On 08/02/2008 12:48 AM, gfbyhgfb wrote:
> Normally I'd do more investigation (as I urge my Computer Science
> students, who have much less ability to judge yet what parts of
> computing they can assign low priority, and must also learn how to ask
> for and receive good technical help), but let's see how this works out.
>
> When asking my browser to open in a new tab an external link to LEF
> from the regimen pages, I get the regimen page in the new tab instead
> of LEF's page in a new tab. A quick look at the HTML source and the
> accompanying pop-up behaviour when not trying to open in a new tab
> suggests that the HTML is second-guessing the browser. I have had
> other issues (which unfortunately I can't recall) that set off my
> intuition to check the HTML (e.g. whether it was auto-generated as an
> unreadable mess with quirky behaviour). It wasn't as bad as the usual
> auto-generation, but surprisingly `heavy' (e.g. javascript) for what I
> could determine was a site that could be straightforward HTML. It is
> of course possible that besides the pop-up behaviour, I am not even
> experiencing and hence not aware of the value-added features.
>
> If the pop-up override is intentional, e.g. you want external links to
> have a prominent indicator that they are not part of your site and not
> automatically endorsed (I see this at times in other sites mentioned
> explicitly), then I can be a single data point of someone who finds it
> lowers the value of the site. Again, this assumes that it's not part
> of some full-featured benefits I'm not aware of.
>
> If it's unintentional, and others have noted similar behaviour and it
> interferes with their browsing habit/model, we could investigate
> further (Paul and Kitty, I hope that's not a controversial "we", being
> an invitation to mutual research, but if you think so I can err in the
> future on using "we" even less or not at all unless I'm certain it
> fits with your goals).

First about your usage of "we" here. In this case (and in any other
case) where to whom a third person plural applies is well defined, its
usage is reasonable as long as one is not inferring certain actions,
mental states, etc which are only possible for an individual and not
for a collection of individuals. While it is true that each of us
would investigate as individuals, investigation is certainly something
that can be done cooperatively by a collection of people, as opposed
to thinking or emoting in some manner. And most certainly, any
invitation to do some mutual research on something that is clearly of
direct interest to me and Kitty is never out of place.

Now to the main content of your message.
All the HTML and javascript for both of our websites was painstakingly
learned and is hand generated by me and Kitty. At first Kitty was
assigned the job, because I was the more knowledgeable about what the
content should be. However, with almost no programming experience it
was very hard for her to learn to do all the things that we wanted to
do with the website. Therefore I got involved with some of the more
technical programming aspects (but HTML and javascript were also
completely new to me too). Kitty had done all the graphics, does all
the spreadsheet work, codes all the personal pages, checks out the
integrity of the coding and does the ftp work to upload it all to the
websites.

The MoreLife website was begun in 2001 at which time there were no tabs
available in browsers and therefore no possibility of a right click to
select either a new tab or a new window. We did not want a person
clicking a link on one of our pages to go off to another full window and
not be able to also continue to read where s/he came from. Note that
many of our pop-up windows are sized and positioned to show what is
required while still being able to reference the page holding the link -
this enables the reader to *relate* the text from both pages far better
than if s/he could only see one or the other. Yes, a reader could resize
a window to accomplish this, but since in many case we know the size
of the text that is going to be displayed, we decided to save hir the
effort. This arrangement did have the negative effect that unless we
coded the javascript to explicitly provide the URL of the popup window,
it was not shown - but then for small related text windows (such as
glossary definition) there really was no need for the reader to know
that URL. This last problem (of no explicit URL) is also a major problem
with the frame arrangement that we selected (in MoreLife, not in
SelfSIP) and it has always bothered me that I could not give a URL
directly to certain subpages of frames. But then the counter argument
is that by necessitating a user to enter a prior page, the reader may
gain a much better idea of the context of the page to which s/he is
heading and also may see something else interesting.

Now that browsers have tabs, and the capability to right-click on a link
for choice, I too have sometimes found it annoying that I cannot use
that feature on many links of our websites. Perhaps there is a way to
enable the right-click choice even within the javascript, I simply have
not had the time or interest to look into this. There are instructions
on how to use the MoreLife.org website (http://morelife.org/usagenotes.html)
and if these are followed everything works reasonably, even if not
what each person may think is optimal.

[Repeating what Paul wrote, all of the coding for both websites have
been and are still done by only me and Paul. While over the past
several years we've received a few emails and group posts from some
individuals recommending certain technical changes be made to the
websites - elimination of javascript and frames being the ones I
specifically remember, no one has offered to actually do any of the
work necessary. And the individuals making the suggestions did (and
likely still do) Internet/website design/programming as part of their
paid work or as an avocation. **Kitty]


Finally, I agree that the whole website probably needs to be
reorganized and recoded in something more powerful and flexible (if
nothing else, it would make our maintenance work easier once that were
done - and there are also many things that we wanted to accomplish and
never figured out how within the limitations of HTML, CSS and
javascript). This is exactly why I am working to install mediawiki and
eventually convert all MoreLife and SelfSIP content to that format as
well as have at least 2 others websites that implement part of the
SelfSIP concepts. The major reason for using wiki type software for the
websites is that there is a great need for cooperative help from more
people to accomplish all that could be done and needs to be done towards
the purposes of both websites.

