PDA

View Full Version : A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Whoa182
Tue, May-23-06, 00:06
I wasn't sure whether to post this as it is not low carb, but we are all looking for better health and centenarians don't get to their age without being in good health right? Some believe all carbs are pure evil, few believe that fiber is damaging to our health, and fewer still believe that vegetables are just poison!... Well the centenarians would disagree as they consumed an average of around 465g of them!

I figured that some of you might be interested in it at least... So here it is :thup:

A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians

To read the whole thing go here: http://www.cmj.org/Periodical/PDF/2001/2001101095.pdf

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo make a survey of the nutritional composition of the diets of centenarians.

Methods Thirty- four centenarians were selected as subjects. Retrospective surveys were made on the variety and amounts of food consumed and their nutritional composit ion. Physical examinations with laboratory tests such as cardiograms, ultrasoni c B rays, and blood, urine and hair tests were performed. Neutron activation te sting was done on hair content. The transmission turbidimetric method was used to measure apolipoprotein content.

Results The main food of the centenarians showed the characteristics of low calories, pr otein and fat but high fiber and mineral content. Laboratory results showed tha t the content of the elements of Cu, Se and Mn in hair was higher (P<0. 01) . Zn was normal. The apoA1/apoB100 ratio was higher than in the contro l group (P<0. 0I), and total cholesterol (TC) was lower than in the control group (P<0. 01).

Conclusions The variety of diet and its nutritional composition may be the main factors infl uencing not only the content of elements in body, but also the levels of apoA1 and apoB100, which may be helpful in preventing arteriosclerosis and form ing and maintaining immunity. The diet of these centenarians might aid in preve nting cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and malignant tumors.

Some important parts:

- Diets were low in calories (1419k/cal), protein and fat, but high in fiber and minerals
- Vegetable intake was high
- -apoA1, apoB100, TC, HDL- C and LDL- C levels of centenarians are all lower than those of the control group
- It seems as though their healthy eating habits was the main reason for their longevity

and my fave

-the typical diet of Japanese centenarians shows sweet potato slices as their main staple food which is very similar to the diet of Chinese centenarians

I love my sweet potatoes! :hyper:

Table2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/table2.jpg

pbowers
Tue, May-23-06, 04:45
interesting in that chinese centarians seem to consume fewer calories than other chinese with identical lifestyles. however, the fact that they eat a diet high in vegetables and low in fat and protein probably doesn't distinguish them much from other, shorter-lived chinese mountain-living counterparts.

bkloots
Tue, May-23-06, 04:58
IMHO, the single common characteristic of centenarians is: good genes. Totally unscientific, of course. :lol:

liddie01
Tue, May-23-06, 05:08
IMHO, the single common characteristic of centenarians is: good genes. Totally unscientific, of course. :lol:

I like the diet thingy though, my grandmom and great aunt Sofie eat perogies [noodle pockets stuffed with potatoes and cheese and fried in butter] keilbasa [polish sausage] Babka, krushiske [deep fried cookies with powdered suger on] every day! and are 103 and 92 years old now, my other grandmom and great grandmom were english and ate everything with gravy on it, and lots of puddings and both died in their 100's. I love both those kinds of diets, but I'm betting it has more to do with having good genes :lol:

Whoa182
Tue, May-23-06, 06:53
I doubt that reaching 100-110 is down to just good genes. It's clear that in certain parts of the world where they consume diets like this (okinawa) with low energy intake, they commonly live till their 90's and 100's in good health. The people living in the Okinawa region of Japan have 40 times the number of centenarians as some other countries. Just seeing the differences in life expectancy for different parts of the world indicates how lifestyle affects lifespan.

Thats certainly not just down to good genes but reaching 110+ is probably both luck and diet. Isn't it like genes only account for 25% of your longevity?... the rest is diet and envirionment.

In a video about two centenarians I posted a couple weeks ago or so... They found the common thing that most centenarians had was good a healthy life style. Most do not reach that age by eating ****

Nancy LC
Tue, May-23-06, 07:44
Seeing the difference between my Mom and others around her age, 86, I believe that probably most of the difference in their health is due to genetics. They're all eating pretty crappy diets, by my standards, some are smoking, some are alcoholics, some skinny, some chubby.

kaypeeoh
Tue, May-23-06, 08:13
Everyone likes to blame genetics. If they die young, it's genetics. If they live to 100, its genetics. Genes can be turned on and off by the foods we eat. The most important thing I will retain from this is that low-calorie was more important than percentages of meat, etc.

We all know someone who did everything wrong and lived a long life. That doesn't mean I want to smoke a carton a day and drink a gallon of bourbon a day like my grandfather did. (Died at 85)

twistiyogi
Tue, May-23-06, 08:17
You can still "blow it" even if your family has the longevity gene.
My great grandparents lived past 100 but lived a healthy lifestyle, my parents would say they were "tea totallers" Whatever that means?
But my grandmother didn't make it so far!
She literally lived on beer, cigarettes, entemanns and frozen dinners.
The only reason I think she lived as long as she did was, besides the longevity gene, she loved crossword puzzles.
She died when she was 80.
That still is pretty good, but she also had zero stress. She would never leave the house or do anything.

Anyway, I remember hearing that my great grandparents swore by dried apricots. Strange.

bkloots
Tue, May-23-06, 08:28
Granted I'm just arguing for the sake of entertainment here, so don't overreact. But wouldn't you say that the population of say, Okinawa, represents a particular gene pool as well as a dietary pattern? Unlike the population of, say, Minneapolis.

Furthermore, TWO centenarians in a video doth not a sample make. The correlation of lifestyle could well be coincidence. And as Nancy points out, there are numerous reports of centenarians who smoke, drink alcohol, and eat sausages. They are not necessarily in "good health" in spite of being old.

Genes, I say. But eat your veggies and exercise anyway.

Uliana
Tue, May-23-06, 08:39
I believe genetics plays a large part in how long we live. Otherwise, you wouldn't have "cancer runs in his family" sort of thing. I remember reading the obit of a lady who reached 103 or something. She ate steak and eggs all the time and liked her brandy. :lol:

Oh, BTW its "teetotalers" ;) , and it means they totally abstained from alcohol. It came from the 1800s where people would emphasize a word by repeating the first letter. So instead of saying total, they would say T-total, hence Tee-total, and teetotaler, one who doesn't drink alcohol.

fluffybear
Tue, May-23-06, 08:41
I personally think genetics are the main reason some people live longer than others, modern medicine not withstanding. Okinawa is a small island with a small gene pool. The article on aging published by National Geogrpahic earlier int he year featured three distinct populations: Okinawans, Sicilians and Seventh Day Adventists---all which are prone to marry within the same gene pool. That withstanding, I do believe that diet and lifestyle can possibly strenghten people's genes.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0827_agegen.html

fluffybear
Tue, May-23-06, 08:44
You can still "blow it" even if your family has the longevity gene.
My great grandparents lived past 100 but lived a healthy lifestyle, my parents would say they were "tea totallers" Whatever that means?
But my grandmother didn't make it so far!
She literally lived on beer, cigarettes, entemanns and frozen dinners.
The only reason I think she lived as long as she did was, besides the longevity gene, she loved crossword puzzles.
She died when she was 80.
That still is pretty good, but she also had zero stress. She would never leave the house or do anything.

Anyway, I remember hearing that my great grandparents swore by dried apricots. Strange.

My great-grandmother on my mother's side lived into her 90's. My own mother is 86 and doing fine, but both her parents died in the 70's. My mother smoked, my grandmother smoked but my grandfather did not smoke. Who knows?

bkloots
Tue, May-23-06, 08:49
Loved the etymology on teetotal. Learn something every day. Thanks!

Whoa182
Tue, May-23-06, 09:07
There are a few problems with what some of you are saying, i'll address them now, it's almost certainly not just in the genes, here are the reasons why and what you would expect if they were genetically *gifted*

Okinawans life expectancy is now dropping due to a change in diets of the under 50 year olds. They have large numbers of people obese with type 2 diabetes and other significant health problems. They have basically adopted western life style.

Here is a fact (part of it will be contraversial aroun dhere lol... but the point is they don't live aslong!)

"Okinawans consuming a meat-heavy diet in Brazil live 17 years shorter on average than those who consume the traditional diet in Okinawa.

^^
That is not what we see in people with good genes. These people are not superhuman because of their genes, they are just as vulnerable to bad eating habbits as everyone else!

What do we see in typical genetically gifted person?

The ability to handle stress very well, they are able to go against all *rules* what one should do to make it to extreme ages, the ability to handle toxins like smoking. Jeanne calmet was a genetically gifted person. Okinawans in general are not.

But by reducing calories, the same characteristics show up as what these people with good genes have. Good immunity to illnesses, ability to deal with deadly toxins and not be as harmed and many other things...

:thup:

LC FP
Tue, May-23-06, 09:11
It's obvious that genetics plays a large part in how long you live. CRers are always trying to dream up ways to "fool" their DNA into thinking they're younger than the biologic clock says they are.

Since your genes are "selfish" they may want you to live awhile past childbearing years to assist your kids with childrearing, etc, but not too long. Once you become a drag on your kids odds for survival, you're toast.

Whoa182
Tue, May-23-06, 09:18
Doesn't what I said actually go against the idea that its genetic? I think its a damn good indication that its mostly down to diet.

LC FP
Tue, May-23-06, 09:35
Whoa, I'm not saying you can't fool your DNA. I'm sure you can. But evolutionarily, a time to live and a time to die makes sense. You guys are trying to extend the theoretic lifespan beyond what it is now. Fooling around with mother nature most likely will end up in failure.

As I age, the thought of death doesn't convey the same sense of dread that it did when I was 20. The cycles of nature seem more sensible to me. You may begin to feel the same way as the years pile up.

