Hi Paul and Kitty,

I eat all of my calories once per day from 7:30am to 10am.

[This is a change, since I know that you were eating your once daily meal in the
evening just over a month ago. Is this related to the change from classes to
summer work? --Paul]


I have not found good information answering this concern of mine:

Whether having 4 oz of red wine (no other intake) just before bedtime
(9:00pm) would negate the positive effects of:
1) the fasting period

[Definitely yes. 4oz of red wine (even totally dry) would contain about 100
calories, which is not insignficant and will negate many of the beneficial
effects of the fast for a short period. Intake of wine during the fasting period
will also enhance the potential negative dietary effects of the alcohol in the
wine. --Paul]


2) important sleep processes

[Likely the neurological effects will help sleep onset, but the metabolic
effects will more than likely be negative for biochemical processes occurring
during sleep. --Paul]


3) other?

[I can think of no other negatives from use of wine at this time of your daily
cycle. OTOH, if you are not taking it in the morning with your daily meal, I
think your logic may be wrong. If you are concerned about driving or working
after drinking wine, then I think that you need not be, particularly if you
drink it during the first half of your large daily meal and even more
particularly if you drink some stimulating coffee or tea during the rest of the
meal and during the following daytime. Under these circumstances I think that it
is highly unlikely that such a small amount of wine will have any negative
effects on your competence and behavior during the ensuing daytime hours.
--Paul]


Thanks,
David Jackemeyer
Tempe, AZ
ASU student

"David Thomas Jackemeyer" <Olehenry1@...> wrote:
>Hi Paul and Kitty,
>
>I eat all of my calories once per day from 7:30am to 10am.
>
>[This is a change, since I know that you were eating your once daily
>meal in the evening just over a month ago. Is this related to the
>change from classes to summer work? --Paul]

Yes, now I wake at 6am, exercise at 7am (alternating 1hr and 1/2hr
times at the gym), eat roughly between 7:30am and 10am, and finally to
work at 10am which lasts till 6:30pm.

[Ok. That makes sense. --Paul]

>I have not found good information answering this concern of mine:
>Whether having 4 oz of red wine (no other intake) just before
>bedtime (9:00pm) would negate the positive effects of:
>1) the fasting period
>
> [Definitely yes. 4oz of red wine (even totally dry) would contain
>about 100 calories, which is not insignificant and will negate many
>of the beneficial effects of the fast for a short period. Intake of
>wine during the fasting period will also enhance the potential
>negative dietary effects of the alcohol in the wine. --Paul]

OK.  Since 10% of the calories in my Merlot wine are from sugar, the
remainder from alcohol, I had thought possibly my blood glucose levels
  remain stable while the liver took care of metabolizing the alcohol.
  You mention intake of alcohol during fasting enhances the potential
negatives, above the impact sustained when drinking with foods -- how
much worse would you predict?

[I am away on a trip right now without access to all my research "tools" so I
cannot easily give any answer to this at the moment. However, I will later plan
to do some work on the metabolism of alcohol and get back to this thread with
information on it. OTOH, if Olafur reads this message, perhaps he could answer
and save me the effort. --Paul]

> 2) important sleep processes
>
> [Likely the neurological effects will help sleep onset, but the
>metabolic effects will more than likely be negative for biochemical
>processes occurring during sleep. --Paul]

Thank you for your input -- I do not want to interrupt beneficial
biochemical processes during sleep!

> 3) other?
>
> [I can think of no other negatives from use of wine at this time of
>your daily cycle. OTOH, if you are not taking it in the morning with
>your daily meal, I think your logic may be wrong. If you are
>concerned about driving or working after drinking wine, then I think
>that you need not be, particularly if you drink it during the first
>half of your large daily meal and even more particularly if you drink
>some stimulating coffee or tea during the rest of the meal and during
>the following daytime. Under these circumstances I think that it is
>highly unlikely that such a small amount of wine will have any
>negative effects on your competence and behavior during the ensuing
>daytime hours. --Paul]

You are correct regarding my subjective experience, especially if I
drink the wine after ingesting any other foods/drinks, I feel no loss
of coordination or sluggishness of thought.
FYI, I alternate between these three: wine, Trader Joe's Grape Juice,
and raisins for my grape source.

[Then I expect that you will now start taking all of these in the morning since
they will all interrupt your fast. --Paul]

Warmly,
"Jack" emeyer

> Thanks,
> David Jackemeyer
> Tempe, AZ
> ASU student

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomas Jackemeyer"
<Olehenry1@...> wrote:
>
> "David Thomas Jackemeyer" <Olehenry1@> wrote:

<snip>

> >I have not found good information answering this concern of mine:
> >Whether having 4 oz of red wine (no other intake) just before
> >bedtime (9:00pm) would negate the positive effects of:
> >1) the fasting period
> >
> > [Definitely yes. 4oz of red wine (even totally dry) would contain
> >about 100 calories, which is not insignificant and will negate many
> >of the beneficial effects of the fast for a short period. Intake of
> >wine during the fasting period will also enhance the potential
> >negative dietary effects of the alcohol in the wine. --Paul]
>
> OK.  Since 10% of the calories in my Merlot wine are from sugar, the
> remainder from alcohol, I had thought possibly my blood glucose levels
>  remain stable while the liver took care of metabolizing the alcohol.

I am not sure how you got the idea that the liver's act of
metabolizing the alcohol would somehow keep the blood sugar stable.
Anyways, drinking one 4oz glass of red wine (containing approximately
100 calories of which 10% are sugar) in a fasting state will likely
not cause any significant increase in your blood sugar for two
reasons. First of all 10% of 100 calories only amounts to about 2,5g
of sugar. This is hardly a significant amount and will at most cause a
very small rise in your blood sugar unless it were absorbed extremely
fast. Second of all alcohol ingestion reduces gluconeogenesis in
humans http://pmid.us/9815011 which could result in a slight decrease
in blood sugar. In a fasted state the main way in which the body keeps
the blood sugar stable is by releasing glucose from the liver to the
bloodstream (the kidneys to a smaller extent also contribute to the
release of glucose into the blood during fasting). This glucose comes
from glycogenolysis (the breakdown of glycogen) and from
gluconeogenesis (synthesis of glucose from non-carbohydrade
precursors, mainly amino acids) in the liver. After several hours of
fasting the liver's glycogen stores start getting depleted resulting
in gluconeogenesis becoming the dominant source of glucose. Thus in a
fasted state the liver constantly produces glucose to keep the blood
glucose from dropping too low. While the effect of a glass of wine on
gluconeogenesis won't be large it might just be large enough to offset
the slight increase in glucose caused by the small amount of sugar in
the wine causing the net effect to be that your blood sugar does not
rise at all. But even if the blood sugar would not change at all upon
drinking the glass of wine the slight inhibition of gluconeogenesis
will in itself negatively effect the benefits of the fasting
temporarily. This is because the increase in breakdown and
recycling of the body's protein gluconeogenesis demands is one of the
benefits of fasting.

>  You mention intake of alcohol during fasting enhances the potential
> negatives, above the impact sustained when drinking with foods -- how
> much worse would you predict?

This is not a simple question to answer because it depends on several
factors including of course the dose of the alcohol. Also the timing
of the alcohol intake will effect its positive effects as well as its
negative effects. With respect to the positive effects evidence
suggests that some of the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol
consumption are caused by a hormetic effect. This is among others
supported by the J shaped curve that relates alcohol intake to
mortality. To get the hormetic benefit the dose consumed must be large
enough to cause a stress response. But if the dose is too large the
harm will be more than the benefit from the stress response. This is
why alcohol is only beneficial in moderation. Epidemiological studies
suggest that somewhere around 10-40g of alcohol a day is the optimal
dose for reduction in mortality (full text of PMID: 15006414). Note
that the stress on the body from drinking a dose of alcohol spread
over the day will be less than the stress of consuming it all in one
dose. Thus 10g of alcohol might be enough to cause a beneficial
hormetic response if drunken in a single dose while it may not be
enough to cause such a response if one were to consume it in several
small doses over the day, such as when spreading it over three meals.
On the other hand 40g of alcohol is most likely enough to cause a
beneficial hormetic response even if spread over the day. But taking
40g all at once would probably cause a stress response that is
considerably higher than that needed to cause the beneficial hormetic
response and might be high enough for the harmful effects to outweigh
the beneficial ones. These numbers of course are just estimates and
will be very individual. But note that drinking alcohol with a meal
does spread the dose considerably compared to drinking it on a fasting
stomach since the meal will slow down its absorption.

I think that generally, as long as the dose of alcohol is lower to
compensate for it being less spread through out the day, drinking wine
in a fasting state will not be more negative than taking it with a
meal. But this is without taking into account the potential of the
wine to disturb the fast by increasing glucose and reducing
gluconeogenesis. That effect alone, even though it will only wary for
a short time, is a good enough reason for me to think that in your
case drinking the wine with or right after the meal will be more
beneficial than drinking it later in the day when you are in a fasted
state. As Paul mentioned the potential of the wine to interrupt
important sleep processes is yet another reason not to drink it before
you go to sleep. In conclusion I agree with Paul's advice that it
would be better for you to drink the wine with the meal or right after
eating it.

> [I am away on a trip right now without access to all my research
> "tools" so I cannot easily give any answer to this at the moment.
> However, I will later plan to do some work on the metabolism of
> alcohol and get back to this thread with information on it. OTOH, if
> Olafur reads this message, perhaps he could answer and save me the
> effort. --Paul]

Sure Paul. This subject wasn't exactly of much interest to me since I
myself do not drink alcoholic beverages, nor do I plan to in part
because I dislike their taste. But I'm always glad to save you some of
the effort.

[Thanks. I think there is still some more that needs to be stated about the
metabolism of alcohol, but I will look into it when I get back home. --Paul]


BTW I did not know you guys were on a trip. It probably explains why I
haven't heard from you in a while. I hope you have a nice trip.

[The trip is a one week stay in Toledo for the main purpose of receiving,
getting tested and distributing a recent joint bulk purchase of pure
trans-resveratrol which we were coordinating. A secondary purpose was to receive
and transport back to Canada a 3 months supply of supplements from LEF. A third
reason for specifically doing this in Toledo (besides its being close to the
Canadian border where we reside from May to October) has been to visit our new
friend Steve Floyd, who is a poster to this group. We've also taken the
opportunity to get our regular service to the car and are enjoying some very
nice walks - including in 2, so far, of several park preserves in the greater
Toledo area. (Spied 7 wild white tail deer, including one mother and spotted
fawn, in this "metropolitan" area.)  We will be returning to Harcourt Park on
Monday. --Paul]

Hi Paul and Kitty
I hope you are well
Here is a report of a recent exchange between Olafur, you (Paul) and
me about the right use of rate in vernacular englsih

Here is the caption (I'm not sure about the term) of this dialog
>>>>>> Me   (to Olafur)
>>>>> Olafur  (to me)
>>>> Me  (to Olafur)
>>> Me 	 (to Paul)
>> Paul  (to me)
>Olafur  (to Paul)

I also wrote the initial of the author at the beginning of the line
in order to be clearer

[Thanks for doing that. With a three way inline discussion the "level
indicators" are not as easy to follow as with a dialog. --Paul]

[As an explanation, this email correspondence occurred on the side from a thread
discussion on calorie restriction between Olafur and Francois at
sci.life-extension a few days ago - http://tinyurl.com/5zao3x **Kitty]


F>>> Olafur and I are arguing about the right use of rate. Would
F>>> it bother you to enlighten us ? (I pasted below the recent
F>>> exchange with  Olafur)

F>>>>>> Hi Olafur,
F>>>>>>
F>>>>>> I'm making my answer to your questions about my fat rate
F>>>>>> (which is much higher than you, you'll see)

O>>>>> Actually it's fat percentage not fat rate. As far as I know
O>>>>> the word "rate" is only used to describe the speed of
O>>>>> something like heart rate, the speed at which
O>>>>> the heart beats.

F>>> About rate, I think its use here is correct AFAIK but maybe
F>>> I'm wrong.

P>> In vernacular English, rate is always be used to describe the
P>> measured  change in some parameter per unit of time.

O> Yes I was almost 100% sure the word rate could only be used when
O> speaking about *change* in some parameter. Therefore I was certain
O> that his use of the phrase fat rate was incorrect
O> precisely because I had asked him about his fat
O> percentage (which is the amount of fat he is carrying as a
O> percentage of his bodyweight)not how fast his body fat
O> was *changing* in either direction.
O> Maybe the French equivalent word for "rate" can be correctly
O> used along with the French equivalent
O> word for "fat" to mean fat percentage in French? I don't know,
O> but I do know that similar things confuse me sometimes when I
O> think about the equivalent Icelandic
O> words for some English words.

That's the case: in french "taux" can be translated in english
either by ratio or by rate

P>> However, that notion is
P>> generalized in calculus to signify the instantaneous change of
P>> any variable with respect to another with respect to which it has
P>> a dependency relationship (technically merely called
P>> a relation).
P>> Speed is merely one special kind of rate, the change
P>> of distance with time - even though speed is often
P>> incorrectly used for other types of rate (eg.
P>> reaction rate is sometimes, incorrectly, called reaction
P>> speed).  Rates  should never be expressed as percentages, since a
P>> percentage is merely a ratio of two measurements in the same
P>> units, of quantities with no necessary dependency except that
P>> one  measurement (the denominator) is a
P>> part or super-part of the other measurement (the numerator).

Until this, I think I fully understand your reasoning, Paul:
If I say, my fat rate is 16.4 %: it's a wrong use
If I say, my fat ratio is 16.4%: correct use

P>> It would be
P>> correct to to apply the term rate to body fat if one used it to
P>> express  the change over time of one's percentage or amount of
P>> body fat.

