Health - How to improve your brain and stay younger

[Jeremy Roussak]

How many creme applications per day?
Ray Kurzweil takes about 100 vitamins and other supplement pills per day. That's down from 250 pills he used to take when he embarked first on his rejuvenation journey.

http://longevityfacts.com/futurist-ray-kurzweil-takes-100-pills-daily-to-live-forever/

He's going to feel awfully silly when he dies.

Jeremy

[Ray]

There's a great deal of uncertainty about the nutritional value of certain foods, herbs and vitamin/mineral supplements, because the bioavailability of such vitamins and minerals is not fully understood and depends on so many variable factors which are difficult to include in tests of humans groups.

For example, raw nuts and seeds, such as Brazil nuts, Almonds, Chia seeds, wholegrain rice, and so on, are considered to be very high in many important nutrients, such as Iron, Manganese, Magnesium, Zinc, Selenium, various vitamins, and so on.

However, what is not so often mentioned is that such raw nuts and seeds contain 'anti-nutrients', which can significantly reduce the bioavailability of such nutrients.

The anti-nutrients are described as 'Phytates' or 'Phytic Acid'. Their role is to preserve the nutrients in the seeds for as long as possible, so that when the conditions are right for the seeds to germinate and sprout, the seeds still have all the nutrients they needs in order to grow and flourish.

As the seeds sprout, the Phytates are reduced and the nutrients are released. However, if we eat the nuts and seeds before they sprout, as we often do, the Phytates, which bind the nutrients, will prevent the digestive system from absorbing and processing the nutrients.

Even more alarming, is the research which suggests if you eat the nuts as part of your main meal, the Phytates and Phytic Acid might also reduce the bioavailability of the nutrients in the main meal, so one often comes across advice to snack on nuts between meals, in order to reduce this effect.

[RSL]

The only proven health food is pizza.

[Chris Kern]

The only proven health food is pizza.

But only when washed down with with a perfect manhattan, correct?

[RSL]

Actually, I do the Manhattan before the pizza, Chris. But it's not a bad idea.

[KLaban]

But only when washed down with with a perfect manhattan, correct?

My preference is for a Chianti Classico.

[Jeremy Roussak]

My preference is for a Chianti Classico.

Mine, too.

Jeremy

[hogloff]

Mine, too.

Jeremy

You always blast other people for going off topic...how does this relate to the original post?

[Ray]

You always blast other people for going off topic...how does this relate to the original post?

It happens often when the subject becomes too profound. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

You always blast other people for going off topic...how does this relate to the original post?

The whole topic, from the first post, is unadulterated drivel. Russ's comment early on it the most coherent. It had died a natural death before being reopened by Sebastrue, who I strongly suspect is a troll and is currently skating on very thin ice.

Any deviation is to be welcomed.

Jeremy

[Robert Roaldi]

Years ago on the Radio-Canada TV science program Découverte, they interviewed a guy who was taking desperate measures to lengthen his life. Based on a study of mice (or maybe rats) that found that mice on a reduced calorie diet, near starvation, lived longer. They had reduced the mice caloric intake to 1/3 normal and they lived some significant number of days/weeks longer than they would have otherwise but I can't remember exactly how much longer. I have no idea if this work was ever replicated. And I also don't know if the findings were ever tested in other ways. That is, was it simply the calorie reduction that lengthened life or other contributing factors of laboratory life. What I'm getting at, one study is thin evidence on which to base long-term lifestyle decisions.

But, what this guy did was to reduce his caloric intake to 1/3 what is normal for a male of his age and weight. He looked to be in his early 40s at the time of the interview and thin, obviously. He had convinced himself that by doing this he would live longer. The interview took place in his heated home, but he wore thermal underwear under his clothing along with a heavy-ish sweater but was still constantly cold. He was always hungry, and his voice was very weak-sounding, during this one interview anyway. I don't know what his life expectancy would have normally been, but let's assume that he delayed dying by 5 years, so that instead of kicking off at 90, he postponed the inevitable to 95. Is it really worth living the life of a 12th century prison inmate for 60 years just to add 5 more miserable years to your stay on earth? It's a personal decision of course, but imagine how he'd feel if 10 years later, someone else did a similar mouse study but could not replicate the findings.

[LesPalenik]

Everything with moderation!

Obviously, reducing your diet to 1/3 of normal consumption is extreme. Beside the mentioned discomforts, the body may suffer more than without any calorie restrictions and any life lengthening under such circumstances is doubtful. However, according to several studies, calorie restriction is a significant factor of longevity in multiple species. Conversely, obesity reduces the long life expectations. Most published studies were done on mice and rats, but some also on humans. Surprisingly, caloric restriction can also increase energy efficiency.