Our whole culture is based on taking control of nature, and it seems to be doing a good job of wrecking the planet in the process. I know you are very optimistic about the future of the human race, but I have my doubts.

bigpeach
Tue, May-23-06, 09:51
A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians

I am appalled that anyone would consider eating a centenarian.

pbowers
Tue, May-23-06, 09:52
i'm in agreement with whoa here. if you take people from the same genetic pool and subject them to different environmental lifestyle factors (e.g. diet, stress, exercise) you'll get different outcomes. this is what we find with groups like the traditional inuit and masai, who, btw, eat almost no vegetables. those who keep their traditional diets (i.e. mostly meat) are immune to the "diseases of civilization", while those who start consuming a "western" diet (i.e. increased CHO) fall victim to those afflictions at the same rates or higher as non-inuit/masai.

the problem is narrowing it down to just one factor, like diet. and if we can safely narrow it down to diet (i.e. all other factors are the same, like identical twins who have lived identical lifestyles, outside of diet), we could then look at things like caloric intake and the macronutrient composition of their diets.

LC FP
Tue, May-23-06, 10:06
I am appalled that anyone would consider eating a centenarian.

I hear they're not bad if you marinate them overnight.

bigpeach
Tue, May-23-06, 10:07
I suppose if they were dry aged...

ubizmo
Tue, May-23-06, 10:53
One interesting dietary detail is the apparently higher intake of copper, based on hair analysis. I've seen this mentioned in relation to the "French paradox" as well. Good dietary sources of copper are things like shellfish and liver--moules frites and pate.

See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2697136&dopt=Abstract and http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/130/2/489S

I wouldn't claim for a second that this is what allows people to live to 100, but it may be part of the puzzle. Personally, I think the cumulative body of CR research makes a strong case that the low-energy diet plays an important role. Genes may be part of what makes certain people better able to tolerate the low-energy diet.

Frogbreath
Tue, May-23-06, 14:16
If they are measuring only their present diet, that would certainly skew the assumptions of how they made it to 100 or more. Typically the very elderly eat much less than they did when they were a few decades younger.

grandpa
Tue, May-23-06, 15:09
Since your genes are "selfish" they may want you to live awhile past childbearing years to assist your kids with childrearing, etc, but not too long. Once you become a drag on your kids odds for survival, you're toast.
But by then you would have long passed on your genes!?

pbowers
Tue, May-23-06, 15:39
If they are measuring only their present diet, that would certainly skew the assumptions of how they made it to 100 or more. Typically the very elderly eat much less than they did when they were a few decades younger.this is a good point. and if the researcher(s) tried to ascertain what these people have been consuming during their lifetimes, they'd definitely have to factor in the inherent weakness of diet recall. many people can't accurately recall what they ate yesterday (and almost everyone under reports what they actually ate), let alone remembering what they ate decades ago.

Turtle2003
Tue, May-23-06, 15:53
Okinawa has a very large proportion of population living to one hundred years of age. It is attributed to their healthy diet rich in pork, sea vegetables, and fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa


Pork is important to the Okinawan diet, a food tradition borrowed from the Chinese and preferred, as it is in many island nations, because the land lacks an abundance of grazing land. All part of the pig were used, often preserved in salt so that the meat could provide nourishment for many months. Theres an Okinawan joke that the only thing you cannot use of the pig is the pigs cry when its about to be slaughtered, said Yamada.

Rafute is a classic pork dish, in which the meat is simmered for several hours in stock and soy, resulting in a tender soy-glazed pork punctuated with accents of ginger. Numerous pork and vegetable combinations are served with a bowl of rice for example, pork, goya and eggplant chanpuru, seasoned with miso. Other notable dishes from the pig include pigs feet soup, spare ribs and nakami, or intestine soup.

Pork may not be considered good for the body because of the fat, said Yamada. But we almost always cook it with vegetables and tofu; pork is a small portion of the dish. And the meat is generally cooked more than once.
Pork also flavors soups for soba dishes, another common dish of Okinawan cuisine, but made with wheat flour rather than buckwheat noodles.

http://www.okinawa.com/food_article.html


Pork is a big element of the Okinawan diet, probably originating with the islands centuries long ties with China. To this day Chinese cooking is famous for its reliance on pork. Okinawa most likely began importing pigs from China in the late 14th century. Today almost every part of the animals anatomy is used in the cooking pot. Tebichi or pigs trotters are rich in collagen and are made into a nutritious soup, served with kelp. The face and ears are also eaten, garnished with vinegar and peanut butter. The blood is also used for frying.

In other places with high pork consumption there are often health problems of the type associated with eating any type of meat too much fat. This is not a problem with Okinawan pork dishes because the meat is boiled for hours before it is eaten and the fat drained off.


http://www.japanupdate.com/en/?id=2214


Pork meat is one of the staples in traditional Okinawan diet, and most people here eat in in one form or another almost every day. The traditional Okinawa breed of pig -- Aguu -- originally came from China, but it has all but disappeared, replaced by western breeds.

The only place that still breeds aguu is Nakijin Village. Now breeders there have set up a foundation dedicated for preserving and promoting the breed. Only 65 of the animals are left but promoters hope that that is enough to form the base for the future stock.

http://www.japanupdate.com/en/?id=954

ItsTheWooo
Tue, May-23-06, 16:06
I doubt that reaching 100-110 is down to just good genes. It's clear that in certain parts of the world where they consume diets like this (okinawa) with low energy intake, they commonly live till their 90's and 100's in good health. The people living in the Okinawa region of Japan have 40 times the number of centenarians as some other countries. Just seeing the differences in life expectancy for different parts of the world indicates how lifestyle affects lifespan.


They also all share very, very similar genetic code. They are not only all Japanese, but entirely from the same village. You are kidding yourself if you think your genetic code has the same potential for long life (or anything for that matter) as the Okinawan population.

Also, it's not so much just genes OR diet in some isolated bubble but the interaction of genes plus environment. Even if we assume the lifestyle of these particular centenarians are a powerful reason they are centenarians, it is false to conclude all people will see a maximizing of individual life span eating the Okinawan diet.

Our genetic code is like a computer program that prepares us to handle certain environments, and it is written in response to selection and adaptation to the environments we've encountered in the past.
The dietary tolerances and intolerances which proved adaptive circulates in isolated populations (tribes, families). Diet A will not effect Member of tribe B the way it does Member of tribe A. Our dietary tolerances and intolerances reflect our tribal lineages, very much like other racial characteristics.

Here's a great example. The people of Sardinia have the most centenarians out of any place in the world. The Sardinian diet is nothing like that of the Okinawans, yet they still boast great health and longevity. The people of Sardinia eat plenty of cheese, for example, but if you tried to feed the Okinawans cheese they would react very badly.


Thats certainly not just down to good genes but reaching 110+ is probably both luck and diet. Isn't it like genes only account for 25% of your longevity?... the rest is diet and environment.

How can you calculate what percentage of your genes are responsible for longevity? Genes absolutely predict our individual maximum life span, true, and maybe that's where the 25% number comes from... but OTHER genes affect whether or not we live it out (and, in what environment we will or won't). Genes entirely affect our lifespan, and, it's never just genes in isolation. Genes function like computer programs - they're code with preprogrammed instructions to respond a certain way to a certain condition. The code has been passed down generation to generation, and its instructions are activated or deactivated in response to environmental stimuli which we have experienced before (thus, the code existing in the first place). When you give your "programs" a condition it has never experienced, imbalance and dysfunction and disease results.

Health (living right) is produced from the right mix of genes and environment/lifestyle. Maxmimum life is something different from health, health only affects minimum life. Furthermore, all "mixes" of genes/environments will not be the same. The diet of the Okinawan does not affect the Sardinian the same way, and vice versa. It is false to conclude "human is human" in this instance, because there is a *lot* of individual and tribal variation at work.

Not only that, but I believe there is a great deal of individual genetic variance in our capacity for extreme long life.

Here's something I'm sure you, a CRONer, won't be able to quite fully comprehend, and I'm sure I'm wasting my breath here, but I'll try anyway.
Length of life is something entirely different from health. It is false to operate with the assumption that longevity absolutely reflects health. Health status can artificially reduce length of life, but the maximum life span you were born with (you, as an individual) reflects your genetic tribal lineage. It is not absolutely adaptive to have the genes to live to 100, in the context of nature.

Whether or not longevity is adaptive depends very much on the sort of environmental pressures existed for a particular tribe or group.
For example, longevity works much the same as other tribal characteristics, such as coloring. Pale groups selected for pale features due to reduced sun exposure, dark groups select dark features for the inverse reason.
Like coloring, longevity is a trait, and like all traits it is only situationally adaptive. In sunny climates pale people tend to oversaturate with sun (thus, cancer); in dark climates darker people develop vitamin D deficiencies (thus, cancer).

Longevity as a trait reflects first and foremost fertility cycles. Fertility cycles reflect population density and nutrient availability. Creatures who reproduce less often also live much longer. Humans in nutritionally adverse environments reproduce less due to reduced fertility. Therefore if they are to survive, they must somehow learn to maximize their life. Ironically enough, Okinawans might not live so long BECAUSE of their healthy diets, but as a direct adaptation to how deprived it is. If they had average longevity, their diet would have resulted in a population deficit that would eventually result in extinction.

On the other hand, groups who had different pressures did not select the same genes for longevity, because in these cases it would not have been adaptive. For example, the nutrient rich diets of hunter gatherer groups means they are very fertile, reproducing earlier and much more easily. As a rule of thumb, assuming everything else is equal (that is you aren't sacrificing *quality* for *quantity*), it's always better to reproduce faster if you can. If hunter-gatherers selected the traits of longevity, population density would overwhelm the resources, and we would see a net result of stress and strain.


So you see, it is erroneous to use longevity as the sole litmus test to determine whether or not a particular lifestyle is effective or "healthy". Our genetic potential lifespan varies a great deal, and it reflects stress and strain of resources (i.e. nutrition status, and population density relative to nutrition status).
Premature death DOES imply poor health, but simply living longer no more implies superiority than coloring does. It's a trait, and it's neutral, it merely reflects environmental pressures levied upon a particular human group.

Like I said earlier, it is also erroneous to make blanket statements as to what you or I should or should not be eating for this same reason. I do not have the genes of a Sardinian (who enjoys cheese in bounty and lives to 100), or an Okinawan (who eats a preponderance of carbohydrate and is equally long lived), or an Eskimo (who eats entirely of fat, and has a remarkable ability to generate heat to stay warm from food and enjoys terrific health free of disease).

