanks William. I am starting to be interested in yoga, not knowing
much about it.

i
223/176/180

In article <[email protected]>, William Sakovich wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any comments or book suggestions?

>
> I have two book suggestions.
>
> First, while I was not obese, I was starting to get past what I
> considered an acceptable weight, and started walking, just as you
> did. Rather than do 100 minutes a day, I read somewhere that one
> should do 13,000 steps a day (it took just a couple of days to
> figure out that this took me two hours). In a few months of
> merely walking, I got to the point where there was just no weight
> left that I had to lose. I didn't do it all at once--I broke it
> up into an hour in the morning and an hour at night.
>
> My wife discovered a book called Breathwalk by Yogi Bajan and
> another Westerner who took an Indian name. If you cut through the
> internal PR encouraging people to get started, there is a lot of
> beneficial information here.
>
> Essentially it is a program to combine aerobic breathing
> exercises with walking, which you're going to be doing anyway.
> The warm-up exercises also are very good. I recommend this.
> Forget about all the names they give to the various
> techniques--the techniques themselves are excellent.
>
> Second, I got a book called the Complete Guide to Joseph H.
> Pilates' Techniques of Physical Conditioning, by Alan Menezes.
> These are exercises based on the Pilates system, but which do not
> require equipment and which can be done at home. A few for the
> arms require small weights, but the book says you can use "a can
> of beans". Other people use big bottles of water. I had a couple
> of 1.5 kilogram weights around the house, which I use (slightly
> more than three pounds). I also recommend this. It is especially
> good for the body below the rib cage. I described one of the
> exercises in the book to a doctor, and he said, "If you do that,
> you're going to lose weight."
>
> Both are available at Amazon.com, where you can read more about
> them, or might even be on the shelves at a local bookstore. They
> sure work for me.
>
> - Bill Sakovich
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>
> 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.


Tim,

Isn't there an issue concerning *when* and *how* the individual starts their
CR regimen? IANAE, but I've heard that this is a tricky point; it's the
thing that most concerns me about 'adult-start' CR...

Ph.
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.


I think the japanese have the highest longevity now. Perhaps we need
to sit down next to one of those 114 year old guys and write down
everything he does.
Ask him if he's keeping his lifts up?

Bill
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.



1) That is not how science proceeds though! Hypothesis thence evidence to
disprove or lead to refinement of the hypothesis. Science proves nothing
(every schoolboy knows - Bateson) as you should know Doc!

2) There are countless thousands of drug trials that theoretically and
clinically worked well in animal subjects but did not make it through human
trials due to mechanisms and confounding factors in humans not present in
the animals.

3) Outside medicine proper, there is no objective evidence that God does not
exist or that there are no purple kanifs on the planet that might be
circling Betelgeuse. And any of an infinite number of such hypotheses. But
science does not proceed (see 1) by trying to prove negatives.

That said, a reasonable extrapolation could be made based on the evidence of
calorie restriction in certain animals as long as "AOTBE" strictures are
observed.
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


AOTBE! There are a host of other factors that affect lifespan. Aneuploidy
alone will be a limiting factor!

I think you may be a bit too narrow in your extrapolation of results of
caloric restriction in animals to lifespan increases in humans. Way too
narrow.

>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
>
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
message [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.


I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously prone to
getting it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
message [email protected]
> rosie read and post wrote:


[...]

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

>
> Ghandhi's dead.
>
> Christ lives.


Prove it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Bill Lumberg <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> I think the japanese have the highest longevity now. Perhaps we need
> to sit down next to one of those 114 year old guys and write down
> everything he does.


Been tried, doesn't work. For every one who says their longevity is due to
moderation and clean living there's another who'll swear it's due to a
bottle of gin a day. All other things being equal, genetics is clearly very
important here.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> 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.

> 1) That is not how science proceeds though!


Only if you interpret that statement as an attempt to prove a
hypothesis, which I doubt it was. The hypothesis is: "CR increases
lifespan in humans". Before the data on variety of organisms from
worms to monkeys were collected (or presented to one), one subjective
possibility would be "the probability that this hypothesis is true is
50%". Or if one liked (or was otherwise motivated) to eat a lot, this
subjective probability perhaps would be considerably smaller.
However, in light of the available data, one must reconsider and
update his prior odds in favor of this hypothesis. Biology,
evolutionary similarity of humans with other animals, and indirect
experimental evidence collected so far suggest its higher likelihood
than the subjective prior would imply.

My own "I don't know" in this regard is 50%. What's known on CR,
however imperfect, biases the odds upward, in favor of the proposition
that it works in humans. Now, would it be far off to suggest that a
high proportion of CR opponents are motivated to have high food
intake, demanded by their life styles - for example associated with
trying to reach and maintain the peak athletic performance?

