>>I do not see the merit of taking one indicator out of context and
>>relying on it exclusively, and it is not uncommon for people with low
>>body temperatures to die at an early age. The same argument
>>can probably be made for each of the other longevity indicators and
>>by doing that I think you are missing the whole picture.

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?

>& 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.

>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.

>There is every reason to expect that the more drastic the CR, the
>better for lifespan. (This assumes that you get adequate nutrition of
>everything you need, not just calories.)

Exactly what constitutes "adequate nutrition" is the whole bone of
contention. I am not sure that all longevity buffs would agree with
your definitions of these requirements.

>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?

>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 biological age
was and thereby get an idea to what extent your calorie restricted
regime is supporting your health & longevity.

>>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..

>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

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. 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'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. Th>ese 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.).

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.

>>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.

>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.

>There are ways to insure adequate nutrition (including supplements) of
>the essential items in the diet in addition to simple calories.

There is much controversy on these issues. Which supplements do you
take and at what amounts?

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.

Alert maybe, but not necessarily calm or balanced. What is your
impression of the overall state of well being among CR eaters?

>this gets back to how do you define health, is it simply the apparent
>absence of disease or is it the prolongation of the killer diseases
>into well into the later years.

It gets a little sketchy here as native peoples are not susceptible to
most killer diseases, but your point is well taken.

>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 do 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?

>My karma is usually about 16.3, +/- 2.4 karmic units.

That is quite high. Mine rarely runs above 6.4 k.u's. :-)

>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 really
>heat that much in the house (I was lying in bed this morning watching
>my breath rise). Psychologically I don't usually have a problem,
>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.

>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?

>I don't think there is any doubt that if you took an Eskimo & sent him
>to live with Bohdi out in the semi-tropical realm of the wise &
>generous Pete Wilson that he/she would live a lot longer.

I have never heard the California  governor described in such favorable
terms. :-/ - It would be interesting to see how the Eskimos would fare
in a friendlier climate but remaining on their original 90% raw diet.

>Trust me: whether we are talking animal experiments done by feeding
>them cooked, fractionated proteins, or humans eating RAF, the results
>are not going to be pretty- drastically shortened lives, accelerated
>appearance of age-related diseases & higher cancer incidence.

That depends on the proportions. I will bet you any day that animals
fed RAF's will fare a lot better than animals on CAD's.

>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.

What abilities are you referring to ?

>Since we evolved eating meat and since we are the only human species
>alive today, [all cats (& some dogs) would take exception to this
>contention]it does not seem like a huge leap of logic to contend that
>the rest of the hominoid species died out because they did not adapt
>well to meat-eating.

>[I think that this is a leap, & that it is not valid. All sorts of
>reasons could explain the disappearance of the other homonid species.

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.

>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.

>I define "optimally" as maximal lifespan, & there is no question that
>protein beyond the minimal levels required (easily acquired in a
>raw-veg diet) shortens lifespan.

I think time will show that a veg-raw diet shortens lifespan.

>To give a sort of relevant analogy, if we put a human population on a
>starvation diet for their entire lives, sufficient in calories only
>to keep them alive, this would probably result in a cessation (or
>drastic urtailment) of reproduction, which is bad news for the
>survival of the population as a whole. Yet the individual members of
>this population would have exceptionally long lives from this.
>[Nature assumes that the famine will eventually be superceded by fat
>years, and thus extends the lives of the starved so they can live
>into the fat years & reproduce so as to preserve the species.] I am
>not saying that meat is bad for the survival of the population. I am
>saying that meat is deleterious to at least some (most?) of the
>individuals in that population.

So CR is in a way of tricking Mother Nature - interesting concept.

Peter:
>>What I find so healthy and refreshing about instinctos is that they
>>unlike vegans seem so devoid of any feelings of guilt, which  is not
>>a very constructive feeling anyhow. Bob, the only way you can really
>>get to the truth of the matter would be to confront your own feelings
>>of guilt and give RAF a real chance by eating liberal amounts of it
>>by for a while.

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 motivates 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. ;-)

>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 igneous
>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.]

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.

Peter:
>>Digging through "The Retardation of Aging and Disease by  Dietary
>>Restriction" by Weindruch and Walford, they say on page 8:"The
>>?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.

>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.

Have you considered the possibility that your CR regime might have
depressed your body's ability to properly process proteins?.

>It is well known that many of the W.W.II concentration camp survivors
>were killed from too-rapid feeding of a high-fat diet in the days
>following their liberation.

What a fate - after so much suffering being killed off by good
intentions.

>Getting back to where this post started (with Zephyr's statement on
>the magical properties in raw foods), I suspect that the electrical
>impact of raw vs. cooked (or protein vs. carbs.) is a big part of the
>magic in food we do not yet understand well.

Fair assumption. Some time ago I had Kirlian photographs taken of my
fingertips and they showed an aura surrounding them that was quite
above average.

>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?

>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.

What are the negative symptoms of having a butt? ;-)

>What about that British long-term study of vegetarians that I recently
>cross-posted? That makes a powerful case for not only vegetarianism,
>but the greater the raw % in their diets, the longer the individuals
>lived & the less age-associated diseases.

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 pretty
terrible, however this should not be taken as an endorsement for
neither a vegetarian nor a raw diet.

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 being
>>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.

If not to worry when losing my butt then when should I? ;-)

>In practice, mental factors can predominate in the decision of how
>restricted you choose to be, with lethargy/mild depression being
>evident sometimes if you are "too" restricted.

How do you decide when lethargy/ mild depression has gone too far?

Bodhi:
>>play some bob dylan

>Eating meat is one thing, but do you have to engage in masochism?
>Stick with the meat, ditch Dylan.

I can't imagine how somebody could not like Dylan. Don't tell me that
you are a Michael Bolton fan - that's masochism! ;-)

>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.

Has this been proven or is it your assumption? Also, I understand that
when you cook meat it shrinks about 20-25 % thereby making it a more
concentrated protein source - or is the other way around cooking adding
water instead?  Never having cooked meat I am pretty ignorant on the
subject.

>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).

Where did you come across this information?

>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.]

Which population studies have shown this?

>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 glucose,
>and for protein to get converted into glucose a lot of nasty waste
>products wind up getting thrown off.

The question is what are the minimal requirements?

>Yes Beating a dead horse, if you take a carnivore & place it on a
>largely veg. diet, it should live a lot longer.

I find that hard to believe.

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.

What did Murdock have to say on the role of RAF in human nutrition?

>raw-veg is great (Norman Walker living to 109 is a good
>example-although I believe he ate small quantities of cheese).

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.

>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 well
>be that certain magical meat ingredients (possibly lipoic acid-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.

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?

>What happens is that moderate CR will do as Bob says, but extreme CR
>(or starvation where you are steadily losing weight) will depress
>you, both physically & mentally.

And yet you seem to advocate lethargy. I am confused.

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.]

People die of smoking every day yet many centenarians are moderate
smokers. Proportions and doses are the key.

>I know I just feel crummy after eating a bunch of nuts or corn or
>whatever.

No matter the amount?

>What about your body temp. rise?

That could be explained by a weakened digestive system and/or leaky gut
syndrome.

>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.

Your point about excess is well-taken but I think that the proteins
deserve a break.

>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?

>Again, didn't Shelton or somebody have something about working horses
>fed oats live much shorter lives than horses put out to pasture?

That is no big surprise as grains are not a natural food for horses.

Bset, Peter
[log in to unmask]