O> Thanks for the accurate explanation.
O>

Here I'm a bit puzzled; do you mean that I could say:
my fat ratio was 16.9% a year ago; it's now 16.4% so my body
fat rate is equal to (16.4-16.9)/16.9 =-0.0296 which means a
decrease of 2.96% of my fat ratio
If I understand your point, it is a correct use but of course nobody
states things like this regarding fat ratio.
(Moreover there is a reasoning error since 16.9% of 62.6 kg= 10.579
kg of body fat and 16.4% of 62 kg = 10.168 kg of body fat so my body
fat rate is (10.168-10.579)/10.579=-0.0389=-3,89% though my body fat
ratio has decreased of 2.96% (it is normal that the body fat rate
is lower than the decreasing of the body fat ratio since the body
weight has also decreased of 600 grams))
Maybe more interestingly than what I've wrote just above, these
calculations show that when I lose 600 grams of body weight, I lose
411 grams of body fat (and the remaining 189 grams must be water and
muscle)

P>> Perhaps it would be useful to post this dialog on rate,
P>> percentage and  speed to Morelife Yahoo.
P>>

François Rose

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, François ROSE <fr.rose@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and Kitty
> I hope you are well
> Here is a report of a recent exchange between Olafur, you (Paul) and
> me about the right use of rate in vernacular englsih
>
> Here is the caption (I'm not sure about the term) of this dialog
> >>>>>> Me   (to Olafur)
> >>>>> Olafur  (to me)
> >>>> Me  (to Olafur)
> >>> Me  (to Paul)
> >> Paul  (to me)
> >Olafur (to Paul)
>
> I also wrote the initial of the author at the beginning of the line
> in order to be clearer
>
> [Thanks for doing that. With a three way inline discussion the
> "level indicators" are not as easy to follow as with a dialog. --Paul]
>
> [As an explanation, this email correspondence occurred on the side
> from a thread discussion on calorie restriction between Olafur and
> Francois at sci.life-extension a few days ago - http://tinyurl.com/5zao3x
**Kitty]

It is a long thread with several other participants, including me at
the start.


> F>>> Olafur and I are arguing about the right use of rate. Would
> F>>> it bother you to enlighten us ? (I pasted below the recent
> F>>> exchange with  Olafur)
>
> F>>>>>> Hi Olafur,
> F>>>>>>
> F>>>>>> I'm making my answer to your questions about my fat rate
> F>>>>>> (which is much higher than you, you'll see)
>
> O>>>>> Actually it's fat percentage not fat rate. As far as I know
> O>>>>> the word "rate" is only used to describe the speed of
> O>>>>> something like heart rate, the speed at which
> O>>>>> the heart beats.
>
> F>>> About rate, I think its use here is correct AFAIK but maybe
> F>>> I'm wrong.
>
> P>> In vernacular English, rate is always be used to describe the
> P>> measured  change in some parameter per unit of time.
>
> O> Yes I was almost 100% sure the word rate could only be used when
> O> speaking about *change* in some parameter. Therefore I was certain
> O> that his use of the phrase fat rate was incorrect
> O> precisely because I had asked him about his fat
> O> percentage (which is the amount of fat he is carrying as a
> O> percentage of his bodyweight)not how fast his body fat
> O> was *changing* in either direction.
> O> Maybe the French equivalent word for "rate" can be correctly
> O> used along with the French equivalent
> O> word for "fat" to mean fat percentage in French? I don't know,
> O> but I do know that similar things confuse me sometimes when I
> O> think about the equivalent Icelandic
> O> words for some English words.

Actually my use of the word "always" above was incorrect since upon
doing some dictionary research, I realized that I had not remembered
that "rate" is also often used in a way not relating to time (as in
hotel room rate, tax rate, interest rate, discount rate, wage rate -
which is not necessarily per unit of time, the price charged an
advertiser per unit of publication space or of radio or television
time, etc). So in that respect it comes very close to ratio,
percentage and, yes, even "fat rate". Still, I have never heard "rate"
used with respect to fat percentage and although I think most people
would understand, they might suspect that the user was not a native
English speaker. Olafur still uses a few words in ways that are
"strange" for a native English speaker. OTOH, there is also great
variation among native English speakers. I too use words in somewhat
different ways than many native english speaking people, but I do so
mostly intentionally for a purpose and do know what others mean when
they use them differently.


> That's the case: in french "taux" can be translated in english
> either by ratio or by rate

Aha! And which translation is correct english usage will depend on the
context and experience with english. This is a good example of why
machine translation is so difficult.


> P>> However, that notion is
> P>> generalized in calculus to signify the instantaneous change of
> P>> any variable with respect to another with respect to which it has
> P>> a dependency relationship (technically merely called
> P>> a relation).
> P>> Speed is merely one special kind of rate, the change
> P>> of distance with time - even though speed is often
> P>> incorrectly used for other types of rate (eg.
> P>> reaction rate is sometimes, incorrectly, called reaction
> P>> speed).  Rates  should never be expressed as percentages, since a
> P>> percentage is merely a ratio of two measurements in the same
> P>> units, of quantities with no necessary dependency except that
> P>> one  measurement (the denominator) is a
> P>> part or super-part of the other measurement (the numerator).
>
> Until this, I think I fully understand your reasoning, Paul:
> If I say, my fat rate is 16.4 %: it's a wrong use
> If I say, my fat ratio is 16.4%: correct use

Correct.


> P>> It would be
> P>> correct to to apply the term rate to body fat if one used it to
> P>> express  the change over time of one's percentage or amount of
> P>> body fat.
>
> O> Thanks for the accurate explanation.
>
>
> Here I'm a bit puzzled; do you mean that I could say:
> my fat ratio was 16.9% a year ago; it's now 16.4% so my body
> fat rate is equal to (16.4-16.9)/16.9 =-0.0296 which means a
> decrease of 2.96% of my fat ratio
> If I understand your point, it is a correct use but of course nobody
> states things like this regarding fat ratio.

Yes, it is not generally stated that way. However it would be
perfectly correct and fully understandable to state that your body fat
percentage was decreasing at a rate of 2.96% per year. But note that
this is very different than saying that your body fat percentage
decreased by 2.96% (since it only decreased by 0.5%) and also slightly
different from the rate per year of decrease in your body fat amount
(because your total weight also changed), as you found out in your
calculation below.


> (Moreover there is a reasoning error since 16.9% of 62.6 kg= 10.579
> kg of body fat and 16.4% of 62 kg = 10.168 kg of body fat so my body
> fat rate is (10.168-10.579)/10.579=-0.0389=-3,89%

The above would more correctly be stated as:

"so my body fat rate of decrease per last year was .... = 3.89%".


> though my body fat ratio has decreased of 2.96%

I do not understand why you think/write that there appears to be some
"reasoning error". Perhaps you have fallen into the common fallacy of
misapplication of logic to percentages. When I first read the above I
too thought that the second calculation would be smaller number than
the first. I suggest that working through the logic of these sorts of
calculations (which seem to be intuitively incorrect) would be a good
exercise for your math students.


> (it is normal that the body fat rate
> is lower than the decreasing of the body fat ratio since the body
> weight has also decreased of 600 grams))

What your logic here is missing is that the decrease in body weight
makes the new fat weight larger than it would have been if only the
fat weight had decreased. Since that part is subtracted, this results
is a larger numerator and an increased ratio (in absolute terms).


> Maybe more interestingly than what I've wrote just above, these
> calculations show that when I lose 600 grams of body weight, I lose
> 411 grams of body fat (and the remaining 189 grams must be water and
> muscle)

Yes, one always loses some muscle with the fat (and some
bone/cartilage also). That is why exercise is necessary to keep both
of these losses from being unhealthily large.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
<olafurpall@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomas Jackemeyer"
> <Olehenry1@> wrote:
> >
> > "David Thomas Jackemeyer" <Olehenry1@> wrote:
><snip>
> >  You mention intake of alcohol during fasting enhances the
> >  potential negatives, above the impact sustained when drinking
> >  with foods --  how much worse would you predict?
>
> This is not a simple question to answer because it depends on
> several factors including of course the dose of the alcohol. Also
> the timing of the alcohol intake will effect its positive effects as
> well as its
> negative effects. With respect to the positive effects evidence
> suggests that some of the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol
> consumption are caused by a hormetic effect. This is among others
> supported by the J shaped curve that relates alcohol intake to
> mortality. To get the hormetic benefit the dose consumed must be
> large enough to cause a stress response. But if the dose is too
> large the harm will be more than the benefit from the stress
> response. This is why alcohol is only beneficial in moderation.
> Epidemiological studies suggest that somewhere around 10-40g of
> alcohol a day is the optimal
> dose for reduction in mortality (full text of PMID: 15006414). Note
> that the stress on the body from drinking a dose of alcohol spread
> over the day will be less than the stress of consuming it all in
> one dose. Thus 10g of alcohol might be enough to cause a beneficial
> hormetic response if drunken in a single dose while it may not be
> enough to cause such a response if one were to consume it in
> several small doses over the day, such as when spreading it over
> three meals.
> On the other hand 40g of alcohol is most likely enough to cause a
> beneficial hormetic response even if spread over the day. But
> taking 40g all at once would probably cause a stress response that
> is considerably higher than that needed to cause the beneficial
> hormetic response and might be high enough for the harmful effects
> to outweigh
> the beneficial ones. These numbers of course are just estimates and
> will be very individual. But note that drinking alcohol with a meal
> does spread the dose considerably compared to drinking it on a
> fasting stomach since the meal will slow down its absorption.

I'm not sure I understand the dosage figure (maybe I've mixed up
with the sugar calculation above):
My red wine contains 12% of alcohol (according to its label)
Does 10 g of alcohol a day would equal to 10*100/12 =~ 0.083 liter
(=2,82 fl oz) of wine?
If that's the case, then I assume that my regural intake of wine (I
drink around .2 liter =6.76 fl oz each day ) is within the right
range considering the fact that I drink it with my one meal a day.


> I think that generally, as long as the dose of alcohol is lower to
> compensate for it being less spread through out the day, drinking
> wine in a fasting state will not be more negative than taking it
> with a meal. But this is without taking into account the potential
> of the wine to disturb the fast by increasing glucose and reducing
> gluconeogenesis. That effect alone, even though it will only wary
> for a short time, is a good enough reason for me to think that in
> your case drinking the wine with or right after the meal will be
> more beneficial than drinking it later in the day when you are in a
> fasted state. As Paul mentioned the potential of the wine to
> interrupt important sleep processes is yet another reason not to
> drink it before you go to sleep. In conclusion I agree with Paul's
> advice that it would be better for you to drink the wine with the
> meal or right after eating it.
>
> > [I am away on a trip right now without access to all my research
> > "tools" so I cannot easily give any answer to this at the moment.
> > However, I will later plan to do some work on the metabolism of
> > alcohol and get back to this thread with information on it.
> > OTOH, if
> > Olafur reads this message, perhaps he could answer and save me
> > the effort. --Paul]
>
> Sure Paul. This subject wasn't exactly of much interest to me
> since I myself do not drink alcoholic beverages, nor do I plan to in
> part because I dislike their taste. But I'm always glad to save you
> some of the effort.

I used to dislike the taste of red wine until I was a teenager but my
father has educated my taste and it came gradually. My wife also
used to
dislike the taste of red wine before she met me.
<snip>

François Rose

On 06/29/2008 01:57 PM, François ROSE wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
> <olafurpall@...>
> wrote:
>
>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomas Jackemeyer"
>> <Olehenry1@> wrote:
>>
>>> "David Thomas Jackemeyer" <Olehenry1@> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>  You mention intake of alcohol during fasting enhances the
>>>  potential negatives, above the impact sustained when drinking
>>>  with foods --  how much worse would you predict?
>>>
>> This is not a simple question to answer because it depends on
>> several factors including of course the dose of the alcohol. Also
>> the timing of the alcohol intake will effect its positive effects as
>> well as its
>> negative effects. With respect to the positive effects evidence
>> suggests that some of the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol
>> consumption are caused by a hormetic effect. This is among others
>> supported by the J shaped curve that relates alcohol intake to
>> mortality. To get the hormetic benefit the dose consumed must be
>> large enough to cause a stress response. But if the dose is too
>> large the harm will be more than the benefit from the stress
>> response. This is why alcohol is only beneficial in moderation.
>> Epidemiological studies suggest that somewhere around 10-40g of
>> alcohol a day is the optimal
>> dose for reduction in mortality (full text of PMID: 15006414). Note
>> that the stress on the body from drinking a dose of alcohol spread
>> over the day will be less than the stress of consuming it all in
>> one dose. Thus 10g of alcohol might be enough to cause a beneficial
>> hormetic response if drunken in a single dose while it may not be
>> enough to cause such a response if one were to consume it in
>> several small doses over the day, such as when spreading it over
>> three meals.
>> On the other hand 40g of alcohol is most likely enough to cause a
>> beneficial hormetic response even if spread over the day. But
>> taking 40g all at once would probably cause a stress response that
>> is considerably higher than that needed to cause the beneficial
>> hormetic response and might be high enough for the harmful effects
>> to outweigh
>> the beneficial ones. These numbers of course are just estimates and
>> will be very individual. But note that drinking alcohol with a meal
>> does spread the dose considerably compared to drinking it on a
>> fasting stomach since the meal will slow down its absorption.
>>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the dosage figure (maybe I've mixed up
> with the sugar calculation above):
> My red wine contains 12% of alcohol (according to its label)
> Does 10 g of alcohol a day would equal to 10*100/12 =~ 0.083 liter
> (=2,82 fl oz) of wine?
> If that's the case, then I assume that my regural intake of wine (I
> drink around .2 liter =6.76 fl oz each day ) is within the right
> range considering the fact that I drink it with my one meal a day.
>

I am not sure why you are asking above whether or not your calculation
is correct. However, it may be a little off for the following reason.

Perhaps the alcohol ratio is given differently on the labels of wine
in France, but in Canada and the US it is given as a percentage of the
*volume* of the wine.
Since the specific gravity of alcohol is only 0.79, this will make
some not insignificant difference than if one uses percentage weight.
For example your 0.2 liters of wine will contain 200 x 0.12 = 24 ml
of alcohol which is only 24 x 0.79 = 19 grams.