In a video about two centenarians I posted a couple weeks ago or so... They found the common thing that most centenarians had was good a healthy life style. Most do not reach that age by eating ****
I'm sure no one gets to be a centenarian eating krispy kreams, but then again, no one has the genetic code FOR krispy kreams. No one has the "computer programs" designed for this modern, unnatural food drug.

This hardly "proves" everyone should eat like an isolated genetically homogeneous population who happens to have very long life (and, as I illustrated, may be centenarians not BECAUSE their diet is so nutritious, but because it so impaired fertility and reproduction this group now has an abnormal amount of long lived people in its midst).

Me eating sweet potatoes is like an Okinawan eating Sardinian cheese. It just isn't going to work.

kwikdriver
Tue, May-23-06, 16:15
A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians

I am appalled that anyone would consider eating a centenarian.

Charlton Heston did, and he got Alzheimer's :eek:

If we're going to look at epidemiological (and anecdotal, to boot) evidence like this, we also need to look at what happens in a population that increases carbs without restricting calories, as happened in the U.S. starting in the 1980s. It wasn't a pretty picture, and we're only now beginning to deal with the fallout, with massive rises in obesity and diabetes rates. As has (repeatedly) been pointed out in threads like these, it's great if you can eat lots of carbs and maintain your health, but most people simply can't. And for some of us, the surest ticket to an early grave is to try to eat a high carb diet, regardless of how many calories, because it just will not work. Selling the putative Okinawan diet here is like selling alcohol to American Indians, or, perhaps a better example, flour. It didn't work out too well for them, as I see just about every day when I see yet another super obese, wheelchair bound Indian, who loves his or her frybread more than the ability to walk. For every population like the Okinawans, there are dozens of populations like the Pima Indians where I live, populations for whom carbs are about as evil as evil can be.

ItsTheWooo
Tue, May-23-06, 16:53
You can still "blow it" even if your family has the longevity gene.
My great grandparents lived past 100 but lived a healthy lifestyle, my parents would say they were "tea totallers" Whatever that means?
But my grandmother didn't make it so far!
She literally lived on beer, cigarettes, entemanns and frozen dinners.
The only reason I think she lived as long as she did was, besides the longevity gene, she loved crossword puzzles.
She died when she was 80.
That still is pretty good, but she also had zero stress. She would never leave the house or do anything.

Anyway, I remember hearing that my great grandparents swore by dried apricots. Strange.
Stress is very important in longevity. Stress "stresses out" your immune system, and when that happens, you start seeing cancers and disease and premature death. Levels of stress are an absolute indicator of health (balance, fitness). Excess stress always implies maladaption, and maladaption always means physiological dysfunction (disease, imbalances, premature death).

Genearlly speaking, yes, living to 100 is a function of genetics. Longevity does not equal health. Health equals maximum lifespan, something entirely different from longevity. Longevity is a trait, not a health product. Longevity, if it is selected for in genetically homogenous populations (tribes), is selected (or not) depending on a larger relationship of tribal population density, fertility, nutrition status. etc.

Okinawans selected for longevity genes not because of their diet's richness and healthfulness... but in spite of it.

Meat/fat eaters who eat a ton of energy are extremely fertile. Hunter gatherers are extremely healthy but they don't live to be 100 for ag ood reason. If they had those kinds of lifespans, "elders" would overwhelm the (much more valuable) young. Perhaps if they were subsisting on grass and twigs therefore not as fertile it would be adaptive to live longer and reproduce less, but they don't have to take that option. Why would they? In nature, it is always better to reproduce more than it is to live longer (assuming everything else is equal, i.e. quality of offspring), because reproduction functions very much like longevity, only with a greater advantage of faster adaptation. Being able to adapt faster is the highest level of adaptivity.

Okinawans could only logically exist in a secluded, very isolated part of the world that does not change much. If they existed anywhere else their "strategy" would have rendered them overwhelmed by competitors (such a low rate of adaptation, i.e. reproduction, means they lose out to those with greater nutrition thus rates of adaptation (reproduction) ).

Nancy LC
Tue, May-23-06, 17:07
Centenarian-on-a-stick!

ItsTheWooo
Tue, May-23-06, 17:10
There are a few problems with what some of you are saying, i'll address them now, it's almost certainly not just in the genes, here are the reasons why and what you would expect if they were genetically *gifted*

Okinawans life expectancy is now dropping due to a change in diets of the under 50 year olds. They have large numbers of people obese with type 2 diabetes and other significant health problems. They have basically adopted western life style.


Here is a fact (part of it will be contraversial aroun dhere lol... but the point is they don't live aslong!)

"Okinawans consuming a meat-heavy diet in Brazil live 17 years shorter on average than those who consume the traditional diet in Okinawa.

^^

There are so many things wrong with your reasoning.

1) As I said in my first post, there is a great deal of genetic heterogeniety in what various humans need to eat. Sardinians have more centarians than any place in the world, they are adapted to eat cheese. Okinawans also have a very high amount of centarians, they are not. There is no "perfect diet", and this magical irrational view of "super food" as a powerful life giving tonic you CRONers seem to hold to is magical thinking. All you have is genes - computer code - and environmental variables - conditions. If I give a condition to a code that cannot handle this condition, there is no logical result, there is dysfunction (in biological terms, these are disease, imbalance, and premature death).

Sweet potatoes, carbohydrates ample and continuous are to my "code" illogical. A wide array of imbalances results. Be fortunate your "code" understands them a bit better, mine still thinks I am preagricultural :D.

2) It is totally unfounded to say Okinawans live 17 years shorter than traditional Okinawans because of singular conditions. (BTW, only 17 years shorter on average? The average lifespan of Okinawans is highest in the world, is it not? This implies they are still living longer than most people, a good argument that they have selected for longevity genes... not that it wasn't already obvious)

It's the combination of the picture of diet and lifestyle. There is a WHOLE lot different about traditional Okinawan life besides less meat. Stress is a big cause of poor health, and Brazil is certainly a more stressful and unnatural place than Okinawa. That meat is responsible is politically correct/vegetarian slant.


That is not what we see in people with good genes. These people are not superhuman because of their genes, they are just as vulnerable to bad eating habbits as everyone else!

Is it not true that the Okinawans are still, on average, longer lived than their peers even when following similar lifestyles? Doesn't this imply longevity genes?

dina1957
Tue, May-23-06, 17:53
My DH grandmother practically lives on raw dry cured raw cured pork fat - delicious BTW, sauerkraut, potatoes, pelmeni (similar to ravioli, pasta sheets stuffed with ground beef and pork, and boiled) eaten with sour cream and butter, rye bread , lots of garlic, and black tea with quite a bit of sugar in it. She just turned 90, has no diabetes and no heart desease despite being overweight even obese all her life.

My MIL (her daughter) who is only 65 has poorly controlled diabetes, high blood pressure, CAD, kidney problems, and is on a bunch of medications as long as I can remember. They live together, cook and eat same food (expect MIL avoids sugar and high carb food or so she tells us). So what gives? I say genetics, all grandma brothers and sisters lived well into 90s, and one died at 102. She has no diabetes, no high blood pressure, goes places on her own everyday, and recently started using glasses. But she lost almost all her hearing, so may be this is the key to longevity, not being able to hear what other ppl are saying;)
I think genetics is a key to longevity and lifestyle may or may not contribute, but without good genes, it's hard to make to a very old age and not to fall apart.

dina1957
Tue, May-23-06, 18:06
this is what we find with groups like the traditional inuit and masai, who, btw, eat almost no vegetables. those who keep their traditional diets (i.e. mostly meat) are immune to the "diseases of civilization", while those who start consuming a "western" diet (i.e. increased CHO) fall victim to those afflictions at the same rates or higher as non-inuit/masai.
Why clamp together Unit and Masai, the latest eat mostly raw milk mixed with blood of living animals. They eat meat on special ocations as a part of festivities food and a treat for elderly and ill, and warriors to gain stregth before hunting. Their relation with cattle is basically almost commensal. Masai don't kill cattle unless animal is injured.
http://fga.freac.fsu.edu/academy/pdf/tribal_fact_sheet2.pdf

pbowers
Tue, May-23-06, 19:09
Why clamp together Unit and Masai, the latest eat mostly raw milk mixed with blood of living animals. They eat meat on special ocations as a part of festivities food and a treat for elderly and ill, and warriors to gain stregth before hunting. Their relation with cattle is basically almost commensal. Masai don't kill cattle unless animal is injured.
http://fga.freac.fsu.edu/academy/pdf/tribal_fact_sheet2.pdf
from the cholesterol myths: "The Masai [of Kenya] drink 'only' half a gallon of [whole] milk each day...Their parties are sheer orgies of meat; on such occasions four to ten pounds of meat [eaten] per person is not unusual, according to Professor [George] Mann [of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, USA]. If the diet-heart idea were correct, coronary heart disease would be epidemic in Kenya. But Professor Mann found that the Masai do not die from heart disease - although they might die from laughter if they heard about the campaign against foods containing cholesterol and saturated fat. But this was not the only surprise. The cholesterol of the Masai tribesmen was not sky-high as Mann had expected; it was the lowest ever measured in the world, about 50% lower than the value of most Americans."

LC FP
Tue, May-23-06, 23:13
But by then you would have long passed on your genes!?

grandpa, I'm sorta quoting Richard Dawkins in his classic 1976 book The Selfish Gene. His theory was that the genes are the masters and we (or animals or plants which carry the genes) are the slaves. We do the gene's bidding, which is to copy them and spread them faster and farther than any competing genes. Genes are immortal, and we are merely their survival machines. Sort of a depressing book, but it really is brilliant, and has influenced biologists ever since. As he said in 1989, "its central message has become textbook orthodoxy."

Once we pass on our genes, we may live awhile longer to assure that our progeny are successful. But if we live too long, and our progeny (who are carrying copies of our immortal genes) no longer benefit from our presence, then our mere presence decreases the odds that they will be able to successfully pass on their (our) genes. So natural selection would favor grandparents who live awhile, but not too long.

Dawkins also makes some great points about longevity. One way to increase it would be to forbid reproduction until the age of 40. Then after a few generations, forbid it until the age of 50. And so on. Long-lived people would be selected for and theoretically most people could live to be hundreds of years old.