So if you or anyone among the readership of this group knows PHP, MySQL
and is familiar with wikis (mediawiki is PHP based and uses MySQL for
its database), then you could be of great help to speed this effort. If
not, then it is going to proceed slowly while I myself learn PHP, MySQL
and install/configure/modify the medawiki software for my own specific
needs. The major thing that I require is that anyone who has page
editing permission must be fully identified to me and given explicit
permission to do editing.

> Oh, and though Paul and Kitty I think consider me identified to them,
> I should still probably sign this for the group.
>
> Gary Baumgartner
>
> [Note to members: Gary is identified to us through having had a
> financial transaction with us.
>
> Gary, it would still be appreciated if, for the benefit of other group
> members, you would fill in the information about yourself that is
> provided on the Yahoo ID page, including a recent picture. And yes,
> since your username does not identify you in any manner, you need to
> place your full name at the end of all your posts to this group.

Now that you have put your name into your address line, it is not
necessary to sign all your posts (as I noticed that you aren't doing),
and, of course, putting your name in your address line saves you the
time needed to sign your message.
However when responding inline, a signature is still a good way to
indicate that your comments are finished. This is particularly
beneficial for the reader, if you have left additional previous text to
which you have not commented, else the reader would not know that your
comments are finished and would waste time searching through the
remaining text.

--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! 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,

Paul,

I'm certainly not in disagreement with this last sentence, but I just
finished reading a very well researched book (the last third of the
500-page book is comprised of references), titled, "Good Calorie, Bad
Calorie," that concludes that a calorie is not a calorie.  Here's
something I wrote in another forum which I'll just copy/paste here,
which is based on what I learned from the book:

~~~~~ BEGIN QUOTE ~~~~~

A calorie is a calories is a calorie.

This is what many people believe, including many nutrition experts.
But, it's not reality.  And it may be the singular reason most
Americans are getting fat.

Here's the problem in a nutshell:  Processed carbs, starchy carbs and
foods high in sugar are all very effectively raise insulin production
to make sure blood glucose doesn't get dangerously high.  What does
the insulin do to this blood sugar?  It creates triglyceride and
stores it as fat.

Tests on animals have been done, such as rats, that prove that a
calorie is not a calorie in terms of making animals fat.  For example,
let's say a particular animal has a caloric requirement of 500 cals a
day.  If one such animal is given 500 cals of its natural diet (say
bugs and plants), and another of the same animal is given 500 cals of
cat-like food (which meets its nutritional needs, but is composed of
processed carbs similar to dry cat and dog foods), then the second
animal will gain weight/fat over time.  This, in spite of the fact
that each animal is getting the exact number of cals it needs daily.
One maintains its weight, and one gains weight.

Let's say a person needs 2100 cals a day on average, if on one day
they eat three meals of 700 cals each, with a balance of protein,
healthy fats, and low glycemic vegetable carbs, then they'll not gain
any extra fat.  However, if that same person eats three high-glycemic
meals, then at each meal insulin will store some cals as fat, which it
can do more effectively than when the need comes to burn these cals.
Or, take it to the extreme:  If a person needs 2100 cals in a day, and
they eat it all as one meal of bread, will the body not gain fat for
the day?  In fact, they will.  The person will store several hundred
cals as fat, and end up feeling hungry for some of the day.

Think about this: If fat usage was as efficient as fat storage, then
fat people wouldn't feel hungry until their weight normalized.  But,
fat burning is not nearly as effective as storing fat, and so it's
much easier to pack it on than to get it off.

Note that rats and other animals who are on identical measured calorie
diets, will have different results based solely on the type of cals
they consume -- rats that consume processed carbs will get fat over
time, versus rats on an in-the-wild diet.

Bottom-line:  The fact that the American diet continues to include
more high glycemic carbs and simple sugars, means that even if people
count calories, they can still put on fat.

It's much too simple to call a calorie a calorie.

~~~~~ END QUOTE ~~~~~

Anyway, very interesting book.  It also goes into how cholesterol has
been a red-herring for the American medical system, and so has the
low-fat diet (which was contrived as a way to control cholesterol, as
a way to lower the risk for heart disease.

