Thanks a lot Peter, I've been trying to be a good boy & get stuff
done in the real world & not spend all sorts of time in this virtual
world. But here is my repsonse:
Douglas:
>>I sort of agree, but what I mean is that all the biomarkers
> are likely to go up & down in concert,
>I wonder to what degree this is true. How many biomarkers
> have been shown to follow each other and do they ever break out of
> range?
It's true, they all go in concert. You might want to try
"Biological Aging Measurement" (or a title sort of like that) by
Ward Dean.
>>& that temp. is simply the very best (& about the easiest to
> monitor) at predicting the eventual age at death. There is every
> reason to believe that a healthy person who undergoes CR & thus lowers
> his temp. is going to do just fine,
>That is probably true, but defining "healthy" or finding
> somebody to fit this description I think might be a little more difficult
> than you suggest.
It's a lot like porno, & most of us know one when we see one. This
I mean as a profound, intuitive recognition of healthy vs. unhealthy
individuals.
>>in contrast with somebody who has an underlying pathology
>> which keeps temp. low for entirely different reasons.
>My point exactly, but defining & diagnosing "underlying
> pathology" might not be always an easy task.
It would probably be rather easy: increase the caloric intake above
CRed levels, & if body temp. does not rise there is something wrong.
>>As long as you reach a stable weight plateau & do not
>> continue to lose, you should do fine. Indeed, I think there is a lot
> >which indicates that cyclically fasting/starving down below a
>>no-body-fat-level
>You must mean low, not no body fat. Do have any clue to what
> your own body fat percentage is?
What I was referring to is yogic techniques of Kuya Kulpa or
"growing a new body" or whatever, whereby the method is to
fast/starve down to real scary levels, & then re-feed up to more
normal weights. My own %: too high right now, but I work outside
all winter in New England & this is by necessity & choice right now.
But I'm fasting later this month, & if I behave I'll go down to a
level where my pads in my feet & hands are seriously depleted. What
% that is I have no idea, but would assume that it is in the lower
single digits.
>>Peter, I do not understand the question (or maybe you don't
> understand me). What I mean is that there is absolutely no way for us
> to know what will grant each of us maximal lifespan, as there are
> just too many (almost an infinite number) variables, & we know too
> little about the whole thing. The best we can do is make educated
> guesses based on what seems to work best for large numbers of people
>(or other animals).
>I do not agree. The tests for biomarkers are getting
> increasingly more sophisticated and can give a pretty good picture of
> somebody's biological age. It would be interesting to see what your biolo
>gical age was and thereby get an idea to what extent your calorie
> restrictedregime is supporting your health & longevity.
You are wrong in disagreeing in that this whole subject is
infinitely complex, & our ignorance is abyssmal in so many areas.
You have an impossible & infinitely expensive task in trying to get
good animal data on any one variable, which translates only
imperfectly into human terms. So many studies contradict each other
when applied across different strains or species, there is so much
individual variation (see "Biochemical Individuality" by Roger
Williams), etc.
Peter:
>>>Diseases like cancer are not separate entities from
>>>biological age but an intrinsic part of it. Your uncle might have looked
>>>youthful, but his biological age was probably that of somebody 114
>>>rather than 84..
Doug:
>>I think your first sentence above is a great way to put it, but
>> your second sentence I don't really agree with. As we age the
> probabilities of this or that disease doing us in increase exponentially,
> until the odds approach certainly that one will actually succeed. I'm
> sort of an agnostic on the whole notion of biological age: I sort of
> think it exists, but the fact is that you can be young in all sorts
> of ways (& young way beyond what your calendrical age is) but old in
> just one way, the way which kills you. - guys who were not all that
> old looking at 63 or whatever teeter on the brink of death from
> heart disease, recover, & then go on to live a lot longer. If they
> had died at 63, I would not call them "old" when they died, only that
> they died"young" from a specific disease
Peter:
>Somebody with a strong constitution who overcomes a serious
> heart disease at 63 and goes on to live another 20 years has still
> shortened his/her life potential as has somebody who young looking &
> never sick suddenly dies of a fatal disease at 83.