> 2) There are countless thousands of drug trials that theoretically
> and clinically worked well in animal subjects but did not make it
> through human trials due to mechanisms and confounding factors in
> humans not present in the animals.


It is still likely that a drug would work similarly in humans. You
need to look at the proportion of those that don't work. As well as to
keep in mind efficacy/safety balance and the severety of the condition
the drug's supposed to treat, as these highly affect whether it's
going to make it through. "A lot of them don't work" makes no sense as
an argument since it depends on the number of things tried.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.

>
> 1) That is not how science proceeds though! Hypothesis thence evidence to
> disprove or lead to refinement of the hypothesis. Science proves nothing
> (every schoolboy knows - Bateson) as you should know Doc!
>
> 2) There are countless thousands of drug trials that theoretically and
> clinically worked well in animal subjects but did not make it through human
> trials due to mechanisms and confounding factors in humans not present in
> the animals.
>
> 3) Outside medicine proper, there is no objective evidence that God does not
> exist or that there are no purple kanifs on the planet that might be
> circling Betelgeuse. And any of an infinite number of such hypotheses. But
> science does not proceed (see 1) by trying to prove negatives.
>
> That said, a reasonable extrapolation could be made based on the evidence of
> calorie restriction in certain animals as long as "AOTBE" strictures are
> observed.


There is not anything else. We have a street here in Atlanta named Ponce de
Leon to remind us about the search for the "fountain of youth."


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

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
> message [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.

>
> I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously prone to
> getting it.
>


If that were true, it should be easy for you to provide a Google cite of a
post by a physician who has written that Roman Catholic priests are prone to
getting prostate cancer..

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

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
> message [email protected]
> > rosie read and post wrote:

>
> [...]
>
> >> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
> >> are so unlike your christ.
> >> .............................................gandhi

> >
> > Ghandhi's dead.
> >
> > Christ lives.

>
> Prove it.
>


Why should I?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message [email protected]
>>> rosie read and post wrote:

>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
>>>> are so unlike your christ.
>>>> .............................................gandhi
>>>
>>> Ghandhi's dead.
>>>
>>> Christ lives.

>>
>> Prove it.

>
> Why should I?


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

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> DRS wrote:


[...]

>> I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously
>> prone to getting it.

>
> If that were true, it should be easy for you to provide a Google cite
> of a post by a physician who has written that Roman Catholic priests
> are prone to getting prostate cancer..


I said I know the doctors. I never said they posted on the net.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
DRS wrote:

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > DRS wrote:
> >
> >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> message [email protected]
> >>> rosie read and post wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
> >>>> are so unlike your christ.
> >>>> .............................................gandhi
> >>>
> >>> 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.

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

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > DRS wrote:

>
> [...]
>
> >> I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously
> >> prone to getting it.

> >
> > If that were true, it should be easy for you to provide a Google cite
> > of a post by a physician who has written that Roman Catholic priests
> > are prone to getting prostate cancer..

>
> I said I know the doctors. I never said they posted on the net.
>


Prove your claim.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [email protected]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> message [email protected]
>>>>> rosie read and post wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your
>>>>>> christians are so unlike your christ.
>>>>>> .............................................gandhi
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.


You are so full of ****. Case closed.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DRS wrote:
>
> > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > [email protected]
> > > DRS wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >> message [email protected]
> > >>> rosie read and post wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >>>> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
> > >>>> are so unlike your christ.
> > >>>> .............................................gandhi
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
 
"OmegaZero2003" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:.
> > DRS wrote:
> > > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > DRS wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>> rosie read and post wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>
> > > >>>> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your

christians
> > > >>>> are so unlike your christ.
> > > >>>> .............................................gandhi
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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?"

Chung would probably say that The Word is the reference from
which he cites. However, that reference, particularly that part
which describes God as The Word and The Word being
around in the beginning, was written a few centuries after the
death of Jesus of Nazareth. And Jesus lived, even according
to The Word, at least a couple of millennia after The Beginning.
And the exact parameters of The Word weren't determined
until the Council of Rome, about 350 years after Jesus died,
and even then, The Word didn't become immutable until the
Council of Trent, less than 500 years ago.

So how is it that The Word been around since The Beginning,
in a form that is "expressed in apt words and with infallible
truth"? (Pope Leo XIII, 1893) The circularity of that
reasoning is almost staggering.

Of course, none if this precludes a belief in God; it just
makes it nearly impossible to believe in the infallible
accuracy of The Book, which seems to be the standard
definition for The Word.
 
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:25:20 +1000, "DRS" <[email protected]>
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.