Scott Miller
(a.k.a. DukeNukem on ImmInst.org)

<snip>

>
> --Paul
>

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@...> wrote:

<snip>

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Baumgartner" <gfbyhgfb@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Gary, I learned a long time ago I do not know enough to even ask
> > > a question on this site.
> > >
> > > Jack Henderson
> >
> > Okay, I searched for your posts to this group and looked at your
> > profile to get an initial idea of your background, interests and
> > interactions with the group and Paul and Kitty.

<snip: rest of my response to Jack's statement>

> Gary, I will proberly get some flack about not following the posting
> protocal, but I was just being facetious about not knowing enough to
> ask a question.

Your not following protocol led to me misunderstanding you and wasting
effort addressing incorrect information.

With little knowledge of you beyond the first statement above, and no
tone of voice or non-verbal communication available, it was very
likely that I would misunderstand. And this medium is less interactive
than a typical conversation, increasing the likely effort expended on
a misunderstanding before it can be corrected.

Moreover, since there wasn't much information (even if correct) about
the audience I couldn't rely as much on my pedagogical intuition, and
the response took more time and deliberateness than it could have
(including looking for more information about you).

(BTW this post took me 45 minutes, partly because it takes a strong
tone and as noted above tone is difficult)

<snip: your explanation of some of your image of Paul and Kitty, and
(partially) based on that your reasons for not asking questions>

For me that was a valuable approach.

<snip: Paul's clarification of his "method of gaining and having
information">

And it led to that valuable response.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@...> wrote:
<snip: discussion of gaining information, and misunderstanding of
Paul's (and Kitty's)> motivation and approach>

> [It is important to point out that my method of gaining and having
> information does not and never has included having an encyclopedic
> knowledge of any subject area. Rather early on in my learning, I
> decided to never memorize, but instead to specialize on fundamental
> understandings of and interrelationships between general concepts and
> specific data, and also on methods of acquiring details from the
> literature. This means that when I am asked a question, except for the
> simplest kind, it is rare that I can provide an answer "in two
> seconds". I too must "do the research and find out for [my]self". Now
> it may be easier, and faster, for me to do such research than for the
> questioner. However, a major reason why I want the questioner to "do
> the research and find out for [hir]self" is because I want hir to
> learn how to do such research in an effective and efficient manner. It
> is exactly like the Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed
> him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
--Paul]

Well put, and saves me working on such a post: the above goes for me too.

On 07/31/2008 10:31 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Thank you for the congratulations Paul.  I must admit that I can not
> take the credit for this idea, as I read an article about it on a
> blog by a Dr. Michael Eades.  He discusses his practice of IF for a
> 24-hour cycle, except he used a start/stop time of 6 P.M., rather
> than my 12 Noon.  The article (and his blog) can be read here:
> http://tinyurl.com/2pqelv

I read the article, but found it to be mostly a "chat" type of
presentation, with very little of substance about why IF was good for
a person and what it might accomplish, particularly nothing about
postponing aging dysfunction and extending lifespan. Furthermore Eades
did not practice IF for a sufficient length of time ("for a few weeks
just to see if we could tolerated[sic] it, which we did just fine") to
properly try it out and experience any benefits - he did not even take
before and after measurements of physiological parameters. At the end
he reverted to his old diet (low carb - high protein) "just because it
seemed to work better with our schedules". No thought of altering such
"schedules" in order to extend healthy lifespan!

Eades is obviously a scientific light-weight because he apparently
does not know the difference between a published paper and a study -
he does not know that _Medical Hypotheses_ (he misspelled it Medical
Hypothesis) does not publish experimental studies, but only
conjectures and hypotheses, both without peer review, as I understand
it. In short, Eades is a chatty, non-scientist MD who has written some
books that had mass appeal and is cashing in on this success by
continuing to make shallow presentations of some other potentially
health promoting ideas. I guess that for some people it is a place to
start, but unfortunately most who start there will never get any idea
from him that there is more depth to be had and therefore will likely
never graduate beyond such a shallow approach - possibly to everything
in their lives.

>> 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
>> 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.)
>
> From my understanding of the literature I was under the impression
> that ADF and IF were used interchangibly.  Perhaps I was incorrect.

Probably you are correct, because these terms are generally applied to
experiments on animals that do not sleep for a lengthy period at a
similar time each day as do humans. In such a case there would be
little difference between Alternate day Feeding, Alternate Day
Fasting, EOD Feeding, EOD Fasting, Intermittent Fasting and
Intermittent Feeding (if the intermittent was a 24 hour cycle). And
furthermore the hour of the start and stop times would not be very
important. However for humans, these can mean very different things
and have quite different effects.