The other way would be to "...'fool' genes into thinking that the body they are sitting in is younger than it really is. In practice this would mean identifying changes in the internal chemical environment of a body that take place during ageing. Any of these could be the 'cues' that turn on late-acting lethal genes. By simulating the chemical properties of a young body it might be possible to prevent the turning on of late-acting lethal genes."

Sounds like Mr. Dawkins may have given birth to CRON about 30 years ago--


And BTW Wooo, those are some brilliant posts above. Maybe you should write a book.

Whoa182
Tue, May-23-06, 23:57
Lifestyles - The same thing keeps popping up all a time but some are reluctant to acknowledge the powerful effect dietary manipulation can have on health. Even when it has been known for almost a century that restricting calories while maintaining adequate nutrition extends the lifespan of many different species. Changes in genetic profiles of organisms take place making them more resistant to the common assaults from the environment and to a certain extent the ability to deal with toxins unlike ad lib eaters. In fact the ability to deal with these things seems to be dose responsive, meaning you decrease calories and protection is increased, up to a point.

Its very interesting that the majority of long term studies released on centenarians conclude similar things. Then there is always a person that defies the odds and lives to be a super-centenarian free of disease while maybe smoking, drinking and enjoying meals that would give the next guy a heart attack by 80. There is no doubt that these people are genetically lucky. There are only very few centenarians that led bad life styles, but there are plenty that have eaten healthy, mostly avoided stress and had a good purpose for living on.

While it is plausible that okinawans have some inherited ability to live to such extreme ages. The data suggests otherwise. A 25 year study was conducted on centenarians that followed them very closely. People aged 70-100+ were questioned, tests were performed to check their health, and at the end of the study the researchers found that several things were obvious contributors to their longevity. Some common findings are diets high in vegetables, soy, pork occasionally and plenty of fish. Okinawans lose their amazing ability to live free of disease when they migrate and adopt the American diet. So we have thousands of okinawans that migrated and maybe just about reach 70 years old and then under 50 year olds that still live in Okinawa but dont follow the traditional okinawan eating habits. [3].

It has been suggested that reaching 100 maybe more to do with lifestyle and environment that anything else. But living beyond 110 is probably a bit of both, but more would say it was down to genes.

Genetics - I know want to explore the genetic side of things, but for this we can only go as far as what we can see in rodents when they are calorie restricted. When they are deprived of eating however much they want, genetic profiles of the mice change, and this happens regardless of age. Scientists now have the ability to look at genetic expression and how it changes in response to diet and other environmental manipulations. Genetic changes is the reason for why calorie restriction works, animals put on short term CR have similar profiles to mice that have had their life extended.

When mice are genetically manipulated to develop a disease, calorie restriction is usually the best way to slow down or prevent the disease from deveoping. CR isn't going to cure everything, but it makes the organism survive longer through various genetic changes.

Centenarians consume fewer calories - Could this be what it boils down to in the end? Have they just eaten fewer calories than what other people typically eat? It shouldnt be much of a surprise of this was the reason behind it, as preliminary evidence suggested that short term and long term (6years) Calorie Restriction has remarkable health benefits. Very low risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, Cancer among other things that kill most people off in their 70s and 80s [1]. Calorie Restrictions shows it reduces body temperature and insulin which is found in long lived centenarians [2].

Why is it that every study done shows that centenarians eat less than average? I would say that this is mostly unintentional as they probably dont have the same appetite as when they were younger and reduced sensing of hunger.

Over 600 hundred centenarians were studied and the fact that they all had similar diets which were high in vegetables, soy and low in calories suggest the idea that CR was one of the primary reasons for their longevity.

Here was a small study done on energy and nutrient intake on Okinawa Centenarians. There energy intake was at 1,100 kcal/day for both men and women. This was a similar finding to all centenarians found throughout Japan, food that was consumed was also different, so the main factor here seems to be energy intake rather than what food they ate or macronutrient composition of their diets.[8].

Chinese Centenarians study - Now the Chinese study that I showed shows a very similar thing again! They also had diets very much like Okinawan elders. They also had low fat, high carbohydrates and low calories. It is what many researchers would have expected from a group of long lived people

All the centenarian studies that I have shown are mostly from the centenarians themselves. They were interviewed, they were subjected to the tests. They reached 100, so surely their word has some merit. Especially since their life style habits were very similar to each other.

Studies showing lower energy intake reduces all cause mortality and reduce disease - Ill now share with you not studies on people you reached one hundred, but the mortality rates based on energy intake alone. One study followed up Japanese-American men after 36 years. They found that there was a trend that men who consumed 15% below the mean were at lowest risk for all-cause mortality. [5].

Now about Japanese immigrants who immigrated from Okinawa to brazil. It was found that Okinawans that lived in Brazil were eating low fish and had a large meat intake, which is thought to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. They had higher cases of dementia, when in Okinawa they have remarkably low levels of dementia (see below).

A total of 157 persons over 70-year-old were examined, and 19 cases were diagnosed as having dementia. The prevalence (cases/100 aged 70-year-older) was 12.1 for all types of dementia, 5.7 for Alzheimer's disease (AD), 0.6 for vascular dementia (VD), 4.5 for mixed dementia (AD/VD) and 1.3 for other types of dementia

Am I getting anywhere by sharing this information with you? - I have passed onto you guys so much information, proof that low carbohydrate isnt the only way to achieve good health. I dont see how the evidence can be much clearer. The fact that its consistent gives it some credit. Also the fact it is backed up by many years of research. Ill be hanging around for quite a few years, if I am welcome of course. I hope that we can have many more discussions on the matter as more evidence comes in. But Im finding some bad excuses to dismiss every study that opposes your way of eating.

I call on anyone of you to provide me with evidence on a centenarian study that shows the complete opposite. Something that shows they consumed a diet with high calories, lots of fat and meat. I would very much appreciate you to spend five minutes to just show me your sources.

What I really want to know is, is anyone actually interested in what I share, because if its bothering anyone too much I can stop. I feel that I might be annoying some people, especially since I have somewhat different views on things. We are all looking for better health, I dont think it matters who is right, but what we all seem to want is to know our own way to be the best way of achieving good health. So maybe for now, no one will be convincing anyone, regardless of how many new studies show up. When more of CRS members start reaching 100 + maybe you might be convinced, or not.

References:

1. Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15096581

2. Effect of 6-month calorie restriction on biomarkers of longevity, metabolic adaptation, and oxidative stress in overweight individuals: a randomized controlled trial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16595757&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

3. A 25-year study of elder Okinawans credits at least two-thirds of their robust health to lifestyle choices rather than good genes
http://www.okicent.org/news/boston_globe.php


4. Calorie restrictions affect on gene profiles of mice
http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/spindler_press_release01.html


5. How Much Should We Eat? The Association Between Energy Intake and Mortality in a 36-Year Follow-Up Study of Japanese-American Men
http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/8/B789

6. Implications from and for food cultures for cardiovascular disease: longevity
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1440-6047.2001.00219.x/abs/

7. Prevalence of dementia in the older Japanese-Brazilian population
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1819.2002.00931.x

8. Energy and nutrient intakes of Okinawan centenarians.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8866260&dopt=Citation

9. The 100-year-old patient:
What we can learn about aging from centenarians
http://jaapa.com/issues/j20021201/articles/centenarians.html

LC FP
Wed, May-24-06, 00:48
Matt, you've taught me a lot about CR, and I believe it works. Certainly in other species, and probably in humans too. My only problem with it is that it would be a hard sell to overweight Americans. Also I doubt that I could do it.

I'm glad that you agree that low carb can be a way to good health. I find it pretty easy to follow, and I can't describe how empowering it feels to be in control. I don't think you have that problem.

Please stick around. We probably have more to learn from each other.

And maybe if you don't have sex till you're 40 or 50, you just might live longer...

kwikdriver
Wed, May-24-06, 01:15
What I really want to know is, is anyone actually interested in what I share, because if its bothering anyone too much I can stop. I feel that I might be annoying some people, especially since I have somewhat different views on things. We are all looking for better health, I dont think it matters who is right, but what we all seem to want is to know our own way to be the best way of achieving good health. So maybe for now, no one will be convincing anyone, regardless of how many new studies show up. When more of CRS members start reaching 100 + maybe you might be convinced, or not.

Some people are going to be annoyed by anyone doing something different, particularly something with a potential benefit that they can't enjoy. There's nothing you can do about those people. However, some people are going to be annoyed when you phrase things in such a way that implies they have an anti-carb attitude for no good reason. You try, but it's quite obvious you just don't understand what it's like for many people, especially here, where the population is almost entirely composed of people with carbohydrate issues. I agree with you far more often than I disagree with you, but in your zeal you sometimes forget that you're talking to an audience that doesn't share your experience with certain foods, that in fact, has an entirely different experience than the one you have, and that experience is more valid to them than yours ever could be. It's really tough to step outside of your own experience, and again, I give you credit for trying hard, which is more than lots of people would do. Just don't be surprised or upset when people start arguing with you, for both the reasons I outlined above. As for leaving, I hope you stay. I read and enjoy your posts. They are an opportunity for me to see how someone else approaches all this dietary stuff, plus, like I said, we agree a lot more than we disagree, and you post some things that are quite interesting and useful to me.

BTW, when you reach 100 -- and I hope you do and are happy about it -- most of us will be long, long gone, so you won't get the pleasure of hearing us agree with you at last. Maybe our children. ;)

bigpeach
Wed, May-24-06, 08:08
The posts in this thread are getting way too long. Get to the point already!

Nancy LC
Wed, May-24-06, 08:42
Am I getting anywhere by sharing this information with you? - I have passed onto you guys so much information, proof that low carbohydrate isnt the only way to achieve good health. I dont see how the evidence can be much clearer. The fact that its consistent gives it some credit. Also the fact it is backed up by many years of research. Ill be hanging around for quite a few years, if I am welcome of course. I hope that we can have many more discussions on the matter as more evidence comes in. But Im finding some bad excuses to dismiss every study that opposes your way of eating.
I've always been interested in CR but I think the interesting thing about it is discovering what the underlying mechanism is that produces the results it does produce.

There's a lot of parallels between CR and LC:

+ Perhaps they're actually one and the same. LC tends to result in people eating less calories naturally, or so many studies have found.