There is all sorts of confusion (including among some of the leading
aging researchers) on this point. You die when you die. You die of
a specific disease, an organ failure, trauma or whatever. You do
not die of old age, there is no such thing. There always must be a
specific cause of death. I'm not really clear what you mean above,
but all that really matters for us is the age at which we die, and
this is strictly a game of probabilities. I've seen many youthful
people die at rather young ages, many aged people live on & on for
long periods. Life is a fragile, electronic phenomenon, & what
something is sufficient to upset the balance you will croak. If the
balance is never sufficiently upset until you get quite old, you
will die old. If the balance is shattered relatively early, tough
luck.
>I do not believe that serious diseases or poor lifestyle choices develop without
> life-shortening consequences for the organism as a whole. If you are on a
> diet that will prevent you from getting any major degenerative diseases
> using your biomarkers as parameters for your biological age should
> give an even more accurate picture of your longevity potential.
I agree, & the whole point here is "longevity potential." I would
phrase this as longevity "probabilities."
Doug:
>>I'm concerned about preventing various causes of death,
> whether they be cancer (or prostate cancer specifically) or kidney
> failure or whatever, & I try to take steps to insure against this or
> that cause of death. These things all add up to increased odds of
> living longer. I'm also attempting to slow the entire rate of aging, & by
> the way body temp. lowering appears to be the single best way of
> doing this (and caloric & protein restriction & a raw diet appears to
> be the best way to lower temp.).
Peter:
>What you are saying is that it is possible to die a natural
> death - the heart just stopping by itself with the absence of any disease
> - and not reaching ones full age potential + that a lifestyle that
> makes one immune to most diseases will not necessarily slow the aging
> process the most efficiently. These are fairly novel ideas to me and
> might be the difference between reaching maximum lifespan and exceeding it.
I don't comprehend any of this. There are of course only natural
deaths (excepting trauma). To think otherwise is to think that we
die of old age, when we don't. A lifestyle that makes one immune to
most diseases (which is all that we die of) will indeed slow the
aging process. How can you exceed maximum lifespan? I just don't
get any of this paragraph.
Peter:
>>>Probably, but only to a limit. If you only monitor one
> biomarker like your temp. the danger is that you will not know
> when/if you exceed your limits on the others, and you could end up
> slowly starving yourself.
Doug:
>>I think that all you need to worry about is simply whether
> your weight keeps dropping (& even if it does I think there may be great
>>life-extension benefits from going down to a skeletal condition).
>I wonder how many among the CR or longevity crowd would agree
> that it is this simple.
The first half (that you just need to monitor weight) is pretty much
a given among the CR crowd. Skeletal is unknown to them. But
weight is indeed the big thing to monitor, because the whole idea is
to get CR with adequate nutrition. It does not imply malnorishment
at all, just caloric restriction. It is just not as complex as you
are depicting it, & a scale (or tape measure) is the primary tool
required.
Doug:
>>There are ways to insure adequate nutrition (including
> supplements) of the essential items in the diet in addition to simple
> calories.
Peter:
>There is much controversy on these issues. Which supplements
> do you take and at what amounts?
You may be sorry you asked:
(daily dosages, many left blank because I was too lazy to look on
all the bottles)
Vit. C- 2-7g
pantothenic acid 1g
multi vit/min
vit. E 800mg
tumeric extract
lipoic acid
grape seed extract
ascorbyl palmitate
ginkgo extract
pycnogenol
NAC
lycine 1-2g
melatonin 10mg (hormone, not a nutrient)
green tea extract
garlic extract
DMAE 100mg
PABA .5-1g
saw palmetto extract
co-enzyme Q
bohdi tree extract
eye of newt
>Peter:
>>>Furthermore, if you are feeling deprived and somewhat
> obsessed about your diet, it might be difficult to have a good attitude &
> passion for life, which IMO are equally important factors to health
> & longevity. I know some of the rodents(or was it primates?)