> I thank you for pointing this difference out to me, and the
> difference in the meaning of the two terms makes sense to me.  I
> agree that it would be accurate to state that I
> practice "Intermittent Fasting", rather than "Alternate Day Fasting",
> because in fact I eat food every waking day, which would *not* be ADF.
>
>> 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 accrue 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).
>
> Because of the short period during which I can eat in the mornings
> (i.e. from when I wake until noon) I have considered simply
> eliminating this meal - which would essentially extend my continuous
> fasting period by 4-12 hours (i.e. 8 hrs sleep, wake, *don't* eat
> breakfast, fast the rest of the day, sleep, wake and eat ad libitum
> at noon).  This would confine my eating period to every other day,
> after 12pm, and would *then* be ADF.  Of course, I *could* then eat
> upon waking, rather than wait until noon.

Based on our experience, I think that you would find it very difficult
to do that and still eat sufficient calories to not lose too much weight.

> However, I have noticed
> that I currently have difficulty consuming adequate calories during
> my eating period.  I suspect this to be so due to the high-satiety
> foods in my diet (especially hulled barley, rye flour, and salads).

These foods have a lot of fiber and require time to digest. So their
movement through the stomach and intestines is slower and thus it
takes longer to make room for more food. High protein foods and fruits
would probably move through quicker. If you put these bulkier foods
right at the end of the evening or in the morning portion and the eggs
at the start of your evening portion, then it might work out better.

> Because of this, I am currently hesitant to shorten my eating period
> or eliminate the breakfast (as described above).  But, I am open to
> new ideas and may modify the current diet as I find more convenient
> or healthier variations on it.
>
>>> 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 have since modified this practice of drinking Kool-Aid and instead
> drink green tea and/or water during my fasting periods.  I find that
> it assuages hunger better, as well as possibly provides other
> benefits that you mention above.  Additionally, I experience greater
> mental acuity drinking green tea compared to any other non-caloric
> beverage I have tried.
>
> I have also made a bulk purchase of green tea and rooibos tea, since
> this is all I consume during my fasting period.  I have found a
> supplier of tea whose prices are quite reasonable.  I have yet to
> receive the package (I ordered quite recently and it is not yet
> late), so I could not give feedback on its quality or service.  If
> you anyone is interested in this supplier you can find them here:
> http://herbco.com/default.aspx

I checked out the tea prices at the above website and found that their
prices for green tea are high compared with what we have paid for
Jasmine Tea (this is green tea with some added jasmine for a nicer
flavor) in an International food supermarket in Phoenix ($12.99 for a
5 lb bag). But for rooibos tea their prices are better than we last
paid, so we will search more diligently before we next purchase in the
fall after getting back to Arizona.

[When I first searched for rooibos tea online about 3 years ago the
best price I found was with African Red Tea Company and I just did not
bother to search again more recently to see if new lower priced
sources were available. **Kitty]

>>> 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.
>
> My experiences seem to agree with yours Paul.  I do not feel
> particularly *hungry* during my fasting period.  Rather, I
> feel "emptiness" in my stomach.  I find that during the middle of my
> 24 hour fast (around 10pm - 2am), if I am awake, my concentration is
> a bit inhibited and I tend to daydream a bit.  It seems that,
> depending on the activity, I also have difficulty concentrating.

I find this is getting better each fasting day as I get used to the
arrangement and it is no longer a problem, particularly since
lengthening the eating times from 6 to 8 hours.

<snipped portions for which I had no comment>

>>> 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.
>
> I agree with your correction here.  When I use the word "day", I have
> been using it as being defined as "a 24-hour period".  You seem to be
> defining it as a "calendar day" or "waking day", which I admit may be
> more accurate according to definition or common useage.  I have
> considered the possibility that a "day", in fact, may be different
> for each person, depending on biological mechanisms, such as sleep
> schedules, hormone secretions, eating times, etc.  So, my "eating-
> day" begins at noon and ends 24 hours later".  Also note this may
> explain my confusion of the terms IF and ADF discussed above.

In order to avoid such communication problems, when I and Kitty were
living on 6 - 28 hour "days" weekly, we called them "28 hour cycles"
and put on our website a calendar diagram of how they corresponded
with the normal 7 - 24 hour days per week.

[See http://morelife.org/personal/28_hr_schedule/index.html for
information on that practice that ended in May 2005 and links to the
tables we used for 3 or 5 nights of dancing. **Kitty]

Right now we are on a 72 hour cycle during which we only eat twice,
but sleep 3 times for the normal 8 hours each at the same time of each
solar day. OTOH, you are on a 48 hour cycle which includes a 24 hour
period when you fast, 2 periods when you eat and the 2 normal times
when you sleep.

>>> 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".
>
> Hmm, I hadn't realized that there was confusion on the usage of the
> word "rationalize".  What I had meant by the above statement was
> that, during fasting times when I feel hungry, the benefits of the
> fasted state that I have learned about help to reinforce my practice,
> and the continue[ation] of, my current regimen of 24 hour periods of
> fasting/eating.  I understand this to be a type of mental
> reprogramming, where, when I experience hunger, I redirect my
> frustration with hunger to a feeling of contentment with myself,
> since I may likely be realizing many benefits from enduring such
> hunger.  Perhaps "reinforce" would have been better to use
> than "rationalize".

