Peter said:
>>Are you suggesting that the Vilcabamban region is poorly miner
>>alized?
Doug said:
>No, just guessing, but this is probably a safe assumption unless
>they have a natural means of remineralization such as glacial runoff
>or volcanic dust. Any people farming the same land year after year
>are going to deplete it quickly.
If the land of the Georgians is also demineralized it would support the
argument that a diet higher in animal products protects against the
effects of demineralization. The question is if the Vilcabambans had
access to rock dust and seaweed would they still be in worse shape than
the Georgians?
> Bob Avery's wonderful post to the CR list on the various toxic
> components in cooked foods goes a long way to explaining things.
Bob, can you repost this to veg-raw?
Peter said:
>>I have heard this stated many times but never quite understood
>> how raw foods provide us with more oxygen than cooked foods. Please
>> explain.
Douglas said:
>First, you can assume this is the case by implication, as there is
>essentially no cancer incidence on raw diets, while cooked foods are
>highly carcinogenic.
I think this is too simplistic. Many native peoples on high, cooked
diets have virtually zero incidences of cancer.
>Again according to PPNF this is of no concern as the acidity
>is balanced by the high phosphorous content of most meats.
>It is my understanding that when burned (what the body also
>essentially does, but at a much slower rate) all proteins will yield
>an acidic ash.
Even if this is true, if the diet is balanced with a lot of alkaline
fruits & vegetables I do not see a problem.
>Can Peter or somebody explain (other than perhaps dental problems
>from fruit acids) what the long-term problems are with a raw-veg
>diet supplying plenty of green leafy vegetables? Time & again Shelton
>underscored the importance of the leafy vegetables. I am simply not
>fluent in all this, & don't get what you are talking about.
Good question, as I think that very few raw vegans have included high
amounts of greens in their diet for any length of time, but I still
suspect that it is not enough and that animal foods contain important
nutrients that we still maybe do not know much about.
Larry said:
>>Beta endorphins are not powerful enough to address very serious pain.
>>Moreover, they don't always kick in for some time, sometimes not at
>>all depending on the physiology of the being.
Bob said:
>Not to mention this: If I were to be the object of some higher life
>form alien invader's lunch, I'd hate to have him rationalize his guilt
>(or lack of it) over killing me by saying that my endorphins would
>cushion the pain and everything would be all right.
Just like animals do not understand our language, odds are that we
would not understand the language of any lifeform superior to us that
would want to eat us, so any supposed rationalization would in itself
do no harm.
>Sounds pretty cruel and heartless to me. Gives me the (free) Willies,
>in fact.
How "bad" would killing be if you were able or willing to subtract your
emotional baggage from the subject? Animals have no concepts of good
or bad and the real question is how much pain & suffering does an
animal actually go through when being killed in a conscientious way?
Ward said:
>P.S. I have never responded to the charge by the NFL group-mind that
>we meat-eaters should be out there killing all our own game. Just want
>you all to know that I am doing all I can as an urban-evolutionist by
>swatting all my own flies, stepping on all my own cockroaches, and
>trapping all my own mice (with organic peanut butter, no less) now
>that it is winter-time and they are trying to set up shop in my nice
>cozy little apartment. And for the coup de grace, my next move will be
>to join Exxon and begin drilling for all my own oil so I can drive my
>car in good conscience.
Seen in this context next time I step on an ant it will be with a much
better consciousness. :-/
Peter said:
>>I am critical of the rodent studies which, according to my sources,
>>are comparing calorie restricted rodents in captivity on unnatural,
>>probably cooked diets with overfed rodents also in captivity and on
>>bad diets.
Douglas said:
>I agree with this completely, & made these points many times on the
>CR list. But whether the diet is cooked or raw I don't think there
>can be much doubt that the less calories and the less exercise the
>longer the life. Granted that all these experiments need to be
>redone using raw foods, I would be shocked if the conclusions are
>any different.
That would be very interesting, but I am not sure that the results
would be as predictable as you think.
Peter said:
>>Also, I find you overly focused on biomarkers as temperature
>> & heart rate, but there are many other indicators for how long
>> we will live such as lung capacity, kidney filtration rate, ratio of
>>blood lipids, glucose levels, strength of immune system, nerve
>> conductivity, muscle strength, hormon & enzyme levels etc.
Douglas said:
>I'm only focused on temp., which is probably about the best way to
>get a quick grasp of the success or failure of a life-extension
>regimen, as is the cancer incidence.
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.
>Bob Avery is the one who is
>focused also on pulse rate, but I believe temp. & pulse will track
>each other fairly closely. The other markers you list of course
>have well-known correlations with age, but the sorts of things Bob &
>I are talking about are quick, cheap ways to monitor how well
>changes in your diet or whatever are impacting your aging rate.
>Lots of work has been done on CR's impact on glucose levels in
>particular, but I believe that most of those you mentioned have been
>scrutinized.
I doubt that they all will always correlate with low body temp.and that
practicing moderation is prudent also when it comes to calorie
restriction.
Peter said:
>> I am curious to know if you or anyone else on calorie restrictive
>>diets have undergone any comprehensive panels of biomarker testing to
>>establish your actual, biological age.
Douglas said:
>Be aware that I don't subscribe to a notion of either biological age
>or lifespan. I believe that there are PROBABILITIES that if you do
>this or that your life will be X number of years long, but that is
>about as far as I would go. There are just too many individual
>variables for these sorts of things to apply to anything other than
>average people, not individuals.
I agree, but if you cannot pass the test applied to the average person,
how do you expect to make the grades for the individual test?
Douglas said:
>There is a great deal of confusion about death.
>People do not die of old age. They die of disease, the failure of
>organs, trauma or a breakdown of a metabolic pathway. I have seen
>person after person die "young," looking far younger than their
>chronological ages. I lost an uncle 6 weeks ago to cancer at age
>84. But he was a very youthful 84: smooth skin, active golfer &
>could easily have passed for 65. He did not die of old age, he died
>of a specific disease, which, if he had avoided it, he would have
>doubtless gone on for many more years until some other disease or
>whatever got him.
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..
Douglas said:
>BTW, anybody eating raw or mostly raw is by default on a calorically
>restricted diet when compared to conventional eating. I personally
>think raw will probably be at least as effective as a severe CR
>regime (generally considered to be a restriction of about 30-40% of
>ad libitum calories), & possibly much more effective in increasing
>the probabilities of living beyond normal lifespans.
I would tend to agree.
>Raw combined with CR should really be a powerful life extender.
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.
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.
>And I wonder about minerals in meats. I have no idea whether their
>absorption is superior to plant foods, but this may not be good
>because it brings in stuff herbivores are not adapted to efficiently
>remove excesses of. Calcium is a big-time factor in aging, & I
>wonder if meat-derived calcium (or cooked calcium) is not properly
>handled in the body.
Again, if this was a legitimate concern one would expect mineral
problems among native peoples and yet the opposite seems to be the
norm.
>as a mailman & walk about 10 miles +/- up & down stairs 5 days/week.
>I can state without hesitation that this is not doing me any good, &
>can definitely feel the impact this has on my body (I'm not talking
>joints or anything like that here, I'm referring to just the impact
>of the energy expenditure this requires). It also requires a
>considerably greater caloric intake than if I was lethargic.
You are obviously not living your lethargic ideal at the moment. What
is the longest period you have ever practiced a low-calorie, lethargic
lifestyle? I would be interested to know what your biomarkers, other
than temp., would say and to know how you were feeling during such a
period.
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