--Paul

>> I think that generally, as long as the dose of alcohol is lower to
>> compensate for it being less spread through out the day, drinking
>> wine in a fasting state will not be more negative than taking it
>> with a meal. But this is without taking into account the potential
>> of the wine to disturb the fast by increasing glucose and reducing
>> gluconeogenesis. That effect alone, even though it will only wary
>> for a short time, is a good enough reason for me to think that in
>> your case drinking the wine with or right after the meal will be
>> more beneficial than drinking it later in the day when you are in a
>> fasted state. As Paul mentioned the potential of the wine to
>> interrupt important sleep processes is yet another reason not to
>> drink it before you go to sleep. In conclusion I agree with Paul's
>> advice that it would be better for you to drink the wine with the
>> meal or right after eating it.
>>
>>
>>> [I am away on a trip right now without access to all my research
>>> "tools" so I cannot easily give any answer to this at the moment.
>>> However, I will later plan to do some work on the metabolism of
>>> alcohol and get back to this thread with information on it.
>>> OTOH, if
>>> Olafur reads this message, perhaps he could answer and save me
>>> the effort. --Paul]
>>>
>> Sure Paul. This subject wasn't exactly of much interest to me
>> since I myself do not drink alcoholic beverages, nor do I plan to in
>> part because I dislike their taste. But I'm always glad to save you
>> some of the effort.
>>
>
> I used to dislike the taste of red wine until I was a teenager but my
> father has educated my taste and it came gradually. My wife also
> used to
> dislike the taste of red wine before she met me.

[I didn't find the taste of red wine really pleasant until I and Paul began
making wine coolers. Years ago I did enjoy white and blush (rose) wines, but
these of course do not have the health benefits of the red. But very recently we
bought a Chilean wine that is a combination of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot and
I find it so nice that I would enjoy a small glass of it plain, without the
additional cooler ingredients. **Kitty]

> <snip>
>
> François Rose

I apologize for the belated reply --Paul

On 04/22/2008 01:08 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Kitty Antonik Wakfer <kitty@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> [snip of previous items responded to separately by Paul]
>>
>>
>>>> [What has gone by the wayside since I was a child is the idea
>>>> of "saving for a rainy day" - those events that most
>>>> likely would occur, like illnesses. Insurance was only
>>>> for something very unlikely, but not impossible.
>>>> the exception for many people was the idea of buying life
>>>> insurance - death was/is a certainty at some point as the
>>>> way of providing for their young families before sufficient
>>>> savings could be accumulated and mortgages on homes fully
>>>> paid off. Now health care insurance is really nothing more than
>>>> prepaid health services but done in a pool method where everyone
>>>> shares the financial burden for each other's health status. And
>>>> life insurance is a poor longterm investment alternative for
>>>> the person who has an income in excess of necessary
>>>> expenditures. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Kitty, I agree with you entirely here.  It is quite frustrating
>>> to me that most of my peers believe that any extra money in the
>>> bank is to be spent on entertainment.  They simply do not
>>> understand that bad things can happen to them, and they are not
>>> prepared for these occurrences.  My general feeling on your
>>> last few sentences above is that people are uneducated on the
>>> alternatives.  I mean alternatives such as disease-prevention
>>> through healthy habits, and alternative investment vehicles
>>> outside of life insurance.  Some people simply opt to take what
>>> is presented to them (the life-insurance salesperson comes by and
>>> they buy it).
>>>
>> My conclusion is that the vast majority of people who do not
>> save/invest part of their income and instead spend all of it on
>> possessions and services of various types because they currently
>> have no incentive to do otherwise.
>>
>
> I find it your conclusion here interesting:  that people do not do so
> because they have no incentive to.  My present conclusion is related
> to this.  That is, my conclusion is that the vast majority of people
> are not aware of the incentives involved in "doing otherwise".  So,
> my conclusion is that people do not use their resources more wisely
> because of a lack of awareness and education, rather than a lack of
> incentive.

I think that the two go together. Cradle-to-grave socialism removes
incentive because there is far less need to plan for one's own future
benefit. But at the same time, since governments increasingly take
care of all one's needs (with money stolen from others), there is no
need for awareness or education about how to think and choose long
range in order to benefit oneself.

>  During my multiple analyses of the possibilities of my
> future financial condition, I realized that there are many, many
> incentives related to delayed gratification, most notably the idea
> that saving now can have a very dramatic effect on my financial
> wealth in the future.  In my experience in attempting to communicate
> these incentives to saving to others I have found that nearly all of
> the people I spoke with are totally ignorant of important financial
> planning fundamentals (i.e. compound interest, investment vehicles,
> reduction of expenses to maximize savings, etc).  I have also found
> that once they become aware of these benefits that can be realized in
> the future they seem much more interested and/or motivated to engage
> in different behavior (i.e. spending less and saving more).  Note
> here that I may be incorrectly alternating between the use of the
> terms "incentive" and "benefit".  That is, I'm not sure what you
> mean by your use of the word "incentive".

By "incentive" I and Kitty mean a stimulus or motivation to do
something. There is a subtle but important difference between
incentive and benefit. Benefit is the intended result of acting.
Gaining benefit is the incentive (and purpose) for acting. Note that
an action intending to gain benefit may not actually do so, but even
so, the incentive/purpose has not changed. However, purpose and
incentive are also subtly different. A purpose is the intended end
result, while an incentive may be only one item which appears to make
that purpose more likely to be realized.


>> It wasn't that many years ago that the fable of the
>> grasshopper and the ant had real relevance to society - that if an
>> individual chose to spend/use all of his assets (including time)
>> during the present, then s/he would have accumulated nothing for
>> the inevitable winter and the fates (likely death) would prevail.
>> Is this a fable with which you are even familiar?
>>
>
> I am not familiar with this tale, but I certainly think it is
> relevant to our discussion here.  But your decription above makes me
> wonder about the causes of the change in attitude in society.  I
> studied business in college and I note that the study of business is
> the focus on the sale of products and services to others for profit.
> Included in the study of business is the disciplines related to the
> communication of features and benefits of a product or service, and
> the techniques related to convincing a person to make a purchase
> (marketing and sales respectively).  I wonder if there is an
> increased emphasis on *profits* from the time you mention "not that
> many years ago" to the present.

I think that there has been a change during the last several decades
in the understanding of the meaning and purpose of profit. Several
decades ago, not nearly as many people as today took the view that
profit is simply a necessary evil required to keep businesses
producing the goods and services that everyone requires. Decades ago
more educated people understood that profit is necessary for any
social transaction to occur, since it is nothing but the net benefit
that each party gets out of the transaction and thus, is the incentive
for each to enter into the exchange of value.

[If you haven't already done a search on the Web for it, here is a
site with a rendering of the fable, unchanged from how I remember it -
http://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=0&i=1 **Kitty]

> I also wonder if corporations, with their
> emphasis on marketing, sales, (and seemingly materialism) might
> partly be to blame for society's seeming current lack of reasonable
> behavior regarding one's resources.

Since all corporations and businesses in general, have always had this
emphasis (because material profit is the only benefit that they know
how to measure), I do not see that they are to blame for the change.
Rather I think that it is philosophically based. While explicit
socialist practices have largely been shown to simply not work,
nevertheless, the socialist ideals behind those practices were not
seen to be invalid for reality (which is why the practical application
of them did not work), but rather continue to be admired, sought and
implemented by other far less direct and clearly negative means. So
in the end these negative altruistic and socialist ideas are winning
over the majority of people and being increasingly instituted by all
levels of government everywhere.

>> [Steve, have you never heard of "the school of hard knocks"?
>>
>
> I am fairly familiar with this term.  In fact, I try to get the most
> out of this "university" as I can!  :)  (That is, when there is not a
> better alternative).

Actually for some things there *is* no better alternative. Imagining a
"hard knock" as the result of some action, is never as effective in
training one as actually getting hard knocked after taking the action.

>> By far the most effective method of learning about reality occurs
>> when a person is allowed to suffer the real and often hard
>> concequences of hir actions. "Reality is the best teacher" is another
>> maxim used in this regard. The problem with current society is that
>> reality is not allowed to be a teacher to any except those who are
>> productive and get their hard earned assets stolen by governments. -- Paul]
>>
>
> I am not sure that government theft of assets of productive people
> are the only thing that is allowed to be taught by reality.

Since I cannot understand the relevance of your statement above, I
think that you misunderstood what I said above. Here it is again
stated differently.

The problem with current society is that, except for those individuals
who are productive and get their hard earned assets stolen by
governments (government is a major part of the current reality), most
people are prevented learning from the negative effects of reality
(because of the existence of government "safety-net" programs).
Actually it is also true that most people are not able to learn from
the positive effects of reality, since a great deal of the value that
they would have earned by their responsible and valuable endeavors is
stolen or subverted by government in one way or the other. (An example
of that is that your various financial planning methods are not nearly
as effective as they might be, because of all the government
regulations and taxes.)

> However, I do agree with your assertion that society seems to be more
> sheltered from reality, especially with things like television, video
> games, political correctness, etc.
>
>
>> There has been an enormous increase in the past 30 to 40 years of
>> what began in the 1930s - payment through tax money to people for
>> all types of avoidable situations. Tax money-backed health care is
>> just one of many provided services that were/are labeled by
>> politicians as part of a caring society.
>>
>
> Note that since your and (I believe Paul's) recommendation to read
> Mises.org I have signed up for the Daily Mises Article.  After
> reading most of these articles, (and then more on the website), I
> have become increasingly frustrated with the above situation you
> describe.  More specifically, where you state:
>
>  "Tax money-backed health care is just one of many provided services
>  that were/are labeled by politicians as part of a caring society."
>
> ...especially frustrates me.  Where you say "caring" above I would
> rather call it *irresponsible*.

"Caring" is not our term, but rather the word used by politicians and
altruists ("labeled by politicians"). They have distorted the word
from its proper application to individuals, and applied it to the
collective society as a whole where it is not meaningful. Society
cannot care, no more than society can think.

> The more I learn the more I notice
> that so many problems in society seem to be connected to
> irresponsible behavior.

This is true, but it is important to understand why irresponsible
behavior exists (what is its incentive), rather than merely *that* it
exists. If you do not do something about the why (the incentive) then
all your efforts to correct the fact of its existence will be in vain.
Briefly once again, the incentive for irresponsible behavior is that
it is the easier course of action when there is little disbenefit
involved with it - most of the disbenefit having been eliminated by
government programs.

> Some of these problems include financial
> problems, unplanned pregnancy, and health problems (i.e. the so-
> called "obesity epidemic" - boy I wouldn't want to catch that
> disease LOL).

The disincentives for being responsible with respect to all of those
examples is that everyone is taught from day one that such negative
occurrences are largely unpreventable and there are government
programs to help you out with all such negative occurrences - so why
bother to try to prevent them, just take the easy way and spend all
your money, have sex with wild abandon and eat all the junk that you
want. Do all these things to get as much immediate gratification as
you can, since you need not be concerned with any negative results.

[What amazes me is that, in all the public (political) debates on
costs, no one says the above - not even in the fringes of mainstream
media. Actually it doesn't surprise me that no politician wants to
acknowledge this truth because if it were the reigning philosophy
s/he'd have lost a major tool for getting/retaining hir power. **Kitty]

> But again, I think that much of this irresponsibility comes from a
> lack of education - from parents, from peers, from schools, and from
> every other member of society.

But once again, the lack of education is because a society in which
irresponsibility appears to be rewarded eliminates the need for
teaching and learning it.

>> Another is unemployment. Now losing one's current job
>> may not be avoidable - companies can go into a reduction of force
>> mode and even out of business - but being without any income *is*
>> avoidable. That once common "rainy day fund" was also thought of
>> as "tide over" money, in case of job loss, to be used for that
>> short period of time until the individual established another
>> source of income - another employer or his own endeavors as a
>> provider of a product or services willing to be bought by others.
>> This is rarely done anymore and it is common to read or hear about
>> persons who have been on unemployment benefits (government paid
>> from tax money) for more than a year - or the person files for and
>> receives a grant from one of many government agencies and/or
>> declares personal bankruptcy. The original idea of government
>> sponsored unemployment insurance was that money was to be
>> withheld from a person's paycheck, invested in some trust and
>> then paid out for a specific period of time to those who became
>> unemployed through no fault of their own - something that could be
>> arranged by the individual and employer on a voluntary basis.
>> Unfortunately government has preempted this type of voluntary
>> arrangement or the decision of the individual to do his own savings
>> for such an event by its mandatory federal program.
>>
>
> Interesting discussion Kitty.  Related to this, I just lectured today
> in my Accounting 1 class about FUTA and SUTA taxes (federal and state
> unemployment tax acts, respectively).  One thing I emphasize in the
> lecture is that only the EMPLOYER pays these taxes - it is *not*
> withheld from the EMPLOYEE, even though it's the employee that
> receives the benefit.

I hope that you point out that even though the employer pays it, it is
at least partly still indirectly taken from the pay of the employee,
which pay could be higher (and the prices of the company's goods or
services lower) if the employer did not have to pay the unemployment tax.

> I love to see the puzzled or frustrated looks
> on the students' faces when they realize this contradiction.  My
> classes (2 sections) today had several heated discussions about the
> taxes the government takes from paychecks and I encouraged all of
> them to become more active.  I encouraged them that, while the tax
> situation is frustrating, changing the situation is up to them and
> without acting to change the situation they are consenting to it.  I
> think that some students may have been inspired by my words.

While it sounds good and does help activate people, the logic of the
statement "If you do not act to change a situation then you are
consenting to it" is faulty. All that is necessary to not consent to
some action A that is affecting you is to clearly state: "I do not
consent to A". Logically it is not necessary to do anything else.
However in practical terms, some action (generally more than merely
saying: "I do not consent to A") will be necessary in order to
eliminate A. Therefore in order to avoid this logical fallacy, I
suggest that you rephrase it as: "taking positive actions is the only
practical and effective way to communicate to others the strength of
your non-consent - it is the only way for others to know for sure that
you do not consent".