+ Or if they're not, perhaps the commonality between both is that lower insulin levels.

+ Whatever it is, we don't really know if LC produces longer life spans because I don't think it has really been studied like CR has been.

But you probably won't find complete acceptance from everyone on CR on this message forum. People are just that way with their biases. Don't take it personally.

bkloots
Wed, May-24-06, 10:20
And maybe if you don't have sex till you're 40 or 50, you just might live longer...

Or, as the old joke goes, it will just SEEM a lot longer. :lol:

kaypeeoh
Wed, May-24-06, 10:23
I should have asked this long ago: What constitutes CR? I assume it stands for calorie restriction? So what constitutes calorie restriction. The government says for an adult male the body needs 2000-2300 calories per day. What is the level for CR? 1500 calories? 500? For my mass the Zone Diet has be eating 1000 calories per day, balancing protein, carb and fat. That's less than those centenarians in that study.

catfishghj
Wed, May-24-06, 11:04
If anyone is annoyed by what Whoa is shareing, they should go elsewhere. I find him quite interesting and he has some very good points. I struggle with eating too much and am trying to cut down but also staying as low carb, high fat as possible. I think that I would have a hard time passing my genes on if I was a 108 pound adult man, but I have been to the other extreme (330 pounds) and that is not pretty.

Whoa182
Wed, May-24-06, 11:17
For a man, anything below 2000k/cal a day is CR I guess, there are a lot of CRONers that just aim not to go higher than 2000 a day, so take a more relaxed approach :) It doesn't matter what you eat aslong as you have good nutrition, just reducing energy has benifits, by however much. Although there does seem to be a U shape in mortality when doing CR, you can't push it too much. Most of the long term low carbers are probably restricting calories anyway, maybe =/ ? I guess not too many of you look at you average energy intake

I keep meaning to change my profile, i'm no longer 108lb. I thought I was around 114 a few weeks ago but seems as though I went down to 112 after cutting back down of food (mostly carbs), So 6lb's under my original weight, which isn't too bad.


if any of that doesnt make sense, im really tired ! Its 6pm here now and been up since 3am!

Nancy LC
Wed, May-24-06, 11:18
I should have asked this long ago: What constitutes CR? I assume it stands for calorie restriction? So what constitutes calorie restriction. The government says for an adult male the body needs 2000-2300 calories per day. What is the level for CR? 1500 calories? 500? For my mass the Zone Diet has be eating 1000 calories per day, balancing protein, carb and fat. That's less than those centenarians in that study.
I think the difference is a diet like The Zone is a temporary weightloss diet. After you lose the weight, there's a plan that takes you back to higher calorie levels. CR(ON) is a permanent reduction in calories. I remember hearing numbers like 20-30% fewer calories on CR than a standard diet.

kaypeeoh
Wed, May-24-06, 11:55
The Zone starts as a weight loss diet. Once the goal weight is reached, then you are supposed to eat more fat to prevent continued weight loss. But the starting levels of protein and carbs do not change. In that way it's never a ketogenic diet. The amount of increased fat is never so much that one is ingesting more than 1500 total calories per day.

That's the theory anyway.

Turtle2003
Wed, May-24-06, 13:34
I think the difference is a diet like The Zone is a temporary weightloss diet. After you lose the weight, there's a plan that takes you back to higher calorie levels. CR(ON) is a permanent reduction in calories. I remember hearing numbers like 20-30% fewer calories on CR than a standard diet.


But figuring out what the 'standard diet' should be is the tricky part to me. When I visit some of the web sites that have BMR calculators they always seem to come out with what seem like awfully high numbers to me. Guess I'll check around the web for CRON and try to see what they think I should be eating.

Nancy LC
Wed, May-24-06, 13:40
So even after you finish losing weight you never increase your calories above 1500? If so, I'd call that CR.

kwikdriver
Wed, May-24-06, 15:35
So even after you finish losing weight you never increase your calories above 1500? If so, I'd call that CR.


No, it's maintenance for people who have ruined their metabolisms from starvation mode ;)

ThomasCGT
Wed, May-24-06, 16:26
Coral calcium supplements comes from Okinawa. I wonder what their drinking water mineral composition looks like.

kwikdriver
Wed, May-24-06, 16:42
Coral calcium supplements comes from Okinawa. I wonder what their drinking water mineral composition looks like.

It's already been examined and rejected as a possible factor.

catfishghj
Wed, May-24-06, 17:48
Who did the examining and rejection?

kwikdriver
Wed, May-24-06, 17:59
Who did the examining and rejection?

Fortunately, I remembered where I read about it.

http://okinawaprogram.com/


I imagine the search terms "okinawa centenarian coral calcium" would have led to the same thing, if not better stuff. Nothing personal, just astonished at the number of times info that is easily found, isn't. :(

Nancy LC
Wed, May-24-06, 18:16
Hey, those people who ruined their metabolisms from starvation mode might live longer! :lol:

ThomasCGT
Thu, May-25-06, 00:07

ThomasCGT
Thu, May-25-06, 00:14

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 02:00
Not sure what you mean by ruining metabolism by going into starvation mode, do you mean like when a person goes on a crash diet from ad lib to say 500k/cal or something stupid?

Objectives are probably opposite to what most people here want, we want metabolism to slow down as much as possible, I guess you want it to speed it up to lose the weight. Where as I don't want to lose weight and never did =/

ThomasCGT
Thu, May-25-06, 03:12
Latest news now shows Okinawans 20th among the prefectures of Japan for longevity. They blame the western diet. .

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 04:04
Yup we have known that for a few years now. It shows that they havent inhereted super human genes from their elders to give them protection from all the diseases that develop because of bad diets. The point I tried to make earlier, it was shown that okinawans that moved to a different country and took up a more western life style died mostly in their late 60's to early 70's.

The elders diet is different to what okinawans now eat. They been slipping for quite a number of years.

pbowers
Thu, May-25-06, 04:35
Why is it that every study done shows that centenarians eat less than average?as frogbreath brought up earlier, the elderly universally eat less than the non-elderly. so what is "average" calorie intake for a hundred-year-old? do researchers depend upon dietary recall in assessing that centenarians eat less than average? should we accept this as evidence, when we know that dietary recall is highly unreliable?

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 05:09
They also measured the caloric intake of 70+ year olds, who become 100 year olds after the study finished. There was a trend towards eating lower calories and longer survival upto a point. The mortality curve was U not J shaped. Meaning when the ate less than 50% less calories they died off quicker.

If you read my post I acknowledged that there were reasons why centenarians might eat less. The okinawan study was 25 years long I believe :thup:

OldDoc2B
Thu, May-25-06, 05:44
Whoa182,

5'7'' and 110 lbs.?

Scrawny and weak is no way to go through life. Leaving aside the fact that you have no muscle (protein) reserve in case of illness, being that underweight provides what performance benefit (in evolutionary survival terms)?

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 06:54
I've always been quite lean with a bmi of 18.5 when I started CR. At that weight I used to play football for 5 hours or more everyday and never have a problem. At a BMI a little over 17 I am still able to do the same thing without any problems, but I don't because I can't afford to burn off so many calories. I also go to shotokan karate class regularly and have no problems for the last few years, even at a low weight.

Leaving aside the fact that you have no muscle (protein) reserve in case of illness

This is a chance i have to take... Although I never get sick from anything these days... What kind of illnesses did you have in mind that could kill me off quickly/?

being that underweight provides what performance benefit (in evolutionary survival terms)?

Luckily im not prey to nasty predators and live in the 21st century. I'm also still able to bench 30-40kg weights, so I'm not frail and weak like an 80 year old lmao

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 07:11
This me now at 112lb ~ which is 6 lb's under my intitial pre CR weight.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/gallery/files/8/4/2/5/7/000_1405.jpg

Larger pic - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/000_1405.jpg

BEFORE CR- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/gig.jpg

Not much of a change really

ThomasCGT
Thu, May-25-06, 07:12
Whoa182. Why do you pay good money for all those cholesterol/trigl. readings.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 07:13
I'm part of a study and I don't pay for the tests either, I live in the UK so I get them for free. I get a whole panel of blood done regularly and my doctors fully support me and knew about CR already when I told them what I was doing.

I also get them done to try and make sure i'm doing ok.

I get most of these done, all tier 1 and 2 and sometimes a few of tier 3

http://www.calorierestriction.org/Biomarkers

twistiyogi
Thu, May-25-06, 07:37
I really don't understand why there is a difference between LC and CRON.
The point of CRON is to consume the least amount of calories with the most nutrition. Am I correct?

If that's so, then why wouldn't CRONers opt for meat and veggies, just like LC.
You can't get more nutrient dense than meat and veggies.

An egg may have more calories than an apple, but it also has way more nutrients.
And if calories are the big concern, then just eat a smaller portion of meat.
That would seem the logical choice over say, a large bowl of oatmeal.

If I were a CRONer, the only way I could do it is by LCing.
Anyway, I was just curious.

ubizmo
Thu, May-25-06, 07:49
[QUOTE=Whoa182]
This is a chance i have to take... Although I never get sick from anything these days... QUOTE]

I think there is a danger if you had to deal with something like flu for a week or so, with virtually no body fat to draw upon. That said, if you can do shotokan you can't be that frail.

When you say that this is a chance you "have to take" does that mean you have to take it because of your decision to pursue the CR path to longevity, or is there some other reason? The reason I ask is because of the recent research by Mattson et al suggesting that the benefits of CR might be obtainable by IF without net calorie reduction. If this is confirmed, would it affect your decision?

For the record, I don't think there can be any real doubt that CR helps one to live as long as one's genes will allow. Too many lines of evidence converge on that point. I also don't doubt that there's variation in the genetic limit. As I mentioned in another thread, I believe that G.B. Shaw's long life was a result of CR, rather than his vegetarianism. He was thin as a rail. Bertrand Russell was about as thin, and just as long-lived.

Note that Shaw probably could've lived longer than 97 but died of injuries sustained from falling out of a tree.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 08:42
I think there is a danger if you had to deal with something like flu for a week or so, with virtually no body fat to draw upon. That said, if you can do shotokan you can't be that frail.