Yes, that is not any standard meaning of rationalize. While the
following statement is very technical, it appears to be necessary to
fully state what you were meaning:

"My understanding and confidence in the positive health and likely
life extension effects associated with periods of fasting counteracts
the negative aspects of the 24 hour period of fasting and makes
positive the estimated long-term sum of benefit minus dis-benefit."

Then the reinforcement of your practice habit is simply the rational
result of constant awareness, first conscious and later subconscious,
of this positive sum best estimation.

OTOH, maybe a simpler statement like the following would have worked:
"I also understand there to be positive health effects associated with
periods of fasting, which helps me to remain happy while enduring 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.
>>
>> 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.

All these are part of the reasons why one can remain happy with this
regimen even though sometimes a little "bothered" during one's fasting day.

<snipped the rest which was already addressed>

--Paul

On 08/07/2008 10:38 AM, Paul Wakfer wrote:
> On 07/31/2008 07:34 AM, François ROSE wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul
>>
>> I'm actually working about studies related to Intermittent Feeding;
>> This is the first part of my report:
>>
>> http://pmid.us/10524500 published in 1999
>> Intermittent feeding and fasting reduces diabetes incidence in BB
>> rats.
>> This study included three groups.
>> * Group 1 served as control and included 77 animals, 79% became
>> diabetic.
>> * In group 2 (40 animals) food but not water was withdrawn from the
>> animals 24 h twice a week ; 50% (p < 0.004) became diabetic
>> * In group 3 (44 animals) food but not water was withdrawn from the
>> animals 24 h every second day; 52% (p < 0.01) became diabetic
>>
>> [Important additional information here would be at what time of the
>> animal's sleep/wake cycle the food was withdrawn. --Paul]
>>

Upon further investigation, I realize that rodents do not sleep for long
periods of time (as humans do), but sleep for periods which are more
consistent with the shorter lifespans and higher metabolic rates. Since
they basically eat all day and night with many short duration naps, it
really does not matter what time of the day or night food is given and
24 hours later taken away for 24 hours. (See more below.)

<snip>
>
>> http://pmid.us/15640462  with free full text
>> Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight,
>> body composition, and energy metabolism.
>> from the free full text:
>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/69/F2
>> This image shows glucose, Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), Free Fatty
>> acids (FFA) and insulin ratios in serum
>> baseline is before the experiment of every other day fasting
>> day 21 is after a 12 hour (overnight) fast
>> day 22 is after a 36h hour fast
>> Very interesting for me (but probably already well known by Paul:)
>> one can notice that after a 36 hour fast, insulin is
>> significantly lower and FFA and BHBA are significantly higher
>> "No subjects withdrew during the study, but many reported feeling
>> irritable on their fasting days"
>> About weight loss: "Body weight was clearly reduced from baseline
>> after 3 wk of alternate-day fasting, indicating that the subjects
>> were unable to consume enough food on the feasting days to maintain
>> their weight.
>>
<snip>
>> This is opposite the results observed in rodents, where mice fed
>> every other day maintained their body weight and consumed roughly
>> the same amount of food in 1 d that ad libitum–fed animals consumed
>> over 2 d(11). We hypothesized that the subjects with a self-reported
>> ability to overeat or eat large amounts of food would maintain their
>> body weight, and this hypothesis was supported: considering oneself
>> a "big eater" was negatively associated with weight loss when sex
>> was controlled for by partial correlation"
>>
>> Of course, I question myself about how the every other day feeding
>> for rats or mice could be converted in humans.
>>
>
> Yes, considering the far shorter lifespans of mice and rats (roughly 2
> and 4 years respectively as I recall) in comparison with humans,
> EOD for rat should correspond to eating for 2-3 weeks and then
> fasting for 2-3 weeks. This would mean that EOD feeding should be a
> much more extreme regimen for rats than is EOD feeding for humans,
> so this should be a reasonable explanation of the difference between
> humans and rats on EOD diets (rats could maintain their ad lib calorie
> intake and humans could not). Rather, I think the reason for the
> result was the short length of time that the humans were on the diet.
> The mice also likely lost weight at first until they got accommodated
> to eating larger amounts at once. OTOH, mice and rats may have
> proportionally bigger stomachs and digestive systems than humans because
> evolutionary-wise their normal state is to go long periods without
> food and then pig -out once it is found.