> that were on calorie programs were found to be quite depressed. You
> might say this is not the case for you, but it requires more
> calories to being deeply involved and passionate about ones life than to be
> in a passive state of lethargy.
>Douglas:
>>In general, you can state that CR will usually have more
> positive effects on mental alertness than negative effects.
Peter:
>Alert maybe, but not necessarily calm or balanced. What is
> your impression of the overall state of well being among CR eaters?
Well both Bob Avery & I were kicked off the CR list simply for
advocating a raw diet, & since we are both (sadly, Bob is no longer
with us, see below) incredibly mellow dudes, that should tell you
something. Some of them (only about 5% or so, including the
listowner who booted us) are pretty antsy & get reall nasty about
any suggestion that a raw diet might be a good idea. CRed animals
must be kept in separate cages. It can raise adrenaline levels (a
desireable thing as it slows aging). I can state with some
confidence that seriously CRed individuals eating a mostly cooked
diet are pretty nasty. I know for a fact that when I fall off the
raw wagon that I can get irrationally touchy, hair-trigger.
Doug:
>>I've been into NH for about 17 years, & practicing CR for a
> good part of that time. I'm not on anything like a stable caloric
> intake, sometimes I'm more restricted that other times. One thing I d
>o try to do is practice intermittent eating, which in practice means
> I skip breakfast & lunch.
>What is the longest non-stop period you have been on strict CR
> and what would you say your average caloric intake has been the past
> 17 years?
You are giving me too much credit. "Strict CR" is of course a
relative term. I prefer to just watch my weight & spend most of
each day not eating until evening (something which will extend life
almost as well as CR itself). Right now my weight is up around 140
or so, as I have intentionally put on a little fat for the winter.
I'm going to try to get down below 129 anyway (hopefully even lower)
in a long fast in a few weeks, & I'm intending to start the fast at
around 135-6. When I come off it I'll probably stay down around
133-5, or if we are in for some artic air masses in my region I may
go up closer to 140 for the duration of the winter, & will try to go
down to the mid-130's in the Spring. My calories I have only vague
ideas of what they actually are. I've looked up my #'s on a WWW
site which calculates your caloric needs, & it says my resting
requirements are for 1500+ calories/day, but due to the amount of
work I must do 5 or 6 days a week, on those days it is supposedly
2700+. But these are cooked food values, & no way do I go this
high. (You need much less on raw.) How high my intake is, is not
something I really bother with.
.>>My karma is usually about 16.3, +/- 2.4 karmic units.
>That is quite high. Mine rarely runs above 6.4 k.u's. :-)
So sue me.
>>Right now I have intentionally raised my body fat a little (&
> my cat's too) as I work outside in New England in the winter & don't r
>eally heat that much in the house (I was lying in bed this morning
>watching my breath rise). Psychologically I don't usually have a probl
>em, although when long fasting it can get a little too zombie at
>times. If I had my druthers, I would live near the equator,
> exercise almost nil, eat much fewer calories as a result, & from time to
> time go zombie & get down to a skeletal condition. Why do I sense
> that there is not anybody reading this who thinks this is a really cool
>idea?
>I find it interesting that you do not have a lot of the hunger
> pangs I understand are so common among CR eaters. I would like to run
>a battery of tests run on you to see if your body is as happy about your
> regime as you seem to be.
I go by my cat's meow meter to determine how CRed she is. It is
pretty accurate, & I have a very good sense of how sincere she is in
here meows. But you must realize that this is a cat who only eats
during the evening when I get home from work, & as soon as a start
up the steps the meow meter goes off & does not stop until she gets
a certain amount of calories in her.