Luckily CR enhances immunity from viruses. We have plenty of CRONers that have been doing it upto 20+ years and haven't been sick once with flu or colds. Although once a virus does infect and takes hold then that could be a problem. This is the first time in over 1 year that I havent even come down with the slightest cold. Even though many people in my house have been ill maybe 5 + times in the last year.

Im weaker, but not frail like an old person.

When you say that this is a chance you "have to take" does that mean you have to take it because of your decision to pursue the CR path to longevity, or is there some other reason? The reason I ask is because of the recent research by Mattson et al suggesting that the benefits of CR might be obtainable by IF without net calorie reduction. If this is confirmed, would it affect your decision?

Before more research was presented to me about other ways in trying to increase life span, I only knew about CR. IF was something more recent and in some ways is better than CR, but there are reasons for maybe not doing it and I will post you a good link soon as I can find it in a minute. Check back in 15minutes from this post.

For the record, I don't think there can be any real doubt that CR helps one to live as long as one's genes will allow.

Well the good thing is that if one is prone to some sort of disease because of their genes. CR might even normalize life span and sometimes never develop the disease as done in rodent experiements.

Too many lines of evidence converge on that point. I also don't doubt that there's variation in the genetic limit. As I mentioned in another thread, I believe that G.B. Shaw's long life was a result of CR, rather than his vegetarianism. He was thin as a rail. Bertrand Russell was about as thin, and just as long-lived.

Never heard of them people, will take a look later. I know that weight has no impact in the longevity gained from CR though. Meaning one can be on the higher end of the BMI and still gain life extension benifits if they are cr'd. I wish I was much heavier when I started CR, I probably would have been if I started in my 30's or 40's like most CRONers.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 08:46
I really don't understand why there is a difference between LC and CRON.
The point of CRON is to consume the least amount of calories with the most nutrition. Am I correct?

If that's so, then why wouldn't CRONers opt for meat and veggies, just like LC.
You can't get more nutrient dense than meat and veggies.

An egg may have more calories than an apple, but it also has way more nutrients.
And if calories are the big concern, then just eat a smaller portion of meat.
That would seem the logical choice over say, a large bowl of oatmeal.

If I were a CRONer, the only way I could do it is by LCing.
Anyway, I was just curious.

CRON is just about reducing calories and making sure you get good nutrition. meaning reducing calories while doing low carb would be just as good as any other way of doing CR. Also, CR protects against cancer of the colon, so if you were CR'd and ate lots of red meat (which apparently causes cancer) it wouldn't matter all that much.

CRONers vary so much in how they do CR, but what most of the more serious ones do is monitor nutrition with software. Lots of us eat meat to btw.

I have never liked red meat, and I still eat eggs.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 08:54
Since this page I am about to post is public and I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing it with you I'll give you the link

http://www.cron-web.org/KH.htm
There are a few pages there. The site has a lot of information.

Another CRONie here: http://deanpomerleau.tripod.com/

You can see the photo history page of his CR history. It's quite shocking the change, but hes not underweight.


Ubizmo:

take a look at this post by Michael Rae. He is a long term CRONie over 10 years now I think and hes quite intelligent! The second post is more about EOD feeding (IF)

bigpeach
Thu, May-25-06, 09:24
I can't believe someone is bragging about benching 30-40kg. The women at my gym work up to 60kg every workout.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 09:50
Are they underweight?

I was pointing out that I am not so frail I can't lift anything over 10kg. Who cares what they can lift anyway? The average person can't really lift 60kg without potentially doing damage.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 09:54
Don't worry, just wait till i get my nano upgrades! :lol:

If possible, I seriously want to upgrade myself using technology, implants and all that stuff

kaypeeoh
Thu, May-25-06, 10:01
The photos start with what looks like about 10% body fat at the most. Subsequent photos show him losing muscle mass. He says he's eating 2000 calories per day. Unless this guy is 7ft tall, something's not making sense. To lose that much muscle mass over the period of time the photos were taken, he has to be catabolizing his own muscles. That shouldn't happen on 2000 calories per day. The Okinawans probably had a physical enough life to have developed decent muscularity. Over decades the muscles shrunk to be used for energy, I assume.

It's not body fat that needs to be used for energy while sick. It's whatever the body has: glycogen, fats and proteins. He doesn't seem to have much mass left!

The Harvard Nurse's study showed that the longest life span wasn't connected to the thinnest subjects. Slightly heavier subjects lived longer, presumably because of more mass to live on during disease.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 10:10
I assume you are refering to dean, he has gained a bit of weight back since then I believe. You can see a VIDEO interview with him by CBS news here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/08/eveningnews/main514443.shtml

This is me at my lowest weight http://forum.lowcarber.org/gallery/files/8/4/2/5/7/skinny2.JPG

Skinny yes, but not concentration camp skinny =/ and not like Im about to drop dead any minute. I think a man can go to around BMI of 13 before organ failure. A women its around 11 I think.

bigpeach
Thu, May-25-06, 10:13
The average person can't really lift 60kg without potentially doing damage.

I don't know anything about CRON, but idiotic statements like the one I quoted certainly do not increase your credibility.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 10:19
I'm not getting you? My credibility?
Can anyone tell me why what I said is idiotic?

The average person can't easily bench 60kg, if you go straight to that weight you are foolish, you work upto it. My friend struggles on a few sets of 30kg and he is 6ft 3" and quite bulky too! lol

EDIT:

Why am I even going off topic, I dont care what I can and can't lift, other than I am able to go about my life without any problems! :lol:

bigpeach
Thu, May-25-06, 10:40
The vast majority of decently coordinated 14 year old boys can bench 60kg within a week of learning the technique. Your friend is either suffering from some neurological disorder, or more likely, has no understanding of proper technique. A session or two with an experienced lifter will have him well over 60kg, just like an average guy.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 10:47
^ is this guy serious? You are not getting confused between kg and lbs are you?

I didn't say I couldn't lift it, I said that I choose not to because of potential injuries due to my lack of muscle =/. and no my friend has no neurological problems.

The vast majority of decently coordinated 14 year old boys can bench 60kg within a week of learning the technique

Yeah sure... :spin:

kaypeeoh
Thu, May-25-06, 10:56
It's much harder for a tall person to bench compared to a short person. I'm 5'7" tall. As a teen I could bench twice my body weight. Shorter limbs mean less stress on the fulcrum (elbows).

It's so easy to be critical of complete strangers, especially with on-line anonymity. I doubt Peach would be that rude face-to-face.

Trinsdad
Thu, May-25-06, 11:12
and ate lots of red meat (which apparently causes cancer)



Can you please provide a sound study that proves this as fact?

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 11:20
Just epidemiological evidence really, thats why their has been focus on it and the latest study which you all have seen was them shown that there was a dose response on the amont of DNA damage when eating processed and red meat. Sorry trinsdad, this isnt the point of this thread and there is another thread that it can be discussed in, just bump it up if you wish. I said apparently, I'm not saying it does, im saying 'they' the scientists say it does

bigpeach
Thu, May-25-06, 11:30
^ is this guy serious? You are not getting confused between kg and lbs are you?

I didn't say I couldn't lift it, I said that I choose not to because of potential injuries due to my lack of muscle =/. and no my friend has no neurological problems.



Yeah sure... :spin:

No, I know quite well that 60kg is roughly 135 pounds, and just about every single one of the hundreds of high school freshmen (14 year olds) I have supervised have been able to handle the weight easily. Most lift over 200 pounds within a year. This is the difference between you and I; I have evidence and experience to back up my claims. You do not, yet despite this, make broad statements of 'fact.' That is why your credibility is as weak as your upper body.
The fact that you are weaker than the average woman doesn't mean everyone else is weak too.
Now, your arguments on aging, CRON, and such, I can't comment on because I have no research or experience with it, but based on your credibilty, I'm inclined to agree with whomever disagrees with you.

Nancy LC
Thu, May-25-06, 11:36
I'm not particularly strong or weak for a woman yet I'd have a lot of trouble lifting anything heavier than 50 pounds. Last time I did it was just out of college, I could carry a 50 # sack of ice, but that was pushing my luck.

I find Whoa pretty credible, although strongly biased towards CRON. However, I'd be the first to acknowledge my own strong bias towards LC. :p

kwikdriver
Thu, May-25-06, 11:40
No, I know quite well that 60kg is roughly 135 pounds, and just about every single one of the hundreds of high school freshmen (14 year olds) I have supervised have been able to handle the weight easily. Most lift over 200 pounds within a year. This is the difference between you and I; I have evidence and experience to back up my claims. You do not, yet despite this, make broad statements of 'fact.' That is why your credibility is as weak as your upper body.
The fact that you are weaker than the average woman doesn't mean everyone else is weak too.
Now, your arguments on aging, CRON, and such, I can't comment on because I have no research or experience with it, but based on your credibilty, I'm inclined to agree with whomever disagrees with you.

I don't mean to argue with such an obvious expert, but the typical way of measuring upper body strength is dividing 1RM by body weight. So in Whoa's case, someone who weighs 114 pounds, 135/114 = a ratio of 1.18, which is actually above average in fitness. Again, while not wanting to challenge your obvious expertise in this field, the vast majority of people, men and women, can't bench press their own body weight; many, particularly women, can't even bench press half of it.

ubizmo
Thu, May-25-06, 11:41
Ubizmo:

take a look at this post by Michael Rae. He is a long term CRONie over 10 years now I think and hes quite intelligent! The second post is more about EOD feeding (IF)

Um, I didn't see any links there for the Rae post.

When I was on the Zone diet, I was doing CR although I didn't think of it in those terms. I lost a lot of weight, but it was when I got to 190 lbs that I started to experience effects that I wasn't interested in as a permanent lifestyle.

I'm 6'1" tall, and overweight at 230 lbs, by anyone's standard. I'm also a muscular heavy-framed guy, with short legs (30" inseam) for my height. By hydrostatic immersion my LBM is 180 lbs, which is a lot, but I've done a fair amount of weight training, on and off over the years. So I'm muscular *and* flabby, like a retired wrestler.

When I go below 200 lbs I start to feel weak and tired. Even though every actuarial chart says I should be well under 190, when I've actually done so I feel like crap. My body temp drops, my hands and feet are always cold, I have no energy for anything.