As stated above rodents basically eat and sleep in alternate short
periods all during the whole 24 hours. This is probably the biggest
reason why it is easier for them to eat 2 days worth of calories during
a whole 24 hours. OTOH a 24 hour fast for a high metabolic rate animal
is also much more effective for benefits such as autophagy promotion
than would 24 hours be for a human. That is a major reason why I think
that a longer fast time is essential for major benefit in humans. With
respect to this, I am now thinking that I and Kitty may maximize the
total length of our fast day by eating early the day before and late the
day after. Here would be the result:

Day 1 - eat between 1pm and 9pm
Day 2 - eat between 9am and 5pm
Day 3 - no food all day

The above would give us a fasting period of 40 hours once every 3 days.

--Paul

On 07/31/2008 07:34 AM, François ROSE wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> I'm actually working about studies related to Intermittent Feeding;
> This is the first part of my report:
>
> http://pmid.us/10524500 published in 1999
> Intermittent feeding and fasting reduces diabetes incidence in BB
> rats.
> This study included three groups.
> * Group 1 served as control and included 77 animals, 79% became
> diabetic.
> * In group 2 (40 animals) food but not water was withdrawn from the
> animals 24 h twice a week ; 50% (p < 0.004) became diabetic
> * In group 3 (44 animals) food but not water was withdrawn from the
> animals 24 h every second day; 52% (p < 0.01) became diabetic
>
> [Important additional information here would be at what time of the
> animal's sleep/wake cycle the food was withdrawn. --Paul]

Also important is a description of BB rats. For example are these a
diabetic prone rat used as a model for diabetes prevention/treatment
experiments? The high incidence of diabetes suggests that BB rats are
such a model, but then there is a question of how close is this model
to the human situation? And therefore, is this experiment really
applicable to humans at all? Without this sort of information added to
the above and some discussion of it, what you have given is of far
less value than it could be.

> http://pmid.us/15631203 published in 2004
> I don't know if it is worth reading
>
> http://pmid.us/3941250 published in 1986
> Quite interesting (they shows that initiation of IF, even after a
> year of life, increases lifespan of rats)
> Access to free full text could be interesting because they don't
> define exactly what they mean by "fed intermittently". I assume it
> is every other day but I'm not sure. Moreover, since rats on
> intermittent feeding have a lower weight, there is a possible crypto
> CR effect so access to data is needed to go deeper into this
> hypothesis.
>
> [Exact definition of IF is necessary in order to fully analyze such
> a result and will most certainly be specified in the full text. --Paul]

Again the type of rat is also important. Was it a short or long lived
rat strain?

> http://pmid.us/4074024 by Ingram DK and al published in 1985
> Effect of intermittent feeding on thermoregulatory abilities of young
> and aged C57BL/6J mice:
> "At 6 mth of age, male C57BL/6J mice were subjected to an
> intermittent schedule of feeding (every-other-day) or continued to
> be maintained on an ad libitum diet (24% protein). This regimen of
> dietary restriction resulted in increased mean and maximum lifespan
> (11%) compared to the survival of ad libitum-fed mice. At 8 and 26
> mth of age, different groups of mice were tested for cold tolerance
> during 3 h exposure to 10 degrees C. Aged mice (26 mth) fed ad
> libitum compared to young mice (8 mth) on the same diet had
> significantly lower baseline colonic temperatures prior to cold
> exposure, and impaired cold tolerance, as measured by the rate of
> decline in colonic temperature during cold exposure. (...) the cold
> tolerance of aged mice subjected to 20 mth of intermittent feeding
> was markedly improved over that of aged cohorts maintained on an ad
> libitum diet and in fact was indistinguishable from that of young
> counterparts. Thus, it appeared that this regimen of dietary
> restriction when implemented in young adults prevented the
> age-related decline in cold tolerance observed among ad libitum fed
> mice of this strain."

This is a good one to rebut those people who go around saying that CR
or IF are impractical because one feels cold all the time.

> http://pmid.us/6641783 by Ingram DK Goodrick published in 1983
> Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth, activity, and lifespan
> in rats allowed voluntary exercise.
> "EOD(every-other-day)-fed rats had a mean lifespan of 124 weeks
> compared to 103 weeks for AL(ad libitum)-fed rats"
> " While the EOD feeding regimen resulted in higher activity levels
> later in life, wheel activity levels were actually lower in this
> group in early life compared to the AL group."

That makes sense because they would not have the energy for it and
their brains would likely not sense any need/desire to do it.

> http://pmid.us/2402168 by Ingram DK, Goodrick et al published in 1990
> Effects of intermittent feeding upon body weight and lifespan in
> inbred mice: interaction of genotype and age
> "Beginning at either 1.5, 6 or 10 months of age, male mice from the
> A/J and C57BL/6J strains and their F1 hybrid, B6AF1/J were fed a
> diet (4.2 kcal/g) either ad libitum every day or in a restricted
> fashion by ad libitum feeding every other day.