The CR guys have given anecdotes on the CR list, & they talk about
type 1 & type 2 hunger, with the latter being clearly just
withdrawal symptoms from cooked foods, & the former being mild
withdrawal symptoms (neither one of which some of them appreciated
me pointing out to them). Obviously it is vastly easier to eat raw
while practicing CR, & everybody eating raw is drastically more CRed
than when they were eating processed foods.
>>If you recall that Eskimo stuff I posted a while back, they
> were healthy but had maybe a third lopped off normal lifespans due
> to their high protein (and mostly RAF) diet. They simply began to
> fall apart around age 50 or so, with people living into their 60s being
>>exceptionally long-lived for that population.
>My memory is failing me here. Was this /observation study
> done before they were introduced to the whites man's refined & cooked foods?
Yes sir.
>>The marvelous thing about evolution is the elasticity built
> into us, in that we are born with the ability to go many different
> ways as the environment demands. Brain work in particular in recent years
> has shown this to be true, with all sorts of extra abilities
> built into young brains, which if not used early in life in response to
>>environmental demands will wither.
Peter:
>What abilities are you referring to ?
I forget (THIS IS NOT A PUN). I honestly do forget, but know that
this has been clearly shown to be the case in the most recent
research. Young kids who do not use certain portions of their
brains will see these wither, while those portions that are used
will flourish.
Peter:
>Maybe my reasoning is a little faulty, but I still doubt it
> is any coincidence that the line of hominids that did not adapt to a
> higher consumption of animal foods died out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a minute denying the probability
that meat might have granted survival values to the species as a
whole, but this does not necessarily translate into benefits for the
individual members of the species. I think there may well be a lot
of truth in your statement above, but I will repeat that the fossil
evidence almost certainly comes from homonids living in arid and/or
frigid regions, living well outside our ideal moist/tropical
environment where bones would rapidly disintegrate without leaving a
trace (you are talking bye-bye in decades, not surviving for tens or
hundreds of millennia).
Peter:
>>But many of the other primate species alive today of course eat
>> RAF. When I get a chance in the next eek or two I'll try to post
>> something on a couple of the "magical meat substances" which I have a
> >hunch may explain some of the survival benefits of eating RAF.]
>I look forward to reading it.
Lacking the time at the moment, I'll just state that lipoic acid &
lysine are among these.
Doug:
>>I define "optimally" as maximal lifespan, & there is no
> question that protein beyond the minimal levels required (easily acquired i
>n a raw-veg diet) shortens lifespan.
Peter:
>I think time will show that a veg-raw diet shortens lifespan.
I'm not disagreeing with this, & I do not eat a raw-veg diet (I eat
some raw milk products at the moment, but wonder whether I would be
best avoiding them). But there is no doubt that protein is
life-shortening.
>So CR is in a way of tricking Mother Nature - interesting concept.
Yes, that is all it is.
>Douglas:
>>Some of us (& I believe Bob Avery falls in this category)
> don't opt for raw-veg out of guilt, but out of scientific motivations.
> I could care less about the killing arguments or whatever. What motiv
>ates me is simply what I have concluded is most healthy for me.
>I do not think that we any time soon will find Bob expressing
> a sentiment like yours above. ;-)
Especially since Bob just passed away, unfortunately. It appears
from what I can gather that he was in a car wreck, lost a great deal
of blood, & when they brought him into the hospital barely
conscious, he insisted that under no conditions was he to be given
any blood but that they should just put him in a hypberbaric
chamber. We'll miss you Bobby. Give our regards to Uncle Herbie.
Doug:
>>Indeed, I think we could state as a general rule that most
>>hunter/gatherer &/or agrarian societies were highly likely
> to experience mineral deficiecies. Unless the soil is in an
> unusual place where it has recently gotten a load of volcanic ash or
>glacial runoff, there is every reason to expect deficiencies. As a
> general rule, unless there is a load of freshly-pulverized rock of i
>gneous origin, the soil will probably be lacking to some extent.
> [See "Survival of Civilization" by Hannamaker & Weaver- I believe
> that is the correct title/authors.]