> Note that I plan to respond to the remainder of your comments in
> message 1719 at a later time.
>
> Also note that I spent a significant portion of time formatting the
> previous comments in this message for easier reading by the group.
> After spending time formatting this message I wonder if there exists
> a more efficient way to post and reply to messages of this type.

The only better way that I know of is to preemptively place hard
returns at end of every line of about 65 characters. I have done that
in this response message.

> Have the moderators considered the use of a forum/discussion board
> format?

Yes, but we have not seen one that is inexpensive, enables us to
prevent people posting without full identification and also enables us
to moderate each message before it is posted to the group. Besides,
the Yahoo reply format automatically enables and promotes inline
response, which I and Kitty are convinced is a necessity for rational
and complete discussion.

> I think this format might simulate a conversation better
> than the current format.

Since I cannot see why this would be the case (and I can see many
negatives of most forum/discussion board formats that I have
reviewed), you will need to explain in detail why you think that.

--Paul

Hi all,

Recently, I've been hearing again and again about Bill C-51 in Canada
indirectly related to Codex Alimentarius I'm sure. Even in the U.S.
the same threat (although not the same Bill as in Canada) is looming
large. Someone on another board posted the below YouTube links. While
these doesn't represent the last word in this discussion but probably
just a point of view from someone directly affected by those impending
stricter guidelines and regulations, I still find them to be
interesting and forced me to ponder over this recurrent issue that's
Codex Alimentarius. Reason why I'm posting this here is, many if not
all members of this forum are on dietary supplements, and hope to be
able to keep taking them in the future. What's more Paul and Kitty so
far as I can see from my limited time to keep tabs on forum posting,
are advocate of people's liberty to choose to use dietary supplements
of their choice from their own research.

Basically, I wonder : are these scaremongers, or is this the bare
truth ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7awAo6CA5i4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrF9KjlGsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhApQ3QkG0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvX5lmzfVVc&feature=related

Marc Boucher
Riviere-du-Loup,Qc
Canada.

An upload to MoreLife.org was done today, July 7. I put off the
quarterly statistics report and other page updates/corrections in
early June due to our preoccupation with the resveratrol group buy.
That is now entirely out of the way and our routine has been more
"normal" the last 10 days, though still very busy both on and off the
computers. Paul's cottage related projects are ongoing, though the
bugs and rain slow things down. When this occurs he's able to get a
little caught up in reading his Science Daily email newsletters and
even make some posts to sci.life-extension. I monitor OpEdNews.com and
got myself somewhat entangled there this past week which contributed
to a couple days of delay in getting this upload completed. Those
interested can see what I've been up to there via my author page -
http://www.opednews.com/author/author6434.html

In addition to our quarterly in-home measured health parameters, I've
added a few updated items to our supplement regimen pages and made the
corresponding changes to the regimen ingredients table. These changes
always take a fair amount of time (much more when LEF makes a change
to the LEF Mix), and it's not uncommon to find that an error of
omission or commission was present in an earlier edition of one or
both of the pages. The Change Notes this time include just such
corrections - nothing major, but just an example of my review each
time I go through this exercise, which corresponds with a supplement
order to LEF. And Paul spends a fair amount of time prior to that
order, reviewing new/changed LEF items to determine how that effects
us. He's frequently monitoring science news from numerous sources to
evaluate our continued usage/dosage of an item or the worth of adding
something new. This takes a fair amount of time which he is currently
working into days greatly filled with more cottage renovations, as
already mentioned.

Additionally some small changes have taken place on other Personal
Implementation pages - all those are noted from the Personal Health
Index page. For those who like photos, I managed to complete a "new"
photo page - the last one from 2007 at the cottage. I've got numerous
more uploaded from my camera taken over the months since then, but
creating pages takes a bit of time. However I've uploaded 6 here to
the Photo Section of Paul in the midst of some major change to the
lake-facing wall of the cottage and 1 of some relaxation. Considering
all the photos I have backlogged and the numerous other things we're
doing, it will be quite awhile before I get the formal MoreLife.org
photo pages to this point in time....

All items available starting at home page - http://morelife.org

As always, please let me know if you find something that appears to be
an error on any of the websites' pages - both MoreLife.org and
SelfSIP.org

Just to give you a bit of a preview, we are in the 6th day of a trial
run of increased intermittent fasting - consisting of consuming
approximately the same amount of calories but in 2 meals over 3 days
(72 hours). This means longer fasting periods and longer meal periods.
It's not been quite as difficult to go without eating for the extended
periods as we expected and we've found already that 6 hours is
definitely needed to eat all the quantity needed so as to not feel
like bursting. More later as we determine if this is really a viable
longterm arrangement for us. So far we feel just fine, even though
we're both a bit lower in weight than when we started and was reported
in the latest uploaded health statistics.

With this schedule, our supplements - except for our before sleep
items - are being taken at a 2/3 rate. Therefore if we decide to
continue permanently with this eating routine, there will be a lot of
changes to the website personal implementation section to reflect all
of this. (whoopie!...%~)

**Kitty

[Just so the meal time arrangement is a little more understandable, it
consists of the following three day schedule repeated endlessly:

Day 1: Eat from 3-4pm until 9-10pm
Day 2: do not eat at all
Day 3: Eat from 9-10am until 3-4pm

This means that our fasting time alternates between 36 hours (when the
whole fasting day occurs) and 24 hours (when we eat early one day and
late the next). This is the most uniform that we can make the two
fasting periods with this kind of schedule and still maintain the same
sleep times and lengths each night with the necessary few hours of
time not eating before we go to sleep.

BTW, when Kitty says "6 hours is needed to eat all the quantity needed
so as to not feel like bursting", this does not mean that we are
eating the whole time. We pause between courses to clean up, prepare
the next portion and even to do a little other work.

The most negative aspect of this schedule is that it is not
synchronized with the biological rhythm of our sleep and wake times,
However, that would also be true with any arrangement of fasting some
days and eating on others. If we ever try an eating every other day
arrangement (which in animal studies has been shown to be as good or
better than CR), then we will certainly need to lengthen the time
during which we eat on the eating day (again with other activities
occurring concurrently, of course. --Paul]

On 07/07/2008 06:22 PM, chipdouglas3 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently, I've been hearing again and again about Bill C-51 in Canada
> indirectly related to Codex Alimentarius I'm sure. Even in the U.S.
> the same threat (although not the same Bill as in Canada) is looming
> large. Someone on another board posted the below YouTube links. While
> these doesn't represent the last word in this discussion but probably
> just a point of view from someone directly affected by those impending
> stricter guidelines and regulations, I still find them to be
> interesting and forced me to ponder over this recurrent issue that's
> Codex Alimentarius. Reason why I'm posting this here is, many if not
> all members of this forum are on dietary supplements, and hope to be
> able to keep taking them in the future. What's more Paul and Kitty so
> far as I can see from my limited time to keep tabs on forum posting,
> are advocate of people's liberty to choose to use dietary supplements
> of their choice from their own research.

We certainly are advocates of such individual liberty, and, moreover,
the liberty to ingest, or by other means introduce, *anything* into
one's own body, without any restrictions whatsoever on that choice.
Note that this does not mean that we advocate all such ingestions or
introductions. Rather, we are very selective about which substances
that we would introduce to our bodies and also about which we suggest
to others that they too might benefit from such introduction.

> Basically, I wonder : are these scaremongers, or is this the bare
> truth ?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7awAo6CA5i4&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrF9KjlGsc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhApQ3QkG0Q
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvX5lmzfVVc&feature=related
>

Since we do not have any form of high-speed Internet at our current
location (in rural Ontaio until November), we cannot examine any of
these YouTube videos. Therefore, I will make only the general
comment that I do not think any concern about legislation related to
Codex Alimentarius should be classified as "scare mongering" since the
end result of fully adopting it and regulating accordingly would be so
very harmful to the health and life extension potential of everyone in
the country of adoption.

With respect to the chances of such legislation passing and becoming
fully effective, I can only express my opinion based on my knowledge
of Canadians and USers. In Canada, I think that it is likely that such
legislation will be passed and come into full effect. In the US, I
think that it might get passed but that there would be such an outrage
from so many people that it would either get rescinded or not ever be
fully implemented. OTOH, it might be implemented in stages over time
as the outrage subsides, just as have some highly negative and
restrictive FDA practices been implemented.

--Paul

[Although not directly related to Codex Alimentarius, there have been
actions by the US FTC (Federal Trade Commission) that are related to
the ability of individuals to obtain information and make purchases
of, in this most recent instance, herbal preparations. For those who
are not already aware of it, the recent article at mises.org,
"Consumer Protection or Legal Extortion?" is a good read.
http://mises.org/story/3035 **Kitty]

Paul's quote :

<<the end result of fully adopting it and regulating accordingly would
be so very harmful to the health and life extension potential of
everyone in the country of adoption.>>


**In the event that such regulations get adopted and regulated
accordingly in both Canada and in the U.S. what are you and Kitty and
all of us going to do for supplements ? I'm asking both of you,
because of all people I know who are on a supplement regimen, no one
takes as many as you do, which I reckon you'd wish to go on using.**

Marc Boucher
Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
Canada.

[Although this is an unlikely happening, IMO, and I do not usually
answer hypothetical questions, I will answer this one because it is
certainly possible and would be very important to address if it did
happen.

If it happened mainly in Canada, then I would continue doing as now -
bringing all my supplements into Canada from the US. If that became
impossible, then I would emigrate to the US.

If CODEX also became implemented in the US, my actions would depend on
just how strongly it was implemented and thus whether I could still
get what I needed, albeit with more difficulty, perhaps from some
other countries where it was not eliminated, just as now some
chemicals can be directly procured offshore. If I could not get what I
needed (and then many others also could not) by any legal and open
means, then I expect that large underground operations in supplements
production and distribution would be created, and I would buy from one
or more of them. Unfortunately any such operation would likely have
many of the negatives of the current black market supply of drugs and
the supply of alcohol in the US during the prohibition era. When
governments severely restrict things that people are determined to
have, the people will still get them, but at a far higher price and
with far less quality control. --Paul]

[When governments declare an item or service illegal, they are as much
putting out a big "Welcome" sign to those who are unscrupulous and
would not hesitate to use whatever harmful means exist to create and
maintain what they view as their part of "the market". This does not
mean that every person who has provided or does now provide
underground products or services uses violent measures to get or keep
customers - not at all! But the ones that do are the big players, get
lots of publicity as a result of the enormous amounts of taxpayer
money spent supposedly to eradicate them. This last is ludicrous since
the clear way to eliminate the violence associated with illegal items
and services is to remove the illegal label associated with them. But
I contend that it is a goal of government to expand itself and adding
more enforcers of even more laws is a perfect way to do it - all the
while crying that they are "protecting the public".

When interactions for trade of any good or services can take place
openly without interference from governments, there is no market for
the Mafia or any other group of thugs. As it is, I suspect that a fair
amount of money or other value is provided to certain politicians
and/or bureaucrats, from those who want to maintain their trade in
currently illegal items, to keep prohibition laws in effect. And
similarly, I suspect that there is a great deal of interest, by these
same violence using illegal traders, to promoting the prohibition of
even more items that people want. This would obviously increase their
business and the fact that they could also charge enormous fees
because of the reduced number of suppliers, would put even more money
in their pockets.

Government intervention in the trade between people will always
distort the market with respect to both prices and availability! And
it will also make inevitable a certain amount of violence, adding more
harm to the lives of people. **Kitty]

Note: I have been wanting to have a blog for some time so that I could
quickly write down and publicly post, the insightful thoughts that I
almost daily have (and practically always tell Kitty) coming from the
various things that I read in diverse subject areas. However, I have
not been able to find a blog site or inexpensive blow software that
will easily enable me to have the control over the blog and its
commentors that I desire. Therefore I decided to just do it on this
group at least for the time being. This is blog entry number one!


Inconsistencies in Dosage Testing

There is enormous inconsistency in the testing criteria applied to
various vitamins, minerals, nutrients and drugs with respect to
safety, toxicity, adequacy and effectiveness.

1) Vitamins and minerals that have been known to be essential for
decades, together with variants of these are mainly tested for the
minimum amount that is adequate to prevent detection of the signs of
the deficiency. Several problems arise here.

a) The originally isolated, tested and standardized vitamin or mineral
compound is not the dietarily most common variant nor even the variant
that is most beneficial for a person to ingest. In addition, the
original method of testing the potency of the first isolated variant
of a vitamin/mineral compound is often not related to the most severe
and important negative health effect caused by a deficiency of that
vitamin/mineral compound. More realistically, by chance alone, this is
*usually* the case. Alpha tocopherol and its vitamers, and pyridoxine
and its vitamers are clear examples of both of these situations.

b) There may well be acutely unnoticeable deficiency effects which
accumulate to cause clear long-term deficiency effects quite unrelated
to the acute signs of deficiency. The truth of this is borne out by
the multitude of studies that have shown both health and longevity
benefits from much larger doses of vitamins and minerals, particularly
certain variants, than what are rated as adequate dietary amounts.
Therefore as a general rule, it is highly likely that higher daily
amounts than those listed in the RDA tables of vitamins and minerals,
are required for maximum health and longevity benefits.

c) Little attention is paid to the interrelationships of any of these
essential vitamins/mineral compounds with each other. The reality of
the situation is that ingestion of other compounds may have either a
negative or positive effect on the adequacy, and certainly on the
long-term health/longevity effects of a given compound.

d) Because of the operation of the DSHEA and the FDA, there have not
been any newly discovered/isolated vitamins/mineral compounds
officially classified as essential for many decades now. This means
that all such newly discovered vitamins/mineral compounds are now
effectively treated as drugs and required to go through a totally
different form of testing, which leads me to the next completely
distinct category of testing criteria.