The science behind caloric restriction goes all the way back to 1930 when Cornell scientist Clive McKay unexpectedly discovered that rats on a calorie restricted diet experienced more health benefits than rats eating their normal intake of food. Since then, the scientific community has expanded its investigation. Researchers have found that this type of diet significantly impacts the biology of yeast, worms, flies, and mice.

In a recent study, 12 healthy male athletes restricted their caloric intake by 33%. Among the findings was greater energy efficiency. This is largely due to the positive affect caloric restriction has on mitochondrial activity. Caloric restriction, according to the study, induces mitochondrial biogenesis and bioenergetic efficiency, reduces mitochondrial oxygen consumption and increases membrane potential, and generates less reactive oxygen species, all being able to maintain their critical ATP production. 

https://www.lifevantage.com/us-en/blog/when-less-is-more-the-health-benefits-of-caloric-restriction

The new Lancet study, called the Comprehensive Assessment of Long-Term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) trial, is the first to test the effect of calorie restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy young and middle-aged men and women. (Cardiometabolic risk factors contribute to a person’s chances of developing heart disease and metabolic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes). Blood pressure, blood cholesterol, blood triglycerides (fats), inflammatory markers, blood glucose and insulin sensitivity (that is, how well the body uses insulin to clear blood sugar) were among the cardiometabolic risk factors evaluated.

Over two years, the calorie-restriction group didn’t reach the 25-per-cent goal but did cut calories by 12 per cent, or 279 calories a day, the amount in 1.5 cups of white rice, a large bagel or 36 potato chips. The group also sustained an average weight loss of 16 pounds. (Calorie intake and body weight didn’t change in the control group.)

Calorie restriction also caused a significant reduction in all cardiometabolic risk factors, even though these values were normal to begin with. Participants who ate their usual diet did not experience any improvements. The improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, inflammatory markers and insulin sensitivity were over and above what would be expected from weight loss alone, hinting that calorie restriction itself plays a role.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/article-modest-calorie-restriction-may-add-healthy-years-to-your-life/

[Jeremy Roussak]

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Dunbar was lying motionless on his back again with his eyes staring up at the ceiling like a doll's. He was working hard at increasing his life span. He did it by cultivating boredom. Dunbar was working so hard at increasing his life span that Yossarian thought he was dead.

Joseph Heller: Catch-22

Jeremy

[LesPalenik]

what this guy did was to reduce his caloric intake to 1/3 what is normal for a male of his age and weight.

He must have been a photographer, applying the rule of two thirds in an incorrect way.

[Alan Goldhammer]

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Dunbar was lying motionless on his back again with his eyes staring up at the ceiling like a doll's. He was working hard at increasing his life span. He did it by cultivating boredom. Dunbar was working so hard at increasing his life span that Yossarian thought he was dead.

Joseph Heller: Catch-22

Jeremy

Probably another very good book to read these days.  I'll have to pull my copy off the bookshelf.  Thanks for the reminder!!

[Ray]

Everything with moderation!

Obviously, reducing your diet to 1/3 of normal consumption is extreme. Beside the mentioned discomforts, the body may suffer more than without any calorie restrictions and any life lengthening under such circumstances is doubtful. However, according to several studies, calorie restriction is a significant factor of longevity in multiple species. Conversely, obesity reduces the long life expectations. Most published studies were done on mice and rats, but some also on humans. Surprisingly, caloric restriction can also increase energy efficiency.

Les,
Obviously, reducing your diet to 1/3 of normal consumption is not extreme, if you are an obese person. It is the diet of an obese person that is extreme.

Putting on weight by eating too much is a normal and healthy process which has helped our ancestors survive throughout the many famines of the past. Some people are unable to put on weight when they eat too much, and such people would have been at a survival disadvantage in the past when food was not always abundantly available.

The general concept behind the benefits of fasting is that it gives the body more time to naturally fix any emerging health problems because the body is free from the continual chores of digesting food.

This makes sense to me. Consider the following analogy. One is an expert at house renovation, but in order to earn a living one has to work 7 days a week doing another job, and one has no time to fix the house problems. You realize if the house problems are not fixed, they will become worse, so you negotiate with your employer to take a few days off now and again, so you have the time to fix the house problems. As a result, your house maintains its strength and durability. 

Unfortunately, the initial discomfort of abstaining from the pleasures of eating and snacking for a day or two, is too great for most people to tolerate. However, if they were to persevere, they would realize that the body eventually adjusts to a change in eating habits and that it's possible to fast without experiencing uncomfortable pangs of hunger.