Peter:
>As far as I know none of the Paleolithic evidence supports
> this view. On the contrary it shows that our Paleolithic ancestors had a
> mineral content in their diet that dwarfs that of most contemporary
> diets, and it seems that the fact they were always on the move would
> easily make up for any local deficiencies.
While I think you make a good point here in regard to the high
mineral content (& I forgot to mention maritime peoples of course),
many peoples were simply not mobile, and stuck with what their local
soils held, many of which are deficient in trace elements.
>Peter:
>>>Digging through "The Retardation of Aging and Disease by
> Dietary Restriction" by Weindruch and Walford, they say on page 8:"T
>he ?lifespan extending effects seem to depend quite specifically on
>>>energy (calore) restriction alone, since restriction of fat
>(...), protein (...), or carbohydrate (Dalderup & Visser, 1969)
>>>*without*entergy restriction does not increase the maximum
>>>species-specific LS of rodents." The reference is "Dalderup
> and Visser: Influence of extra sucrose in the daily food on the
>>>life-span of Wistar albino rats. Nature,222:1050, 1969".
>Douglas:
>>I haven't read this, but it is on my list now. I'll report back
>>if/when I get to it.
>Please do. I doubt (corrected for individual differences) that
>excessive protein is much worse than excessive carbs or fat.
Doug:
>>I'm lucky in that whenever I eat protein foods (whether corn
> or nuts or milk) I can definitely feel it, & my body just does not
> like it when I get too much. My tonsils get inflamed & I just feel
> crummy.
Peter:
>Have you considered the possibility that your CR regime might
> have epressed your body's ability to properly process proteins?.
Any dietary component which is restricted and/or absent will result
in an inability to metabolize it, but this ability returns in a
couple of weeks or whatever. But no, my CR has not depressed my
ability, only made me more aware when I suddenly go up in either
calories or protein. The case of Luigi Cornaro (see Chet's WWW
site) is a classic example, and he adapted to a very minimal diet &
would get extremely ill if he eat only slightly more. An alcoholic
can drink huge amounts of booze, if I have only a little I will get
sick.
>>But that all it is, a reference standard. It may keep you
> healthy, but the age at death will on average be much younger if you
> cut out all the protein. Bottom line kids is that there is a clear
> inverse relationship between height & longevity in humans. [Notice
> the technique of saving the punch line for the end.]
>How have you found this to be true?
There is at least one excellent study which found this to be the
case. But this is something which holds true across large
populations, and it should not be assumed that if somebody is tall
that they will have a short life, or if they are short that they
will live a long life. Height is mostly determined by genetics, but
high protein intake during childhood will increase height over your
genetic average, & shorten your lifespan probabilities.
>>I do best around 135 lb., & I know that if my weight drifts
> up to around 140 (& fat drifts up to my butt) that I've been a bad
> boy. I function best when I have no butt, when sitting can be a
> little uncomfortable.
Peter:
>What are the negative symptoms of having a butt? ;-)
Shorter life. Sluggish feeling. Greater sleep requirement.
Doug:
>>What about that British long-term study of vegetarians that
> I recently cross-posted? That makes a powerful case for not only vegetar
>ianism, but the greater the raw % in their diets, the longer the
> individuals lived & the less age-associated diseases.
Peter:
>I disagree. Anybody going on a diet with more whole and/or
> raw foods will do better than on the average British diet, which is pret
>ty terrible, however this should not be taken as an endorsement f
>or neither a vegetarian nor a raw diet.
You lost me here. The study showed clearly that the more raw-veg,
the less disease & the longer the life. It is simply the best human
data which has ever been produced which shows what the actual
results of raw are. The study was just published, it was on
something like 10,000 people (so it has high statistical validity) &
it's impact will hopefully be large in the years ahead. But it
simply provides good solid proof of the way establishment medical
thinking has been moving for years.