I would not choose a life of feeling weak, tired, and cold as a gamble for possible greater longevity. That's a personal decision, obviously, and I don't criticize those who choose differently. But it's why I'm interested in ways that might reap the benefits of CR, which I don't dispute, without the drawbacks.

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 12:11
Ubizmo, there is always the Resveratrol in pill form or red wine. Within the next 5 years there will probably be a VERY GOOD CR mimmetic.

Here is that post my M. Rae on IF (very long!) mostly on the second post
http://www.cron-web.org/forum/about332.html



1. Resveratrol has been shown to increase SIRT1 activity by as much as 8-fold (SIR2 extends life and its homolog is SIRT1 in mammals)
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/280/17/17187

2. Red wine molecule extends life
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/25/1061663705430.html

"Not only did they find a group of 18 molecules that fit the bill - resveratrol being just one - but all of them came from plants and were produced in response to harsh environmental conditions like drought."

Whoa182
Thu, May-25-06, 12:16
Heres two more good ones I just read:

Molecules discovered that extend life in yeast, human cells

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-08/hms-mdt081903.php

New Molecular Model Increases Longevity and Could Allow You to Eat Cake, Too

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/0502sinclair.html

kaypeeoh
Thu, May-25-06, 12:16
6'1" and 30" inseam? You must be shaped like a gorilla. ;-) I tried the Zone years ago. I gave up on it because my running suffered. But I lost a lot of weight and my cholesterol was at its lowest. I've gone back to it and am seeing weight loss again. The gym scale showed me at 170 pounds two days ago. I assume it's an accurate scale because every woman in the gym curses when on it. :-)

I'm trying the Zone again because of discontent over the Atkins Diet. I think the problem with the Zone for me was I didn't increase fat content of my diet. I tried to live on soy and veggies. This time I'm using some lean turkey and a lot of peanut butter, avocado, that sort of fat.

ItsTheWooo
Thu, May-25-06, 13:19
I'm not particularly strong or weak for a woman yet I'd have a lot of trouble lifting anything heavier than 50 pounds. Last time I did it was just out of college, I could carry a 50 # sack of ice, but that was pushing my luck.

I find Whoa pretty credible, although strongly biased towards CRON. However, I'd be the first to acknowledge my own strong bias towards LC. :p

Yea... I work part time at a liquor store, have to carry cases of beer and jugs of wine. I am not exactly sure how heavy these things are but I know I can't LIFT the case of beer (I must use two hands) and likewise the jug of wine is a huge effort... I doubt they are anywhere near 50 pounds in weight.

For my weight, which is around 112-116 depending on how many carbos I'm eating ... I think I'm pretty muscular for a female. I build muscle very easily, most women my size are far weaker.

Either way, I would love to know why this conversation is about bench presses and accusing Whoa of being weak or undermuscled? Whoa isn't on a mission to be strong and get an "enviable" body so none of this means anything... whoa is trying to prolong his life and live disease free. So, lets keep the discussion about whether or not his methods are appropriate for his goals. Don't try to argue whoa by pointing out his methods don't achieve goals he isn't trying to reach. That's just idiotic...

Turtle2003
Thu, May-25-06, 13:37
Either way, I would love to know why this conversation is about bench presses and accusing Whoa of being weak or undermuscled? Whoa isn't on a mission to be strong and get an "enviable" body so none of this means anything... whoa is trying to prolong his life and live disease free. So, lets keep the discussion about whether or not his methods are appropriate for his goals. Don't try to argue whoa by pointing out his methods don't achieve goals he isn't trying to reach. That's just idiotic...

Well, perhaps not completely idiotic. Whoa's goal is to live a long life. There's no way for us to know if his methods will succeed since most of us won't be around when he gets to his 90's or whatever. Therefore, the only things we can use to judge how he is doing is to take a look at his current state of health. Physical strength and endurance seem perfectly logical matters to examine in order to make some sort of judgement of his health.

This is a really interesting thread. BTW, what is IF?

ubizmo
Thu, May-25-06, 14:42
IF is Intermittent Fasting, which may refer to eating just one meal a day or eating every other day.

dina1957
Thu, May-25-06, 15:54
from the cholesterol myths:
I happened to watch Discovery channel on Masai, they do relay on milk as their daily food. Mest is luxury and is given to elderly, ill, and to warriers before hunting. The do feast on meat and organs, but on special ocations

Blood is thicker than milk ?
Cattle are hugely important to the Maasai and are treated with the utmost respect, very rarely being slaughtered and then only for ceremonial purposes. Milk is a vital product however and both fresh and curdled milk, stored in long, decorated gourds, is the staple of the Maasai diet.
http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/other/maasai.asp

The Masai are especially well known for their diet which consists of fresh and curdled milk, carried and stored in long, decorated gourds. Blood tapped from the jugular vein of a steer or cow is also mixed with cattle urine to ferment and is used as a powerful stimulant. Cattle are extremely important in Masai culture and are rarely slaughtered and then only for ceremonial purposes. Except for eland and buffalo, game meat is forbidden. http://africanadrenalin.co.za/utc/st02.htm

pbowers
Thu, May-25-06, 17:45
The Masai are a warlike tribe residing in East Africa who for the last 10,000 years have existed as cattle-herding nomads. Their sustenance is derived from large amounts of high fat milk and meat, which may be supplemented by fresh cattle blood in the dry season. Thanks to their copious consumption of high fat animal foods, Masai males ingest a hefty 300g of mostly saturated fat on a daily basis.

If the lipid hypothesis had any merit, the Masai should be riddled with obesity and CHD, but when Professor George Mann from Vanderbilt University visited the Masai in the 1960's he found a slim, robust population free of CHD. When given treadmill tests, several of the tribesmen achieved performances superior to those of Olympic champions. Autopsy examinations on deceased Masai males showed an almost complete absence of atheromas, the advanced atherosclerotic lesions implicated in coronary blockage. The Masai also recorded one of the lowest average cholesterol levels ever measured in any population (6-8). A few years later, another group of American researchers performed similar autopsy examinations on deceased Masai and confirmed "the paucity of atherosclerosis" documented by Mann (9).

Another east African tribe, the Samburus, have an even higher fat intake than the Masai. Whilst they eat less meat, the Samburus tend to consume far more milk than the Masai. Samburu warriors and elders may consume between 4.5 to 7 liters of high fat milk in a single sitting. During the wet season when grass is abundant and their cattle consequently produce more milk, they will do this twice a day. This amount may drop to a "mere" 2 to 3.5 liters daily during the dry season. As a result of their copious milk intake, the slender Samburu males consume up to a whopping 400g of animal fat daily.

http://www.theomnivore.com/sat-fat-chol-CHD.htmlthere appears to be a differing of opinions on how much meat the masai eat. i'm not going to say that your sources are necessarily wrong, but considering that they might be promoting travel to africa, there may be incentive to whitewash the masai.

ThomasCGT
Fri, May-26-06, 03:06
Important point is that Masai and Samburu drink raw milk, whereas 99.9999% of the western world drinks pasteurised. Revision..A newborn calf fed exclusiverly pasteurised milk dies in 6 weeks. Studies on cats fed only pasteuised showed deformities in bones. Pasteurisation destroys 90% of the enzyme phosphotase, needed for calcium absorption. Good bacteria is destroyed by the temperature rise in pasteurisation, but that is not high enough to kill the bad bacteria, ie salmonella. We drink raw only, and make keffir. To the Keffir we add raw egg yolks and almonds for a HEALTHY beakfast drink. Fermenting with Keffir uses-up quite a bt of the carbs. The meat eating habits of Masai is correct, as they consider their cattle as wealth, so slaughteng them to daily feed the tribe T bones doesnt make economc sense. (I lived in Kenya for 33 years)

Whoa182
Fri, May-26-06, 04:39
I'm really trying to find some good quality information on this Masai tribe but can't find much, I don't really know much about them and am trying to learn.

Has the caloric intake of the Masai tribe been taken into consideration for their low cholesterol? I know that if I were to go eat lots of saturated fat for a week now and still kept my calories low CR would protect me from a big increase in serum cholesterol.

Also I'm curious in why some people point to this tribe as evidence to support low carb. I mean not all but some people have cholesterol levels 200-300 on low carb and people say not to worry because cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease, yet the same people refer to the masai tribe, who apparently have cholesterol levels of 115+ and hardly no heart disease.

I don't know much about masai but any good info on masai tribe would be appreciated! - Im genuinely interested.

ubizmo
Fri, May-26-06, 06:34
Whoa, I can't give you references but I recall reading that the Masai diet is quite low in calories. The figure of 1400/day sticks in my mind. I recall this as part of scientific debate about the "Masai paradox," so to speak. But my memory may be way off so don't take that as even remotely authoritative.

The hypothesis that LDL cholesterol in itself causes CVD really doesn't hold up well to critical scrutiny. Somewhat more promising is the hypothesis that LDL particle size matters, with small-dense LDL particles being atherogenic. The kind of LDL particles the liver puts out is directly affected by insulin, so this is more evidence (if more was needed) of insulin's role in CVD, and also helps to explain the rather weak correlation between LDL and CVD.

kaypeeoh
Fri, May-26-06, 08:15
Photos of Masai kinda explain things. They all seem to have little body fat. Masai are herders so they're walking constantly. Also they don't have 7:11s or McDs in the desert. Their diet may have a lot of animal fat from the milk but calorie-wise they burn off all the fat before it can be stored in their bodies.

What's dangerous is the sedentary western lifestyle. Like the Pima indians Mexico and Arizona. Mexican Pima eat hi-fiber foods like vegetables and beans. Arizonan relatives eat the standard American diet and have the standard American health problems: obesity, diabetis, hyperlipemia.

pbowers
Fri, May-26-06, 10:47
people usually point to the masai to deflate the lipid theory of heart disease, not necessarily in support of low-carb.