2. All newly discovered vitamins/mineral compounds and man-created
drugs are required to undergo toxicity testing. This also has several
problems in the way that it is done (certainly not all are covered
here).

a) Toxicity studies are relatively short-term and are done on mice or
rats, neither of which is a fully adequate model of human biology.
Moreover this inadequacy (due to different enzymes, reaction rates,
transcription levels and regulation process, among other factors) may
occur separately and even in different directions with respect to
acute metabolism and long term effects.

b) Since aging dysfunction and death is not a recognized "disease,
very few of these newly discovered vitamins/mineral compounds and
man-created drugs are given any kind of lifespan test in an animal
model, much less tested for benefits to a healthy human eating a
standard diet, and never tested on humans who are already eating super
diets and practicing several other pro-health and life extension
methods.

c) For these reasons, as opposed to vitamins, it is a good general
rule to assume that smaller dosages of drugs, than are recommended in
studies or by most purveyors, are best for those who do not have the
pathology for which the compound is being tested or has been approved,
who are very healthy and are already pursuing several pro-health and
life extension practices, and whose purpose in taking the compound is
maximal health and life extension.

--Paul

Note that I am responding to this message again partly because I got
mixed up and wrote a response before I realized that I had already
responded previously, partly because in the new response I expanded on
the previous response in one area (before I realized that I had
already responded to this message previously) with some personal
information that I think may be of interest to some readers, partly
because I want to add some information to Olafur's response to Jack's
(David Thomas Jackemeyer) original message which information I think
is important and, finally, partly because I wanted to communicate to
readers that I have changed my decision with respect to consuming
alcohol, at least for the time being, as a result of doing the
research for this message.

Is all that clear? There will be a quiz at the end of the message :-)

On 06/29/2008 01:57 PM, François ROSE wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
> <olafurpall@...>
> wrote:
>
>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "David Thomas Jackemeyer"
>> <Olehenry1@> wrote:
>>
>>> "David Thomas Jackemeyer" <Olehenry1@> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>  You mention intake of alcohol during fasting enhances the
>>>  potential negatives, above the impact sustained when drinking
>>>  with foods --  how much worse would you predict?
>>>
>> This is not a simple question to answer because it depends on
>> several factors including of course the dose of the alcohol. Also
>> the timing of the alcohol intake will effect its positive effects as
>> well as its
>> negative effects. With respect to the positive effects evidence
>> suggests that some of the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol
>> consumption are caused by a hormetic effect. This is among others
>> supported by the J shaped curve that relates alcohol intake to
>> mortality. To get the hormetic benefit the dose consumed must be
>> large enough to cause a stress response. But if the dose is too
>> large the harm will be more than the benefit from the stress
>> response. This is why alcohol is only beneficial in moderation.
>> Epidemiological studies suggest that somewhere around 10-40g of
>> alcohol a day is the optimal
>> dose for reduction in mortality (full text of PMID: 15006414). Note
>> that the stress on the body from drinking a dose of alcohol spread
>> over the day will be less than the stress of consuming it all in
>> one dose. Thus 10g of alcohol might be enough to cause a beneficial
>> hormetic response if drunken in a single dose while it may not be
>> enough to cause such a response if one were to consume it in
>> several small doses over the day, such as when spreading it over
>> three meals.
>> On the other hand 40g of alcohol is most likely enough to cause a
>> beneficial hormetic response even if spread over the day. But
>> taking 40g all at once would probably cause a stress response that
>> is considerably higher than that needed to cause the beneficial
>> hormetic response and might be high enough for the harmful effects
>> to outweigh
>> the beneficial ones. These numbers of course are just estimates and
>> will be very individual. But note that drinking alcohol with a meal
>> does spread the dose considerably compared to drinking it on a
>> fasting stomach since the meal will slow down its absorption.

[snip]

>> This subject wasn't exactly of much interest to me
>> since I myself do not drink alcoholic beverages, nor do I plan to
>> in part because I dislike their taste.

[snip]

> I used to dislike the taste of red wine until I was a teenager but my
> father has educated my taste and it came gradually. My wife also
> used to dislike the taste of red wine before she met me.
>

Yes, like many other tastes, enjoying the taste of wine is something
that is not generally immediate and is only acquired through usage. Many
foods are similar in this manner. Particularly ones that a person did
not have in hir childhood where, even if one disliked a certain food,
the example of parents and siblings enjoying it was generally enough to
make one try it until one liked it. Interestingly enough, I was quite
different in this way from an early age. There were several foods that
my parents ate regularly but that I rebelled at (much to their annoyance
and constant efforts to get me to eat them). One of these that I have
strong memories about from an early age was green peas. I particularly
remember my maternal grandmother hiding the peas in mashed potatoes, but
I would always find them and put them aside, even though I loved the
mashed potatoes. Another interesting aspect of my childhood food
dislikes (one of which, dill pickles, I never learned to like until I
tried kosher style pickles at a restaurant in my mid 20s) is that I now
like them all very much. Fortunately for me, although both of my parents
smoked and my older brother began early (he thought he was such a
mature person for doing so), I did not like it even though I was often
offered puffs by my father and did try them once or twice at the start,
and I never did smoke. In addition, even though both parents drank
liquor of all kinds (but little dry red wine) and even enjoyed the
feeling of being quite affected by ethanol (but they were never
alcoholics, by any means), I have never liked the effects of ethanol on
my brain (mainly disliking the lack of control feeling), which is why I
have never drunk anything but wine and beer and only with meals. I used
to occasionally drink some European style beer (which has more hops
flavor than most US and Canadian beers) but have not had any ethanol for
many years now since I first decided that ethanol ingestion was not
conducive to my health and longevity. As anyone can read in the personal
health section of MoreLife.org, it is only quite recently that I and
Kitty began to drink about 4 oz of wine each with our one daily meal and
about 5 oz now that we only eat 2 meals over 3 days according to the
schedule that I posted in
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1818

Here is some information related to the metabollization of ethanol
which I think is important.

The USDA tables state that a no-name red table wine has the following
relevant contents per 100 grams (about 102.6 ml for your 12% alcohol
by volume wine)):

Calories - 85
Alcohol - 10.6
Carbs - 2.5
Sugar - 0.6

It is also interesting that 100 grams of this wine also contains 127 mg
of potassium, 105 mcg of fluoride and 5.7 mg of choline.
I checked Merlot, Cabernet Suavignon and Pinot Noir and they are little
different than this. OTOH, these USDA figures are likely for US wines,
and French or other imported wines may be a little different.

Thus your intake of 200 ml of wine adds considerable extra calories to
your meal.

Note: several days elapsed here (and the heading paragraph was
rewritten as a result of the text below.


After spending some time researching the effects of alcohol, I find so
very many serious negatives in its metabolism, that, just as I used to
think, it is very hard to justify a healthy and well nutritioned
person taking it at all. Along with an enormous number of clearly
negative effects, the only positive ones that I can find are those
relating to epidemiological studies that a little is beneficial for
people on standard diets, perhaps because of positive effects on
cholesterol (but I don't need that since I use other proven and
effective methods on my cholesterol), and that a little alcohol may
have a hormetic effect (caused by its toxic metabolic products). This
last, and a possibility of its positive effect on testosterone
production and rheumatoid arthritis - http://pmid.us17185416, is the
reason why I finally decided to drink wine at the end of 2006 (see:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.baldspot/browse_frm/thread/76acc3c730b78034

However, with respect to the potential hormetic response, I am already
getting hormetic responses from many different modalities and since
the epidemiology relates to people on more standard regimens, the
hormetic response from alcohol may for me and Kitty not be as
valuable, as effective or perhaps even positively effective at all. In
addition, my inflammatory situation is very low and I am highly
unlikely to get rheumatoid arthritis. Finally, my low testosterone
(because of missing one testicle lost by torsion at age 31) is having
no negatives effects except for a somewhat lowering of libido and if I
need more testosterone there are better ways to get it.

As a result of the research/reconsiderations and as a trial to see if
it is the alcohol that is causing our blood glucose to remain so
elevated even during our long fasting periods (some of the research
showed that alcohol may disrupt insulin production and promote insulin
resistance ), I and Kitty are suspending our use of alcohol for at
least a while in order to see if it is causing this effect. Even if
not, we will likely suspend its use until we can get blood tests and
then attempt to use blood test results to see just what effect the
change of alcohol only is having on us.

--Paul

The uploads today were primarily for the purpose of a new article in
the Focus section at Self-Sip.org. This one had recently been posted
first at OpEdNews.com and also at ThisIsBy.us.

"Note Who is Really Paying the Bills" starts off:
"Every day whether on the Internet or radio (we don't watch TV) I and
husband Paul read and hear statements of "The government should pay for
"it/that". And then there are the almost daily announcements by some
government entity that some service has "been paid for by the
government of" whatever jurisdiction is taking credit for that
supposed fact."....
You can read the rest and check out the other articles in this section
of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project via the Focus on Freedom
section index page - http://selfsip.org/focus/

After the last upload to MoreLife.org earlier this month, I realized
that I had missed 6 photos on the most recent photo page. So that one
has been updated to include these. All photo pages can be reached via
the photo index page that has a link on our Personal Index page -
http://morelife.org/personal/

Updates have taken place to the Supporting page and the link Comments
paged linked from it - http://morelife.org/supporting.html

As always, please let me know if you come across what you think is an
error or bad link.

**Kitty

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

[big snip by moderator]

> It is unlikely that an aspirin of only 81 mg (1/4 of one adult-size
> aspirin tablet) will have any negative effects on the digestive
> system. This is even less likely if the aspirin is entericly coated
> (so that it will bypass the stomach still intact), which ours are. We
> also take many other pills and some powders with our 81 mg aspirin in
> the morning, so its concentration is diluted by other things. If taken
> in this manner or with food, I see no reason why anyone over 30 should
> not take two 81 mg aspirins daily as we do. Do not forget that while
> it is true that glucose (and glycation pressure) will be highest right
> after a meal, the blood always contains a large amount of glucose and
> in addition many other glycative chemicals are delayed metabolic
> products. Therefore, glycation is something that is constantly taking
> place in the body. This is true also for the other negative effects
> which aspirin helps to prevent or inhibit. Therefore, I think that it
> is best to have aspirin distributed and a total of 162 mg daily should
> have no negative effects at all, IMO.
>
> --Paul


Hi Paul,

Though, unfortunately in some regards, I became allergic to aspirin
about 20 years ago. From time to time people ask me for health
related advice.  I have had some reservations about recommending
regular low dose aspirin due to my past recollection(s) from the
literature that NSAIDs inhibited bone formation.  As you point out
most eloquently on many occassions, there are pro and con arguments
about most things.  Here is a PUBMED abstract that shows an example
of this contrast.

[I have inserted the journal, title, author and facility information for the
abstract. Please do not omit it from abstracts in future. Doing so removes
important information about the abstract, and prevents those who created the
abstract and article/study from getting credit for their product. --Paul]

J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004 May-Jun;12(3):139-43.
Effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on bone formation and
soft-tissue healing.
Dahners LE, Mullis BH.
Department of Orthopaedics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine,
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7055, USA.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs continue to be prescribed as
analgesics for patients with healing fractures even though these
drugs diminish bone formation, healing, and remodeling. Inhibition
of bone formation can be clinically useful in preventing heterotopic
ossification in selected clinical situations. In this regard,
naproxen may be more efficacious than the traditional indomethacin,
and short-term administration is as effective as long-term. When
fracture healing or spine fusion is desired, nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs should be avoided. Some nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs have a positive effect on soft-tissue healing;
they stimulate collagen synthesis and can increase strength in the
early phases of repair during skin and ligament healing.
Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have an adverse effect on bone healing
and may have an adverse effect on ligament healing. Therefore,
further investigation is necessary to confirm that traditional
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be preferable for the
healing of collagenous tissues.

PMID: 15161166

Maybe you have a more quantitative Pro/Con take on the subject with
respect to bone formation/preservation.

Thanks,

Terry

Hello group,

I have recently begun to experiment with an intermittent fasting
regimen, also called alternate day fasting.  I recorded my thoughts
and experiences on the first day fasting on this regimen (began last
week) and thought it would be of interest to those in the group.  My
experience might be of particular interest to those considering such
a dietary regimen.  I have pasted my record (in the form of a journal
entry) below.

***

07.14.08

I just began the practice of intermittent fasting (IF) starting
yesterday at noon.  My regimen is as follows:

•Ad-libitum feeding for 24 hour period
•Fasted, (non-caloric) for 24 hour period

I am currently 12hrs, 15 minutes into the first fasting day and I
wanted to document my subjective experiences.

I finished eating today at 11:55am and had a large breakfast
consisting of:

•3 poached eggs (210 kcal)
•Yogurt breakfast (20g whey protein, 150g yogurt, 30g cocoa
  nibs, 10g raw peanuts, 75g crushed pineapple, ½ tsp cinnamon; ~500
  kcal)
•3 pieces of bread (100 kcal, 6g fiber, 4g protein ea.) w/
  sugar-free blackberry preserves (~350 kcal total)
•6 pieces of 85% cocoa dark chocolate (5g ea., 30g total; ~200
  kcal)
•coffee (o kcal)
•Total kcal:  ~1250

I worked on the garage roof today from 3pm to 5:45pm and noted very
little hunger.  I drank approximately 2 quarts of sugar-free Kool-
Aid, both because of being in the sun and being thirsty and because
it helped assuage the hunger.  I noted that during the time period I
worked on the garage my energy level was high and remained so.  The
work seemed effortless (light lifting, standing on an incline for a
few hours).

At approx. 7pm I began to feel hunger to the point of nausea.  I
promptly drank 2 glasses of the Kool-Aid (non-caloric, sweetened with
Stevia) and a mug of green tea, which assuaged the hunger.  I noted
that it was interesting that even though I ate an enormous amount of
calories for breakfast, I experienced hunger to the point of nausea
only 7 hours after the meal.  This is evidence that the human body
has poor long-term hunger management capability.  Or perhaps it is
that humans evolved best when frequently motivated to seek food (via
hunger).  That is, "I better get hunting now, because it might be
hours or days before I find food".