>Peter:
>>>I was just wondering how one would tell if they were taking
>calorie restriction too far. Given that there is some minimum
> caloric requirement for a body, how would its owner know if it was b
>eing met? If some undesireable symptom arose, would the calorie
>>>restrictor be able to tell if it was a symptom of anorexia
>>>(starving), or deep detox, or some other cause?
>Douglas:
>>You are making it way too complex. All you need to do is
> look at a scale, & if you keep losing, you are not eating enough or
> are exerting yourself too much for what your intake is.
Peter:
>If not to worry when losing my butt then when should I? ;-)
If the old kielbasa falls off & bounces off the linoleum, then
increase your intake a tad. If it does not bounce when it hits,
increase it 2 tads. If it fell off a couple of weeks ago & you did
not even notice, I would go up at least 4 or 5 tads.
>>In practice, mental factors can predominate in the decision o
>f how restricted you choose to be, with lethargy/mild depression
> beingevident sometimes if you are "too" restricted.
Peter:
>How do you decide when lethargy/ mild depression has gone too
> far?
It's a day-to-day thing, depending on how much you want to get done
or how comfortable you are with just being in a la-la state.
>>I think you have sensed part of the answer, that a raw diet
> will provide much more useable protein, so you need less grams.
> And on the same vein, you need markedly less total calories when eating
> raw than cooked. Live food is much more efficient than dead.
Peter:
>Has this been proven or is it your assumption?
I kind of found this to be the case in my own life (& it certainly
makes emminent sense in that so much of cooked foods is
toxic/useless), but by & large I just purloined it whole from the
late Bob Avery, R.I.P.
>>By the way, I recently read something that suggested that
> even the non-metallic tooth bonding agents & fillers will leach some
>>undesireable stuff, including aluminum (I think that some
> are made of a porcelain, which I guess is a clay & thus would have aluminum).
Peter:
>Where did you come across this information?
A book. Don't ask me what it was, because once I extracted the
above, I decided not to buy it.
>>Yeah, but to return to the Eskimo data again, their meat was
>>"original" but it still aged them rapidly. Meat is protein, protein
>>is toxic above minimal requirements. Our cells metabolize glu
>cose, and for protein to get converted into glucose a lot of nasty
> waste products wind up getting thrown off.
Peter:
>The question is what are the minimal requirements?
According to what Bob Avery recently posted, protein deficiency does
not exist until hair & nails cease growth. Granted, at these levels
you may be lacking certain amino acids which will thus shorten
lifespan. I find it very hard to believe that if you are on a raw
veg diet (but not a strict fruitarian) that you will have any
problem. I'm not even sure the problems with fruitarianism stem
from protein, it may be other ingredients.
>>Yes Beating a dead horse, if you take a carnivore & place it
> on a largely veg. diet, it should live a lot longer.
Peter:
>I find that hard to believe.
You & some others on this list, but you are making a big error. The
negatives of protein are indisputable. Let me turn this around and
state that if you take a primarily herbivorous species (such as
humans) & place them on a RAF diet, you will shorten their lives.
We know this is the case from the Eskimo experience. We know this,
so why is it hard to accept the converse case?
>Bob:
>>>>I agree it may be true that if one looks only at modern
> primitives, they eat a good deal of their meat cooked, at least I think
> this is the case for Aborigines. I am not so sure it is the case
> for all modern primitives.
>Douglas:
>>He's right Ward. Read "Our Primitive Contemporaries" by
> George P.Murdock 1934.
Peter:
>What did Murdock have to say on the role of RAF in human
> nutrition?
He didn't. He was just an anthropologist who reported on a bunch of
peoples living all over the planet, & I believe they all used some
cooked foods, & all used some animal foods. Diet was only mentioned
along with everything else in their cultures.
>>raw-veg is great (Norman Walker living to 109 is a good
>>example-although I believe he ate small quantities of
> cheese).