Dodger
Fri, May-26-06, 10:59
If only we could go back in time 30,000 years, then we could find out what the real paleoliths ate and what health problems they had.

dina1957
Fri, May-26-06, 11:45
Important point is that Masai and Samburu drink raw milk, whereas 99.9999% of the western world drinks pasteurised. Revision..A newborn calf fed exclusiverly pasteurised milk dies in 6 weeks. Studies on cats fed only pasteuised showed deformities in bones. Pasteurisation destroys 90% of the enzyme phosphotase, needed for calcium absorption. Good bacteria is destroyed by the temperature rise in pasteurisation, but that is not high enough to kill the bad bacteria, ie salmonella.
Interesting, as much as milk got bad rep this days, before pasterization became mandatory, milk was consumed raw and considered a healthest food ever. A while ago we went to visit DH's grandmother's family who lived in rural area. They had a big family and a small farm mostly for their own needs (7 children). The had 3 cows. They never pasturized milk, and the kids were given a cup of milk each still warm (right after milking), simply strained. It was not the best tasting thing, kindy warm and smelly, but all children in the family were tall, strong and healthy, with straight teeth and rosy cheeks. I remember cringing at this beverage, but DH aunt insisted that we drink it, and told me that this is not a food but medicine, curing many deseases including arthritis.
After milking, milk was devided between many terracota pitchers and placed in the basement, where it stayes very cold for few days. The cream would rise to the top and it was utterly delicious! They made some butter and cottage cheese too. All meals were washed down with a pitcher (a qurt size) of this milk, where cream occupied at least 30% of the pitcher. Over the corse of a day, adults and kids consumed roughly a gallon of milk each, and this may explain remarkable health and strength of this folks: high calcium, CLA, vitamin D, iodine, omega 3, enzymes, etc. None of them were obese despite a very high carb diet: freshly baked wholemeal rye bread, lots of potatoes, and buckwheat porrige. Tyopical brakfast was a hunk of bread and a quart of milk. They drank very little water, milk was food and beverage, and meat was eaten only during winter months and in small quantities.
This chilled raw milk is the most delicious think I ever tried in my life!. It's been a long time we went there, and I still remember the taste. I do love kefir, yougurt and cheese, basically any dermented dairy but always shuned fresh milk because it was harder to digest. But we spent 2 weeks there, and I never felt and slep better in my enitre life and did not get indigestion either.
Recently, raw milkl became availabe in stores in our area, it is good but still I can tell the difference.

The meat eating habits of Masai is correct, as they consider their cattle as wealth, so slaughteng them to daily feed the tribe T bones doesnt make economc sense. (I lived in Kenya for 33 years)
This is what Iwould think, their lives depend on milk, so hardly anyone would slaughter a dairy cow.

We drink raw only, and make keffir. To the Keffir we add raw egg yolks and almonds for a HEALTHY beakfast drink. Fermenting with Keffir uses-up quite a bt of the carbs.
I do make kefir but it requires heating up milk, wouldn't it destroy enzymes? Could you, please, PM me on how you make kefir from raw milk or direct me to a website.
Thanks,
Dina

pbowers
Fri, May-26-06, 13:30
their lives depend on milk, so hardly anyone would slaughter a dary cow.
yes, they do depend heavily on milk for parts of the year, but the masai raise more than one type of cow and they aren't all milk-producing cows. they also raise and consume a fair amount of goat.
Fresh and curdled milk, carried and stored in long, decorated gourds, is the basic item of the Masai diet. With it may be mixed blood tapped from the jugular vein of a bullock or cow. Sheep and goats are the principal source of meat; cattle are rarely slaughtered, and then usually for ceremonial purposes.

http://www.masaikenya.org/http://www.taa.org.uk/TAAScotland/LivestockasfoodforpastoralistsinAfrica2001.htm
http://www.thincs.org/discuss.cordainagain.htm
http://www.saafost.org.za/library/papersgeneral/papersnutrition/Hunter-Gatherer%20to%20Passive%20Consumer.pdf
http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2020049.html

ThomasCGT
Sat, May-27-06, 07:26
One cant say that masai eat low carb as milk solids, which make up maybe 80% of their diet, are approx 30% carbs. What they do eat that tickles us Atkins folk, is the high sat-fat Having observed the Masai in Kenya and Tanganyika over many years, I noticed a only sprinkling of elderly. Sometimes these were the 'medicine' men, who probably had some herbal knowledge/consumption. In general, the masai looked pretty unhealthy, apart from the young warrior class, but they would be their late teens and early twenties. Even with their clean arteries, they seem to succumb to early death, probably due to parasites from their diet and daily contact with animals. I havent seen any studies on why they are not long lived.

Whoa182
Sat, May-27-06, 07:50
I mentioned earlier about Human life span and how much genes influence how long we live. I said about 25% I think... Well heres more on that :)

Genetic influence on human lifespan and longevity

Jacob vB. Hjelmborg1 Contact Information, Ivan Iachine1, Axel Skytthe1, James W. Vaupel1, Matt McGue2, Markku Koskenvuo3, Jaakko Kaprio3, Nancy L. Pedersen4 and Kaare Christensen1
(1) Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J. B. Winslovsvej 9 B, 5000 Odense C, Denmark
(2) Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
(3) Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
(4) Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Received: 2 December 2005 Accepted: 6 January 2006 Published online: 4 February 2006
Abstract There is an intense search for longevity genes in both animal models and humans. Human family studies have indicated that a modest amount of the overall variation in adult lifespan (approximately 2030%) is accounted for by genetic factors. But it is not known if genetic factors become increasingly important for survival at the oldest ages. We study the genetic influence on human lifespan and how it varies with age using the almost extinct cohorts of Danish, Finnish and Swedish twins born between 1870 and 1910 comprising 20,502 individuals followed until 20032004. We first estimate mean lifespan of twins by lifespan of co-twin and then turn to the relative recurrence risk of surviving to a given age. Mean lifespan for male monozygotic (MZ) twins increases 0.39 [95% CI (0.28, 0.50)] years for every year his co-twin survives past age 60 years. This rate is significantly greater than the rate of 0.21 (0.11, 0.30) for dizygotic (DZ) males. Females and males have similar rates and these are negligible before age 60 for both MZ and DZ pairs. We moreover find that having a co-twin surviving to old ages substantially and significantly increases the chance of reaching the same old age and this chance is higher for MZ than for DZ twins. The relative recurrence risk of reaching age 92 is 4.8 (2.2, 7.5) for MZ males, which is significantly greater than the 1.8 (0.10, 3.4) for DZ males. The patterns for females and males are very similar, but with a shift of the female pattern with age that corresponds to the better female survival. Similar results arise when considering only those Nordic twins that survived past 75 years of age. The present large population based study shows genetic influence on human lifespan. While the estimated overall strength of genetic influence is compatible with previous studies, we find that genetic influences on lifespan are minimal prior to age 60 but increase thereafter. These findings provide a support for the search for genes affecting longevity in humans, especially at advanced ages.


http://www.springerlink.com/(cl543545aeu5uy55qyrudbm1)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,18;journal,4,509;linkingpublicationresults,1:100421,1

pbowers
Sat, May-27-06, 09:18
One cant say that masai eat low carb as milk solids, which make up maybe 80% of their diet, are approx 30% carbs. What they do eat that tickles us Atkins folk, is the high sat-fat Having observed the Masai in Kenya and Tanganyika over many years, I noticed a sprinkling only of elderly. Sometimes these were the 'medicine' men, who probably had some herbal knowledge/consumption. In general, the masai looked pretty unhealthy, apart from the young warrior class, but they would be their late teens and early twenties. Even with their clean arteries, they seem to succumb to early death, probably due to parasites from their diet and daily contact with animals. I havent seen any studies on why they are not long lived.keep in mind that the milk consumed by the masai comes from zebu cattle, which has twice the fat of the milk we typically drink.

some relevant commentary - by anthony (the omnivore (http://www.theomnivore.com) ) colpo - regarding the longevity of the masai from this (http://www.thincs.org/discuss.cordainagain.htm) discussion on the thincs website:
Based on what we know, the major causes of death among primitive humans were infectious disease and violent death. This applies even to many recent hunter-gatherer/nomad societies. Mann's autopsy study of Masai men showed that the most common causes of death were "homicide" and syphilis. The Masai were well-known for their war-like attributes, raiding neighboring tribes, stealing their cattle and womenif you live that kind of life, don't expect to live to a ripe old age, no matter how fit you are or how much pristine free range food you eat!

What is most telling from Mann's studies is that the Masai were in far better physical condition and their cardiovascular systems were far healthier than age-matched Americans. "Age-matched" is the key word--if the Masai were able to combine the healthier aspects of their lifestyle with a more sanitary and civilized mode of living, then there is little reason to believe they would not live as long if not longer than the average westerner.

Many members of this group are no doubt familiar with the work of Weston A. Price, a quick read through Nutrition and Physical Degeneration should dispel the myth that "primitive diets" are somehow inferior to modern diets.

The longevity we enjoy today is primarily a result of improved sanitation and hygienic living conditions. Our control over microbes has progressed to the point where most of us are now living long enough to die from other causes.

The fact that this technology did not exist back in the Paleolithic is obviously no indictment of Paleolithic nutrition. In fact, if we were to take a large group of today's largely unfit and unhealthy westernized citizens and transport them back in time to the Stone Age to fend for themselves, sans their emergency medical care, prosthetics, visual aids, etc, etc, I think you would find that their longevity would suddenly be drastically reduced!

One very important point that is typically overlooked is that the Paleo era was also free of many other negative health influences--chronic stress (Stone Age man did not rush off every morning to catch the bus, did not have to work at a boring unrewarding job for decades on end, did not stress over meeting mortgage/car/college/alimony/widget-and-gadget repayments, etc, etc), drug use, and alcohol abuse. His kids were not stuck in the stupefying institutions we call schools, where they were pressured to confirm to a bizarre array of mind-numbing and often downright harmful trends adhered to by their peers.

He rose with the light and fell asleep soon after dark, rather than pounding down his melatonin levels by flicking on the lights and watching the replays until 3am. He exposed his skin to plenty of vitamin D-producing sunshine or, if he lived in colder climates, sought out fatty vitamin D-rich foods. Importantly, Paleolithic man had no choice but to be physically active.


interestingly, dissection of masai cadavers has shown that they in fact do suffer from arteriosclerosis, eventhough CVD is nonexistent. their arteries apparently are far more elastic than ours, and can therefore widen to compensate for arteriosclerotic buildup.