The hunger continued approx. 45 minutes when I drank another glass of
Kool-Aid and another mug of green tea.  At approximately 8:30pm I
noticed what I thought to be the action of stress hormones, as my
alertness increased and I felt a bit jittery-edgy – somewhat similar
to coffee consumption.  It is now 12:30am and I still feel this
mental alertness as I type.  I do not feel much hunger, although my
stomach is noticeably empty.

***

After having been on this regimen for the last week (and continuing)
I have noticed that, after the first 24 hour period of fasting I no
longer experienced the intense hunger I did on the first day.  On the
second day of fasting I expected to be very hungry around 7-8pm and
it never occured.  I also expected to be quite hungry between 9am and
noon the next day, and I noticed this was also absent.

In summary, so far I have found that I like this dietary regimen.  I
found that while trying to practice moderate (20%) calorie
restriction in the past I was constantly denying myself large
portions of food, which may have caused me some irritation, rarely
allowing myself to eat and feel fullness.  I still continue to eat
what I understand to be healthy foods (whole grains, vegetables,
fruits, frozen and canned salmon, beans, cocoa, tea, yogurt, eggs,
and a focus on controlling spikes in blood sugar.)  This diet has
allowed me the freedom to not track calories on the days I eat ad-
libitum.  In tracking my food intake but not attempting to control
it, I have noticed that I still maintain a caloric deficit (I consume
between 3200-4200 calories in a 24 hour period, which has been in a
downward trend over the past week).  But, I find the period during
which I eat much more contenting than constantly attempting to
restrict calories to the same level, and I find the fasting period
quite easy to endure, and it is often surprisingly energizing (as
described in my entry above).  I also understand there to be positive
health effects associated with periods of fasting, which helps me to
rationalize and endure the 24 hour period of fasting.

I have also found the 24 hour intermittent fasting regimen to have a
positive effect on my thoughts about food.  I find that during the
fasting period I can resolve to think about food very little, if at
all.  No meal planning, no returning home for food, no cooking, and
no washing dishes.  I can simply go about the rest of my day and the
early morning of the next day not paying attention to food.  This is
a welcome change compared to my previous 4-5 small meal per day
regimen, which was laborious to plan and execute.  Additionally, the
hunger and modest lack of energy that comes in the end of my fasting
period makes me look forward to food and gives me the opportunity to
enjoy it fully, allowing me to eat a variety of foods to satiation
and not feel guilty or displeased with myself.

I would be interested in hearing others' comments about my posting
above, and am willing to answer questions about it.

---
Steve

Hi Paul,

In the August 2, 2008 issue of Science News, as referenced on their
website at

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33832/title/Fountain_of_Yo
uth%2C_with_caveats

they refer to the research below (PUBMED abstract) as indicating
that resveratrol may have a downside affect on the brain in terms of
increasing oxidative sensitivity.  Since I don't have access to the
full article, I can't tell if there are any deficiencies in the
experiment or its interpretation.  However, I could say that for
those of us who are life extension oriented, we are probably taking
enough neurological antioxidants to compensate.

Cell Metab. 2008 Jul;8(1):38-48.
SirT1 inhibition reduces IGF-I/IRS-2/Ras/ERK1/2 signaling and protects
neurons.
Li Y, Xu W, McBurney MW, Longo VD.
Neuroscience Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-2520, USA.

Sirtuins are known to protect cells and extend life span, but our
previous studies indicated that S. cerevisiae Sir2 can also increase
stress sensitivity and limit life-span extension. Here we provide
evidence for a role of the mammalian Sir2 ortholog SirT1 in the
sensitization of neurons to oxidative damage. SirT1 inhibition
increased acetylation and decreased phosphorylation of IRS-2; it
also reduced activation of the Ras/ERK1/2 pathway, suggesting that
SirT1 may enhance IGF-I signaling in part by deacetylating IRS-2.
Either the inhibition of SirT1 or of Ras/ERK1/2 was associated with
resistance to oxidative damage. Markers of oxidized proteins and
lipids were reduced in the brain of old SirT1-deficient mice, but
the life span of the homozygote knockout mice was reduced under both
normal and calorie-restricted conditions. These results are
consistent with findings in S. cerevisiae and other model systems,
suggesting that mammalian sirtuins can play both protective and
proaging roles.

PMID: 18590691


Terry

The following abstract seems to address, to some degree, the
question about Sinclair not having done the experimental combination
of mice being fed a standard diet plus resveratrol.

[The question referred to above is within the message at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1267 --Paul]

Cell Metab. 2008 Jul 2. [Epub ahead of print]
Resveratrol Delays Age-Related Deterioration and Mimics
Transcriptional Aspects of Dietary Restriction without Extending Life
Span.
Pearson KJ, Baur JA, Lewis KN, Peshkin L, Price NL, Labinskyy N,
Swindell WR, Kamara D, Minor RK, Perez E, Jamieson HA, Zhang Y,
Dunn SR, Sharma K, Pleshko N, Woollett LA, Csiszar A, Ikeno Y,
Le Couteur D, Elliott PJ, Becker KG, Navas P, Ingram DK, Wolf NS,
Ungvari Z, Sinclair DA, de Cabo R.
Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology, National Institute on Aging, National
Institutes of Health, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD
21224, USA.

A small molecule that safely mimics the ability of dietary
restriction (DR) to delay age-related diseases in laboratory animals
is greatly sought after. We and others have shown that resveratrol
mimics effects of DR in lower organisms. In mice, we find that
resveratrol induces gene expression patterns in multiple tissues
that parallel those induced by DR and every-other-day feeding.
Moreover, resveratrol-fed elderly mice show a marked reduction in
signs of aging, including reduced albuminuria, decreased
inflammation, and apoptosis in the vascular endothelium, increased
aortic elasticity, greater motor coordination, reduced cataract
formation, and preserved bone mineral density. However, mice fed a
standard diet did not live longer when treated with resveratrol
beginning at 12 months of age. Our findings indicate that
resveratrol treatment has a range of beneficial effects in mice but
does not increase the longevity of ad libitum-fed animals when
started midlife.

PMID: 18599363

Terry

This note is to make group members aware that the messages posted on
this group will henceforth be treated as follows:

1) If the message is clearly about something only within the purview
of the moderators, then one or both of them will respond with text
within the message before posting it. Others may then respond also.

2) For any other kind of post, the moderators will not respond for at
least a week in order to promote and encourage some response from
members of the group.

I and Kitty have decided on this new approach for several reasons. The
best way to learn something is to actually do it rather than just to
read. It has always been our hope that the group will become a seminar
where not only do others often do the necessary research to both bring
forth new ideas (which a few members definitely do), but also where
others respond to general questions or contribute well stated and
researched comments, new viewpoints or simply additional information.

--Paul
**Kitty

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> This note is to make group members aware that the messages posted on
> this group will henceforth be treated as follows:
>
> 1) If the message is clearly about something only within the purview
> of the moderators, then one or both of them will respond with text
> within the message before posting it. Others may then respond also.
>
> 2) For any other kind of post, the moderators will not respond for at
> least a week in order to promote and encourage some response from
> members of the group.
>
> I and Kitty have decided on this new approach for several reasons. The
> best way to learn something is to actually do it rather than just to
> read. It has always been our hope that the group will become a seminar
> where not only do others often do the necessary research to both bring
> forth new ideas (which a few members definitely do), but also where
> others respond to general questions or contribute well stated and
> researched comments, new viewpoints or simply additional information.
>
> --Paul
> **Kitty
>

Thank you both. I think this is an excellent development.

Erich

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> This note is to make group members aware that the messages posted on
> this group will henceforth be treated as follows:
>
> 1) If the message is clearly about something only within the purview
> of the moderators, then one or both of them will respond with text
> within the message before posting it. Others may then respond also.
>
> 2) For any other kind of post, the moderators will not respond for at
> least a week in order to promote and encourage some response from
> members of the group.

For those who are new to the group since February 2007 and older
members who may have forgotten, the above is a modification of the
Group Moderation Policy that was announced on January 26 2007 -
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1406

The change was to item 2) of message 1406 that read:
"2) As long as we are satisfied that no immediate harm will be
forthcoming from the contents of a message, then we will leave it
intact (except for formatting, retitling and cleaning of extraneous
unsnipped old text, if necessary), and reply in a following message if
we wish to. Since all messages are moderated, we can still ensure that
our reply is next in line after the posted message, by simply holding
the others in the queue until own reply has been released and appeared
next in the archive. Although this still gives moderators an
"advantage" I do not see it as significant."

> I and Kitty have decided on this new approach for several reasons. The
> best way to learn something is to actually do it rather than just to
> read. It has always been our hope that the group will become a seminar
> where not only do others often do the necessary research to both bring
> forth new ideas (which a few members definitely do), but also where
> others respond to general questions or contribute well stated and
> researched comments, new viewpoints or simply additional information.
>
> --Paul
> **Kitty


So to state once again, our replies - if we think one is warranted, to
the messages of others that are not clearly directed to us personally,
will be held at least a week. While I can't remember the last time we
held anyone's response in the queue so that we could get our own reply
in first (the above quote should have read "could" rather than "can"),
we have now decided to purposely not make replies for an extended
time. During that time we hope that qualified posting members will
contribute as Paul stated in the Special Notice message.

**Kitty

A ScienceDaily article at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327172129.htm reports
that a recent study found that "discrimination against overweight
people--particularly women--is as common as racial discrimination".
From this study the authors concluded: "These results show the need
to treat weight discrimination as a legitimate form of prejudice,
comparable to other characteristics like race or gender that already
receive legal protection" and "weight discrimination is more prevalent
than discrimination based on sexual orientation, nationality/ethnicity,
physical disability, and religious beliefs. However, despite its high
prevalence, it continues to remain socially acceptable".

Well why not! As opposed to the other listed biases, none of which
have any evidence of causally-linked personality characteristics that
might negatively impact extended work or social associations, obesity
most certainly does. Since there is very strong evidence that, in
order to keep fit and healthier, all one needs to do is to reduce
one's caloric intake and exercise, it is totally reasonable for anyone
to assume that someone who is greatly overweight is likely to be
deficient in personal characteristics relating to care, knowledge,
responsibility, will-power and most likely self-esteem. Therefore,
discrimination against those who are overweight, a totally correctable
unhealthiness state, is a totally reasonable action, which should
remain socially acceptable (just as would discrimination against
someone who throws garbage onto the streets) and most certainly should
not be regulated in any manner.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...>
wrote:
>
> A ScienceDaily article at:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327172129.htm reports
> that a recent study found that "discrimination against overweight
> people--particularly women--is as common as racial discrimination".
> From this study the authors concluded: "These results show the need
> to treat weight discrimination as a legitimate form of prejudice,
> comparable to other characteristics like race or gender that already
> receive legal protection" and "weight discrimination is more prevalent
> than discrimination based on sexual orientation, nationality/ethnicity,
> physical disability, and religious beliefs. However, despite its high
> prevalence, it continues to remain socially acceptable".
>
> Well why not!

Certainly, I stongly agree with Paul:  "Why not?!"  I read this post
and chatted with one friend about how it would be absurd to make it
essentially *illegal* to rationally preference against a group of
people who are known to have a tendency to share certain negative
personality traits (as Paul mentioned in his post).

I was a bit infuriated at the possibility that such legislation would
even be considered.  What rationally follows is the legal protection
of all sorts of undesireable behavior.  This "legal protection*, if
enacted, could severly limit the number of criteria upon which an
employer could base a rational hiring decision.  I don't want *my*
decision criteria limited by any laws.  I would guess that many
others might feel the same.

It is highly disturbing that the lead author states:

"'These results show the need to treat weight discrimination as a
legitimate form of prejudice', said Rebecca Puhl, research scientist
and lead author."

Miss Rebecca Puhl, I see no "need" to treat weight discrimination as
a legitimate form of prejudice, at least in regards to establishing
"legal protection" for people with weight problems.  I wonder how I
could contact the authors or ScienceDaily to comment. Anyone know?

Great post Paul.

---
Steve Floyd

[Unfortunately, ScienceDaily provides no commenting method. Comments
that I sent to the editors were never acknowledged. Rebacca Puhl (as
"Puhl RM" can be found on PubMed and her email address is listed on
those papers of which she is first author. The study mentioned in this
ScienceDaily article is http://pmid.us/18356847 --Paul]

> As opposed to the other listed biases, none of which
> have any evidence of causally-linked personality characteristics that
> might negatively impact extended work or social associations, obesity
> most certainly does. Since there is very strong evidence that, in
> order to keep fit and healthier, all one needs to do is to reduce
> one's caloric intake and exercise, it is totally reasonable for anyone
> to assume that someone who is greatly overweight is likely to be
> deficient in personal characteristics relating to care, knowledge,
> responsibility, will-power and most likely self-esteem. Therefore,
> discrimination against those who are overweight, a totally correctable
> unhealthiness state, is a totally reasonable action, which should
> remain socially acceptable (just as would discrimination against
> someone who throws garbage onto the streets) and most certainly should
> not be regulated in any manner.
>
> --Paul

On 07/21/2008 09:14 PM, tlbrabham wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> [big snip by moderator]
>
>
>> It is unlikely that an aspirin of only 81 mg (1/4 of one adult-size
>> aspirin tablet) will have any negative effects on the digestive
>> system. This is even less likely if the aspirin is entericly coated
>> (so that it will bypass the stomach still intact), which ours are. We
>> also take many other pills and some powders with our 81 mg aspirin in
>> the morning, so its concentration is diluted by other things. If taken
>> in this manner or with food, I see no reason why anyone over 30 should
>> not take two 81 mg aspirins daily as we do. Do not forget that while
>> it is true that glucose (and glycation pressure) will be highest right
>> after a meal, the blood always contains a large amount of glucose and
>> in addition many other glycative chemicals are delayed metabolic
>> products. Therefore, glycation is something that is constantly taking
>> place in the body. This is true also for the other negative effects
>> which aspirin helps to prevent or inhibit. Therefore, I think that it
>> is best to have aspirin distributed and a total of 162 mg daily should
>> have no negative effects at all, IMO.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Though, unfortunately in some regards, I became allergic to aspirin
> about 20 years ago.