Peter:
>Where did you dig up the cheese inf.? Maybe the cheese is
> what kept him going for so long. I have never heard of a centenarian who
> did not eat some animal foods.
Scott Nearing was a vegetarian. The Walker cheese info. I am quite
sure of, not sure where I got it though (I think it was from Barry
Mesh who knew Frieda Kabalac who knew Walker). I believe Walker
also mentioned it in his diet suggestions in his books.
>>can extrapolate from animal data to conclude that excessive
> protein is bad. We are probably not yet at a point where we can state
> whether small amounts of RAF might be better than straight veg., &
> it may will be that certain magical meat ingredients (possibly lipoic aci
>d-a great antioxidant- or lycine) confer health benfits when included as
> a small % of the diet. And all this is with the caveat of INDIVIDUAL
>needs showing a wide variance.
Peter:
>If this is your opinion then why your long face when Bhodi
> recently reported of his experience with RAF? - or did you just forget
> the smiley?
It grosses my out, although raw dairy appeals to me. The kid was
doing good, but then he goes off the NH straight & narrow after
hanging around with the instinctos on this list. But there is still
the possibility for him to redeem himself. First he should start by
saying a number of Hail Herbies.
>>What happens is that moderate CR will do as Bob says, but
> extreme CR (or starvation where you are steadily losing weight) will
>>press you, both physically & mentally.
>And yet you seem to advocate lethargy. I am confused.
Lethargy by choice means you need less calories, hence living
longer. "Involuntary" lethargy (as a result of CR) means you are
going down to a deep CR level, something I aspire to.
>Bob:
>>>>Do you know whether there is any empirical evidence
> indicting raw protein in excess?
>>I'm starting to get tired of this thread, & I just don't get
>the notion some harbor which holds that if it's raw-veg, it is O.K.
No way. There is a big difference between low- & high-protein
> raw-veg foods in what they do to your body. [& if we want to talk
> RAF, I again repeat what happened to the Eskimos on mostly RAF-
> they fell apart after age 50 or so.]
Peter:
>People die of smoking every day yet many centenarians are moderate
>smokers. Proportions and doses are the key.
Of course, but I have always felt precisely the same as Bohdi does:
protein is something to be avoided. There are very important
reasons for saying this, & this is something which has certainly
been long-known in the NH movement.
Doug:
>>I know I just feel crummy after eating a bunch of nuts or corn or
>>whatever.
Peter:
>No matter the amount?
Obviously if I eat one almond it will not even register, if I eat
.25 lb, it will. If I eat .5 lb, it will be a lot worse.
>>What about your body temp. rise?
>That could be explained by a weakened digestive system and/or
> leaky gut syndrome.
If digestion is weak (& hence less is absorbed) temp. rise should
not occur. The temp. rise comes about when digestion is operable &
things enter the bloodstream & jack up metabolism. What is leaky
gut syndrome?
Doug:
>>All that literature Bohdi & others have posted may be on
> studies done with cooked proteins, but the basic chemistry by & large
> still holds with raw proteins.
Peter
Your point about excess is well-taken but I think that the proteins
>deserve a break.
Not protein foods. It may be an individual thing with we (& I feel
fortunate that I am this way), but protein foods just don't set well
with me. But besides that, the data is simply there, & protein
shortens life.
Peter:
>>To turn around the question a little, there is a huge literature
>>indicting cooked proteins, & the reasons for much of this
> are independent of whether it is cooked or not.
>If I missed these references would you please post them again?
I just don't have time to go back to find the stuff posted on this
list, but if you search the archives I believe Bohdi & I were the
ones who posted it. But what I was principally referring to is the
research literature dealing with proteins, which is out there if you
start looking around. Off the top of my head I might suggest Joel
Fuhrman's "Fasting & Eating for Health," which is well-footnoted.
It has been clearly proven that protein intake is inversely related
to lifespan, directly related to cancer incidence. Fat is no where
near as bad as protein in these respects, but the same holds true
for fat too.
--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]>
|