When I first saw the above figure of 4.2 kcal/g, I thought that is
referred to the amount of food per gram (of mouse weight) eaten ad lib
by mice which is not a figure that I had ever seen before (or
remembered seeing, at least). I therefore calculated the comparison
with a human's caloric intake (per gram of human weight) but got a
figure that was more then an order of magnitude too high even after
dividing by the mouse to human conversion factor of about 7.5. Looking
back at the text above, I finally realized that the 4.2 referred to
the caloric content of each gram of food. However, this is a very
gross measure of its nutrient ratios (of fat, protein and
carbohydrates) and I am still surprised to see it given, since its
information content is effectively nil.

> Relative to estimates
> for ad libitum controls, the body weights of the intermittently-fed
> restricted C57BL/6J and hybrid mice were reduced and mean and
> maximum life span were incremented when the every-other-day regimen
> was initiated at 1.5 or 6 months of age. When every-other-day
> feeding was introduced at 10 months of age, again both these
> genotypes lost body weight relative to controls; however, mean life
> span was not significantly affected although maximum life span was
> increased.

When you see a result like this (mean lifespan is not increased, but
maximum lifespan is), this is a dead giveaway that the
treatment/intervention was too extreme for the animals, likely because
it was introduced so suddenly that many could not accommodate to it,
got weakened by it and died early. It is an example of the old adage:
"it will either make you stronger or kill you" Or "what doesn't kill
you will make you stronger".

> Among A/J mice, intermittent feeding did not reduce body
> weight relative to ad libitum controls when introduced at 1.5 or 10
> months of age; however, this treatment did increase mean and maximum
> life span when begun at 1.5 months, while it decreased mean and
> maximum life span when begun at 10 months. When restricted feeding
> was introduced to this genotype at 6 months of age, body weight
> reduction compared to control values was apparent at some ages, but
> the treatment had no significant effects on mean or maximum life
> span. These results illustrate that the effects of particular
> regimens of dietary restriction on body weight and life span are
> greatly dependent upon the genotype and age of initiation." and that
> you can't infer automatically "that lower body weight would induce
> life span increment".

For the above to have more meaning, you would need to investigate just
what are the differences between the 3 strains of mice and, at least,
conjecture on how those differences related to the experimental
results. This might make the results more relevant to humans.

> http://pmid.us/15640462  with free full text
> Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight,
> body composition, and energy metabolism.
> from the free full text:
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/69/F2
> This image shows glucose, Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), Free Fatty
> acids (FFA) and insulin ratios in serum
> baseline is before the experiment of every other day fasting
> day 21 is after a 12 hour (overnight) fast
> day 22 is after a 36h hour fast
> Very interesting for me (but probably already well known by Paul:)
> one can notice that after a 36 hour fast, insulin is
> significantly lower and FFA and BHBA are significantly higher
> "No subjects withdrew during the study, but many reported feeling
> irritable on their fasting days"
> About weight loss: "Body weight was clearly reduced from baseline
> after 3 wk of alternate-day fasting, indicating that the subjects
> were unable to consume enough food on the feasting days to maintain
> their weight.

I and Kitty were also having trouble with that even though we were
effective fasting only every third day. However, now that we have
lengthened our eating times to 8 hours instead of six it is easier to
eat enough. Our 3 day schedule is now as follows (containing sleep
from 12am to 8am):
Day 1 eat during 9am to 5pm - we usually take a 2 hour break in the middle
Day 2 eat during 1pm to 9pm - we usually take a 2 hour break in the middle
Day 3 eat total fast except for no-food pills, powders and fiber at
mid-day (the mid day fiber helps intestinal peristalsis on the fasting
day so we are not constipated during the day after).

[The 2 to 3 hour break during the 8 hour eating period is typically
spent on outdoor activity away from the house, like a long walk (often
berry picking, mushroom foraging or exploring potential sites for
both) or a canoe ride. We've even used that period of time to make our
once weekly trip into Wilberforce to pick up the mail and take items
to the dump (we have no garbage pickup). Most times the big away
excursions on foot are done on our fasting days. **Kitty]

> This is opposite the results observed in rodents, where mice fed
> every other day maintained their body weight and consumed roughly
> the same amount of food in 1 d that ad libitum–fed animals consumed
> over 2 d(11). We hypothesized that the subjects with a self-reported
> ability to overeat or eat large amounts of food would maintain their
> body weight, and this hypothesis was supported: considering oneself
> a "big eater" was negatively associated with weight loss when sex
> was controlled for by partial correlation"
>
> Of course, I question myself about how the every other day feeding
> for rats or mice could be converted in humans.