This is surprising since I thought that all allergies were related to
proteins or complex mixtures containing them. However never having had
allergies of any kind, this subject is not one about which I am very
knowledgeable.

[To make sure we understand correctly, Terry, what symptoms have you experienced
when you have taken aspirin and what signs were observed by yourself and others?
I ask this because many people use the words "allergy" and "allergic" when they
are referring to gastric sensitivity. **Kitty]


> From time to time people ask me for health
> related advice.  I have had some reservations about recommending
> regular low dose aspirin due to my past recollection(s) from the
> literature that NSAIDs inhibited bone formation.  As you point out
> most eloquently on many occassions, there are pro and con arguments
> about most things.

Absolutely, not just arguments but convincing evidence, and not merely
some things but all things.


> Here is a PUBMED abstract that shows an example of this contrast.
>
> J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004 May-Jun;12(3):139-43.
> Effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on bone formation and
> soft-tissue healing.
> Dahners LE, Mullis BH.
> Department of Orthopaedics, University of North Carolina School of
> Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7055, USA.
>
> Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs continue to be prescribed as
> analgesics for patients with healing fractures even though these
> drugs diminish bone formation, healing, and remodeling. Inhibition
> of bone formation can be clinically useful in preventing heterotopic
> ossification in selected clinical situations. In this regard,
> naproxen may be more efficacious than the traditional indomethacin,
> and short-term administration is as effective as long-term. When
> fracture healing or spine fusion is desired, nonsteroidal anti-
> inflammatory drugs should be avoided. Some nonsteroidal anti-
> inflammatory drugs have a positive effect on soft-tissue healing;
> they stimulate collagen synthesis and can increase strength in the
> early phases of repair during skin and ligament healing.
> Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have an adverse effect on bone healing
> and may have an adverse effect on ligament healing. Therefore,
> further investigation is necessary to confirm that traditional
> nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be preferable for the
> healing of collagenous tissues.
>
> PMID: 15161166
>
> Maybe you have a more quantitative Pro/Con take on the subject with
> respect to bone formation/preservation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry
>

Your use of the word "quantitative" suggests that you have already
sensed the correct approach to take in analyzing this study.
Unfortunately, I cannot access the full paper of this study without
paying $20 to purchase it, so I cannot tell whether or not they are
including aspirin, in particular, or what sorts of dosages they are
concerned about. However, I did find the following study which is
particular to aspirin and clearly shows that usage of normal dosages
is actually positive for bone density.

J Bone Miner Res. 2003 Oct;18(10):1795-802.
Association between bone mineral density and the use of nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin: impact of cyclooxygenase selectivity.
Carbone LD, Tylavsky FA, Cauley JA, Harris TB, Lang TF, Bauer DC,
Barrow KD, Kritchevsky SB.
Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center,
Memphis, Tennessee 38163, USA. lcarbone@...

BMD was examined in users of NSAIDs (by COX selectivity) and aspirin in
the Health ABC cohort (n = 2853). Significantly higher BMD was found in
users of relative COX-2 selective NSAIDs with aspirin (COX-2/ASA)
compared with nonusers. This suggests a role for COX-2/ASA in
osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of  this study was to determine
the relationship of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, by
cyclo-oxygenase selectivity (COX), and aspirin use on bone mineral
density (BMD) in participants from the Health, Aging, and Body
Composition (Health ABC) population-based cohort. It is known that
NSAIDs inhibit the COX enzyme and decrease production of prostaglandins,
which are involved in regulation of bone turnover. COX has two isoforms,
COX-1 and COX-2. Production of prostaglandins associated with bone loss
is primarily mediated through the COX-2 pathway. In addition, aspirin
may have effects on bone independent of the prostaglandin pathway.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: NSAID (by COX selectivity) and aspirin use and
BMD were assessed in 2853 adults (49.5% women, 50.5% men: 43.1% black,
56.9% white; mean age: 73.6 years) from the Health ABC cohort. For the
purposes of this analysis, relative COX-1 selective NSAIDs were defined
as having a ratio of COX-1 IC50 to COX-2 IC50 of > 1 in whole blood, and
relative COX-2 selective NSAIDs were defined as having a ratio of COX-1
IC50 to COX-2 IC50 of < 1 in whole blood. Analysis of covariance was
used to compare BMD across each NSAID use and aspirin use category
adjusting for age, race, gender, weight, height, study site, calcium and
vitamin D supplementation, Womac score, history of rheumatoid arthritis,
history of arthritis other than rheumatoid, and smoking status. RESULTS:
After adjustment for possible confounders, current use of relative COX-2
selective NSAIDs with aspirin was associated with higher BMD at the
whole body (4.2%, 1.2-7.3 CI) and total hip (4.6%, 0.5-8.8 CI) by DXA
and at both trabecular (34.1%, 15.4-52.7 CI) and cortical spine (12.8%,
2.3-23.3 CI) by quantitative computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS: Our data
suggest that the combination of relative COX-2 selective NSAIDs and
aspirin is associated with higher BMD at multiple skeletal sites in men
and women.

PMID: 14584890

Free full text available at:
http://www.jbmronline.org/doi/full/10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.10.1795

Since the 1/2 (162.5 mg) aspirin per day dosage distributed with meals
that I suggest is less than the average dosage of the study
participants, I stand by my recommendation for healthy life extenders,
particularly since most such people are taking many other supplements
that promote bone formation.

***
In this respect every reader should note that my suggestions and
advice, both on my website and on this group, are not meant for the
overweight, inactive, SAD eating general public, but instead for those
who are attempting to rationally optimize the quality and quantity of
their lives. I always assume that anyone who is reading my words has
already abandoned such anti-life ways of behaving, or at least soon will.
***

Nevertheless, if a fully healthy person should incur some kind of
accidental fracture, then it just might be useful to refrain from use
of aspirin until it was fully healed and instead to use one of the
"relative COX-1 selective NSAIDs (indomethacin, ibuprofen, naproxen
flurbiprofen, ketoprofen, fenoprofen, tolmetin, oxaprozin)".

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 07/21/2008 09:14 PM, tlbrabham wrote:
>
> > Though, unfortunately in some regards, I became allergic to
> > aspirin about 20 years ago.
>
> This is surprising since I thought that all allergies were related
> to proteins or complex mixtures containing them. However never
> having had allergies of any kind, this subject is not one about
> which I am very knowledgeable.
>
> [To make sure we understand correctly, Terry, what symptoms have
> you experienced when you have taken aspirin and what signs were
> observed by yourself and others? I ask this because many people use
> the words "allergy" and "allergic" when they are referring to
> gastric sensitivity. **Kitty]


I believe you are correct that, in terms of the standard technical
definition, an allergy is a reaction to a protein/peptide compound
(versus a chemical hypersensitivity).  However, more than one doctor
didn't seem inclined to correct me when I explained that the ensuing
symptoms consisted of my whole body being coverd with hives that
lasted for three days.

Terry

Hi Kitty and Paul

I hope you are both well

This is the second time I'm trying to post this; the first trial was
returned to my email box four days after I sent it because of
unsuccess (sic); I hope it will be ok this time

[Note to all posters: Recently Yahoo has been erroneously returning messages as
undeliverable, even when the group address is perfectly valid. This happens even
for message submitted from the group website post function - apparently these
are turned into email submissions similar to any others sent to the group submit
message email address. The first two times that I attempted to post blog entry
number 2, the message did not appear in the queue after several hours and a
third attempt was necessary before it appeared. Then after 4 days I got the
first two returned to me just as Francois now reports happened to him. We have
received nothing from Yahoo about any such problem so it may well happen again.

We normally always post a submitted message, or query the submitter about it,
within 24 hours after it is sent to the group. Therefore, if you have no
indication of the receipt of your submission within 24 hours after submitting,
just submit it again, since if we get two (or even more) of the same message, it
is very easy to delete the extra copies. --Paul]


I took this chance of a little free time in order to write and post
an earlier draft I made about CR

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Fran=E7ois ROSE <fr.rose@...> wrote:
<snip unrelated>
> Masoro: Retardation of aging processes by food restriction:
> an experimental tool http://pmid.us/1590266
> full text for free here: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/55/6/1250S
>
> It is also proved that the body is not working at a slower
metabolic
> rate per unit of body mass, contrary to what was usually thought.
>
> [Which fact invalidates another theory of aging, namely, the rate
of living theory. --Paul]
>

http://pmid.us/16595757 by Heilbronn LK in 2006 with free full text:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/13/1539
Effect of 6-month calorie restriction on biomarkers of longevity,
metabolic adaptation, and oxidative stress in overweight
individuals: a randomized controlled trial.

"Randomized controlled trial of healthy, sedentary men and women (N =
48)""Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months:
control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie
restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction
with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in
energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet
(890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight
maintenance diet)."

Figure 3 says that after 6 months, the three intervention groups
have a significantly lower T3 and fasting insulin levels whereas
DHEA and glucose do not differ significantly.

ABOUT METABOLIC RATE:
In this study, it appears that there might be a decrease in the
metabolic rate (per free fat mass); this could lead to a less
oxydative stress. This fact contradicts Masoro's paper
http://pmid.us/1590266
full text for free here: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/55/6/1250S
(paper that I've reported at this group here
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1807  ). This
latter paper by Masoro quotes an earlier paper (also from
Masoro):http://pmid.us/3157325  ("Does Food Restriction Retard Aging
by Reducing Metabolic Rate?")
By the way, Lynn and wallwork in http://pmid.us/1512643 (with free
full text) have used the same title paper ("Does Food Restriction
Retard Aging by Reducing Metabolic Rate?") as Masoro and give a
different answer. AFAIK, Lynn and Wallwork have only written one
paper about caloric restriction (which doesn't take off value to
their paper anyway)
So the rate of living theory is possibly valid.

ABOUT CORE BODY TEMPERATURE
Figure 4 says that Core Body Temperature after 6 month is
significantly lowar in the calorie restriction group and in the
calorie restriction with exercise group but NOT in the very low-
calorie diet group
I try to understand this:
When you look at the weight trend: http://tinyurl.com/5qycrb
one can see that the weight of the so-called "very low calorie diet"
decreases strongly for 10 weeks and then is stabilised (as 15% weight
reduction as desired by the authors).
The weight of the calorie restriction group  and of the calorie
restriction group with exercise decreases by  about 10% and it seems
to keep decreasing; In fact, I don't know (from the full text) what
is the daily calorie intake of the so-called "very-low" calorie
diet. It is possible that it is very close to the low calorie diet
after the stabilisation at 15% weight reduction.
Moreover at the beginning of the study: weight mean = 82 kg (+/- 10)
BMI mean = 27.5 (+/-1.5) so since they've lost 15% weight, their BMI
has also decreased of 15% so they reach a BMI mean of 23,4 which is
within the range.
So the lower core body temperature seen in CR group and CR + exercise
group and not seen in the so called very low CR group is probably
due to the adaptation of the body to the decrease of caloric intake;
but since it is not seen in the so called very low CR group, it is
probably because this group has stabilized for 3 months at the same
weight and daily caloric intake at a quite normal BMI (23.4). So the
fact that CR lowers core body temperature in long term is not proved
here. Core body temperature decreases when the body weight decreases
but in long term, it is at least necessary to stabilize at a lower
BMI (than 23,4) to achieve that lower core body temperature.

ABOUT BIOMARKERS OF CR being possible biomarkers of longevity
16595757 by Heilbronn quotes this paper http://tinyurl.com/63y26x by
George S. Roth, Donald K. Ingram and al published in 2002
"Figure 1, A to C, shows the effects of CR on body temperature,
insulin, and DHEAS in male rhesus monkeys, and Fig. 1, D to F,
compares survival of healthy men in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study
of Aging (BLSA) (7)who are in the upper and lower halves of the
distributions for the corresponding markers. Consistent with the
beneficial effects of CR on aging and life-span in other animals,
men with lower temperature and insulin and those maintaining higher
DHEAS levels have greater survival than respective counterparts."
Figure 1 is here   http://tinyurl.com/6cwaj3

François Rose

On 07/22/2008 12:37 AM, tlbrabham wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> In the August 2, 2008 issue of Science News,

I subscribe to Science News and avidly read it. However, when I am in
Canada the issues always come about a month late and I don't access it
at the website because it is one of the few things that I have to read
easily while eating. Therefore, I had not yet seen this article,
although the abstract below has been posted to the sci.life-extension
newsgroup.

> as referenced on their website at
>
>
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33832/title/Fountain_of_Youth%2C_with\
_caveats
>
> they refer to the research below (PUBMED abstract) as indicating
> that resveratrol may have a downside affect on the brain in terms of
> increasing oxidative sensitivity.  Since I don't have access to the
> full article, I can't tell if there are any deficiencies in the
> experiment or its interpretation.  However, I could say that for
> those of us who are life extension oriented, we are probably taking
> enough neurological antioxidants to compensate.
>
> Cell Metab. 2008 Jul;8(1):38-48.
> SirT1 inhibition reduces IGF-I/IRS-2/Ras/ERK1/2 signaling and protects
> neurons.
> Li Y, Xu W, McBurney MW, Longo VD.
> Neuroscience Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
> CA 90089-2520, USA.
>
> Sirtuins are known to protect cells and extend life span, but our
> previous studies indicated that S. cerevisiae Sir2 can also increase
> stress sensitivity and limit life-span extension. Here we provide
> evidence for a role of the mammalian Sir2 ortholog SirT1 in the
> sensitization of neurons to oxidative damage. SirT1 inhibition
> increased acetylation and decreased phosphorylation of IRS-2; it
> also reduced activation of the Ras/ERK1/2 pathway, suggesting that
> SirT1 may enhance IGF-I signaling in part by deacetylating IRS-2.
> Either the inhibition of SirT1 or of Ras/ERK1/2 was associated with
> resistance to oxidative damage. Markers of oxidized proteins and
> lipids were reduced in the brain of old SirT1-deficient mice, but
> the life span of the homozygote knockout mice was reduced under both
> normal and calorie-restricted conditions. These results are
> consistent with findings in S. cerevisiae and other model systems,
> suggesting that mammalian sirtuins can play both protective and
> proaging roles.
>
> PMID: 18590691
>

This is probably another example of "nothing is all bad or all good" and
likely also of "the dose makes the poison". However, the full text of
this paper is still not available to me (without paying for it). I think
this is merely some kind of temporary embargo for this journal since I
can normally access anything that is available through ScienceDirect.
Moreover in the same issue is a commentary on this paper (something that
Journals often do for important papers in an issue):

Cell Metab. 2008 Jul;8(1):4-5.
The ongoing saga of sirtuins and aging.
Kaeberlein M.
Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195-7470, USA. kaeber@...

Sirtuins are known to slow aging in simple eukaryotes; however, viewing
mammalian sirtuins as antiaging proteins may be overly simplistic. In
this issue of Cell Metabolism, Li et al. (2008) provide evidence that
SirT1 has properties consistent with both pro- and antiaging functions
in mice.

PMID: 18590685

When these full papers are available I will get them and respond again
to this post about this important paper.

--Paul

On 07/22/2008 06:53 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I have recently begun to experiment with an intermittent fasting
> regimen, also called alternate day fasting.  I recorded my thoughts
> and experiences on the first day fasting on this regimen (began last
> week) and thought it would be of interest to those in the group.  My
> experience might be of particular interest to those considering such
> a dietary regimen.  I have pasted my record (in the form of a journal
> entry) below.
>
> ***
>
> 07.14.08
>
> I just began the practice of intermittent fasting (IF) starting
> yesterday at noon.  My regimen is as follows:
>
> •Ad-libitum feeding for 24 hour period
> •Fasted, (non-caloric) for 24 hour period

My congratulations on thinking "out of the box", to find a relatively
easy way to do some intermittent fasting. I say "easy", because you
have found a way to do it without needing to go a whole waking day
without eating, which is the hard part for most people. AFAIK, all
intermittent fasting (IF) and every other day feeding (EOD) in the
literature is done by not eating any food for a whole waking day and
then eating ad lib during the next day of the two day cycle. Because
no eating is done during the sleep hours, such a regimen results in a
48 hour cycle that includes about 16 contiguous hours of ad lib eating
and 32 contiguous hours of fasting (because there is naturally no
eating during the sleep periods that precede and end the fasting day).
Whereas your 48 hour cycle contains 2 eating periods of with a total
of 14-16 hours and 2 fasting periods one of 24 hours and the other of
8-10 hours (depending on how soon before sleep you stop eating on the
day when you start eating after noon). Therefore, while your regimen
is intermittent fasting, I do not think that it is correct to term it
alternate day fasting, at least not as that phrase has been applied to
experiments. (Since you did not supply the ending time of your
afternoon meal, particularly how long before sleep you stop eating,
the above period lengths are my best guess.)

While it is an excellent start, what you are accomplishing is
effectively a slightly different version of what I and Kitty had been
doing (and reported on) since January 2007 until about 4 weeks ago.
Our 48 hour cycle then  contained 2 eating periods of 6 hours (same
time each day) and 2 fasting periods of 18 hours each (each including
a sleep period). We also found this quite easy to do, since just like
you we never had to go a whole waking day without eating. Your scheme
may be just as easy to follow, but may be more effective because one
of your fasting periods is considerably longer than ours were, even
though your total fasting time during 48 hours is no more than ours
was.

However, what I and Kitty are doing now, although much harder to start
with (and occasionally still during the fasting day) creates longer
fast durations and should be much more effective to the benefits that
may acrue from them. In a 72 hour periods we have 2 eating periods of
6 hours each and two fasting periods, one of 24 hours and the other of
36 hours. Often we have trouble eating sufficient food, so as not to
lose weight, during only 6 hours, so we are thinking that an EOD
schedule might be easier than what we are doing. We would do that by
eating during 12 hours every other day. so that each 48 hours would
contain one day when we would eat for 3 hours twice with a 6 hour
space between (during which snacks would be allowed) for a total of 12
hours and one fasting period of 36 hours. We may also first continue
with our current scheme, but lengthen our eating time to 8 hours
(which would also shorten the time of our shorter fast to 20 hours).

> I am currently 12hrs, 15 minutes into the first fasting day and I
> wanted to document my subjective experiences.
>
> I finished eating today at 11:55am and had a large breakfast
> consisting of:
>
> •3 poached eggs (210 kcal)
> •Yogurt breakfast (20g whey protein, 150g yogurt, 30g cocoa
>  nibs, 10g raw peanuts, 75g crushed pineapple, ½ tsp cinnamon; ~500
>  kcal)
> •3 pieces of bread (100 kcal, 6g fiber, 4g protein ea.) w/
>  sugar-free blackberry preserves (~350 kcal total)
> •6 pieces of 85% cocoa dark chocolate (5g ea., 30g total; ~200
>  kcal)
> •coffee (o kcal)
> •Total kcal:  ~1250
>
> I worked on the garage roof today from 3pm to 5:45pm and noted very
> little hunger.  I drank approximately 2 quarts of sugar-free Kool-
> Aid, both because of being in the sun and being thirsty and because
> it helped assuage the hunger.

I know of no reason why the Kool-Aid should have any more effect on
hunger than would plain water. I and Kitty are pretty convinced that
green tea (and our other tea ingredients), particularly as a warm
drink, reduces/eliminates hunger pangs during fasting better than
water, and many people on CR concur. While I could find no studies that
tested this effect of green tea, I did find several studies providing
evidence and mechanism for green tea's positive aid of the biochemistry
occurring during fasting.

>  I noted that during the time period I
> worked on the garage my energy level was high and remained so.  The
> work seemed effortless (light lifting, standing on an incline for a
> few hours).
>

I have also noted lots of energy during my fasting day. It is only
toward the end of the day that my feeling of "emptiness" and not
having any eating in sight that day (but not any real sense of hunger)
is sometime a little distracting to work, especially if the work is
passive and not particularly interesting.

> At approx. 7pm I began to feel hunger to the point of nausea.

That has never happened to me.

> I promptly drank 2 glasses of the Kool-Aid (non-caloric, sweetened with
> Stevia) and a mug of green tea, which assuaged the hunger.  I noted
> that it was interesting that even though I ate an enormous amount of
> calories for breakfast, I experienced hunger to the point of nausea
> only 7 hours after the meal.  This is evidence that the human body
> has poor long-term hunger management capability.  Or perhaps it is
> that humans evolved best when frequently motivated to seek food (via
> hunger).  That is, "I better get hunting now, because it might be
> hours or days before I find food".

I think that your extreme reaction was merely because you changed "cold
turkey" to this new eating scheme. The body always needs time to
accommodate to any new schedule of its basic processes. One way to make
such accommodation easy and even unnoticeable is to make all changes
gradually (just like ramping up a dosage of some completely new food,
supplement or drug).

> The hunger continued approx. 45 minutes when I drank another glass
> of Kool-Aid and another mug of green tea.  At approximately 8:30pm I
> noticed what I thought to be the action of stress hormones, as my
> alertness increased and I felt a bit jittery-edgy – somewhat similar
> to coffee consumption.  It is now 12:30am and I still feel this
> mental alertness as I type.  I do not feel much hunger, although my
> stomach is noticeably empty.
>
> ***
>
> After having been on this regimen for the last week (and continuing)
> I have noticed that, after the first 24 hour period of fasting I no
> longer experienced the intense hunger I did on the first day.  On the
> second day of fasting I expected to be very hungry around 7-8pm and
> it never occured.  I also expected to be quite hungry between 9am and
> noon the next day, and I noticed this was also absent.

I found the same thing over the last year and a half, which is
particularly interesting since I had always been a big breakfast eater
and for most of my life considered it to be the most important meal of
the day - one that it would be unhealthy to go without.

> In summary, so far I have found that I like this dietary regimen.
> I found that while trying to practice moderate (20%) calorie
> restriction in the past I was constantly denying myself large
> portions of food, which may have caused me some irritation, rarely
> allowing myself to eat and feel fullness.  I still continue to eat
> what I understand to be healthy foods (whole grains, vegetables,
> fruits, frozen and canned salmon, beans, cocoa, tea, yogurt, eggs,
> and a focus on controlling spikes in blood sugar.)  This diet has
> allowed me the freedom to not track calories on the days I eat ad-
> libitum.

I think the last sentence above is a little misleading, since you
actually eat ad lib every day (unless I am missing something). It is
only that you restrict the length of time during which you eat that
way (which is also what I and Kitty did in our previous eating scheme
and the current one too). But such a time restriction method is
definitely a simpler way to reduce one's caloric intake without
needing to track calories.

> In tracking my food intake but not attempting to control it,
> I have noticed that I still maintain a caloric deficit (I consume
> between 3200-4200 calories in a 24 hour period, which has been in a
> downward trend over the past week).  But, I find the period during
> which I eat much more contenting than constantly attempting to
> restrict calories to the same level, and I find the fasting period
> quite easy to endure, and it is often surprisingly energizing (as
> described in my entry above).

I am glad to see that it is working out for you. All of What you
describe is very similar to what I and Kitty have found.

>  I also understand there to be positive
> health effects associated with periods of fasting, which helps me
> to rationalize and endure the 24 hour period of fasting.

Whoops! Rationalize is one of those highly ambiguous words that I
suggest should either not be used or, if used, then made very clear
what meaning is intended. Its root and original meaning is clear and
fine meaning to make something rational (ordered and understood in
accord with reality). However, one of its major modern usages has
become very different than and almost opposite to that original.

- to avoid a rational conclusion, either evading important information
or using incorrect reasoning to reach an invalid conclusion. This can
be done either consciously or subconsciously or, more often, a mixture
of both.

The context in which you used "rationalize" is closely related to how
many people use it with this modern, highly distorted meaning and for
that reason I am not sure which way you actually mean the word. If you
used it with this distorted meaning, then you are certainly incorrect
in your assessment of your own thoughts and actions in this regard.

Instead what you are doing is evaluating the pros and cons of your
action and rationally deciding that the weighted sum of the benefits
is greater than the weighted sum of the disbenefits.
For details on this see the NSC annotation pages for Happiness at:
http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotations/happiness.html
and Choice at:
http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotations/choice.html

OTOH, perhaps you did mean "rationalize" in this latter sense of "make
rational".

> I have also found the 24 hour intermittent fasting regimen to have a
> positive effect on my thoughts about food.  I find that during the
> fasting period I can resolve to think about food very little, if at
> all.  No meal planning, no returning home for food, no cooking, and
> no washing dishes.  I can simply go about the rest of my day and the
> early morning of the next day not paying attention to food.  This is
> a welcome change compared to my previous 4-5 small meal per day
> regimen, which was laborious to plan and execute.

These differences are particularly advantageous and is why we only ate
two meals daily for several years before going to only one. The last
time we ate 3 meals "daily" was when we were on our 28 hour schedule,
but that still only totaled 18 meals per week.

> Additionally, the
> hunger and modest lack of energy that comes in the end of my fasting
> period makes me look forward to food and gives me the opportunity to
> enjoy it fully, allowing me to eat a variety of foods to satiation
> and not feel guilty or displeased with myself.

It is really great to see that this is working out so well for you,
particularly that you have both managed it so well and
understood/appreciated all the benefits.

> I would be interested in hearing others' comments about my posting
> above, and am willing to answer questions about it.

Steve, I am not pleased that your most interesting and personally
sharing message has received a total lack of response from any of the
hundreds of people that are apparently reading this group's messages.
Except for a very few members of this group (perhaps 2 dozen at most),
I sometimes think that my writing is going into a black hole.

--Paul

On 07/23/2008 03:42 PM, tlbrabham wrote:
> The following abstract seems to address, to some degree, the
> question about Sinclair not having done the experimental combination
> of mice being fed a standard diet plus resveratrol.
>
> [The question referred to above is within the message at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1267 --Paul]
>
> Cell Metab. 2008 Jul 2. [Epub ahead of print]
> Resveratrol Delays Age-Related Deterioration and Mimics
> Transcriptional Aspects of Dietary Restriction without Extending Life
> Span.
> Pearson KJ, Baur JA, Lewis KN, Peshkin L, Price NL, Labinskyy N,
> Swindell WR, Kamara D, Minor RK, Perez E, Jamieson HA, Zhang Y,
> Dunn SR, Sharma K, Pleshko N, Woollett LA, Csiszar A, Ikeno Y,
> Le Couteur D, Elliott PJ, Becker KG, Navas P, Ingram DK, Wolf NS,
> Ungvari Z, Sinclair DA, de Cabo R.
> Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology, National Institute on Aging,
> National Institutes of Health, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD
> 21224, USA.
>
> A small molecule that safely mimics the ability of dietary
> restriction (DR) to delay age-related diseases in laboratory animals
> is greatly sought after. We and others have shown that resveratrol
> mimics effects of DR in lower organisms. In mice, we find that
> resveratrol induces gene expression patterns in multiple tissues
> that parallel those induced by DR and every-other-day feeding.
> Moreover, resveratrol-fed elderly mice show a marked reduction in
> signs of aging, including reduced albuminuria, decreased
> inflammation, and apoptosis in the vascular endothelium, increased
> aortic elasticity, greater motor coordination, reduced cataract
> formation, and preserved bone mineral density. However, mice fed a
> standard diet did not live longer when treated with resveratrol
> beginning at 12 months of age. Our findings indicate that
> resveratrol treatment has a range of beneficial effects in mice but
> does not increase the longevity of ad libitum-fed animals when
> started midlife.
>
> PMID: 18599363
>

The ScienceDaily article related to this study was posted on
sci.life-extension July 3 and received considerable discussion there
from several members of this group, myself included as well as others:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/browse_frm/thread/37d751520e30\
d117

As usual on sle, some of the comments were reasonable and some were
unreasonable, but I think MoreLife readers should be able to determine
which were which.

It would be nice to see a mouse or rat lifespan study using resveratrol
in addition to moderate CR with both moderate CR and ad lib control groups.

--Paul