Yes, considering the far shorter lifespans of mice and rats (roughly 2
and 4 years respectively as I recall) in comparison with humans,
EOD for rat should correspond to eating for 2-3 weeks and then
fasting for 2-3 weeks. This would mean that EOD feeding should be a
much more extreme regimen for rats than is EOD feeding for humans,
so this should be a reasonable explanation of the difference between
humans and rats on EOD diets (rats could maintain their ad lib calorie
intake and humans could not). Rather, I think the reason for the
result was the short length of time that the humans were on the diet.
The mice also likely lost weight at first until they got accommodated
to eating larger amounts at once. OTOH, mice and rats may have
proportionally bigger stomachs and digestive systems than humans because
evolutionary-wise their normal state is to go long periods without
food and then pig -out once it is found. I fully expect that young
humans would be able to adapt to eating more at one time if given
sufficient time to do so. This is even true for me and Kitty at our
ages. We have got used to eating larger amounts at one sitting. Kitty
has not lost much weight since we began (her low is 106 vs 108
near-term previously) and I expect to slowly gain back a little that I
have lost (I am down to 130 lbs - BMI 18.3 - on the morning after the
fasting day, a new low weight for me, at least since my teens).

> I've got other studies to read and I've also discovered new
> interesting ones

After I get MoreLife.org turned into a Wiki, you can originate an
article on intermittent feeding there :)

--Paul

On 07/29/2008 01:53 PM, François ROSE wrote:
> Hi Kitty and Paul
>
> I hope you are both well

[snipped text about Yahoo bouncing messages to the group, which seems
to have been only temporary.]

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

NOTE:
Before I make a couple of comments, I want to make it clear that this
subject of "theories of aging" is going far beyond the purposes of
this group (and beyond my interests as necessarily prioritized by my
limited amount of time), which is the practice of the current best
guesses at what should be life extending and life quality enhancing
actions. IOW, the purpose of MoreLife and this group is not *why*
certain actions will extend human lifespan, but rather which actions
are most likely to do that. Now I know very well that no one can fully
and most accurately decide *what* actions are best in any area unless
s/he also knows some of the "why". But once again because of limited
time one can never fully optimize one's approach to anything and, in
the end, must simply do one's best with the limited time available and
according with one's enjoyment preferences. In fact, I have read
extensively in the past 12 years about what may be the causes of
aging, and that likely includes reading some of the papers that
Francois is investigating (and most certainly equivalent ones). But
since my interest is not in understanding aging per se, but in simply
preventing the dysfunctions of aging, I forget most of the detail that
I read (I don't even keep files of papers like some people do) and
simply remember how what I read affects my personal practice decisions.

For these reasons, I have not read the links provided in order to make
any judgment on Francois' interpretation of them, with the exception
of where I have made specific comments on them.

> --- 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

I think that use of the words "fact" and "contradict" are not the best
English words to describe the situation.
First, there is a subtle but important difference between "evidence"
(even evidence with statistically high confidence levels) and what one
would generally call a "fact".
Second, new or different evidence in a separate experiment does not
*contradict* the evidence of a previous experiment, but rather
provides "opposing" evidence. Each experiment stands on its own as
valid evidence unless and until until someone shows that there was
some actual error in the experiment. "Contradict" is far too negative
a word, almost akin to saying that the author's of the new paper told
Masoro that he blundered (which they almost certainly did not do and
likely would not even think, IMO).

> 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)

Actually having done so little research on CR, does in fact make their
results less credible than the results of other researchers who have
done a lot of work in the field. Besides, the publication of Lynn and
Wallwork is not a research paper, but rather a long (2 pages) comment
without even an abstract, in the Issues and Opinions section of the
Journal. The fact that it is a comment is also why it has the exact
same title as the paper on which it is commenting. In analyzing
publications, you need to take into account the differences between
original research, review papers and comments.

> So the rate of living theory is possibly valid.

Actually the main use of the rate of living theory is to explain the
lifespan differences between species of various sizes. In that respect
and on average it is a fact of reality. It is only whether or not it
applies within a species and strain that is not fully proven. The most
interesting species, from a life extension pov, are the ones that are
exceptions to the rate of living theory. Bats, some birds and naked
mole rats are such interesting exceptions.

> 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.

The problem here is that while the "low CR" group may well have been
on severe CR in order to lose 15% of their body weight in 10 weeks,
after stabilizing at a BMI of 23.4, they were most certainly not on
any degree of CR at all! So it is no wonder that their core
temperature did not remain lowered. For mice and rats on long term
severe CR, I think that it is well proven that core temperature is
lower for the duration of the CR (often for the lifetime).

> 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

There are also experiments where a given species of ectotherm living
in a lower temperature environment was shown to live longer.

--Paul

PS. Consistent with my note at the start, I will not likely respond to
any additional posts on these subjects (rate of living, lower body
temperature, etc.) Others are welcome to continue the discussion if
they wish. However, sci.life-extension is a much better place for such
discussions of aging theories.

Hello all,

I purchased a pedometer about a month ago and would like to share my
thoughts about it with the group.

First, the pedometer is a very simple device where, by sensing
vibrations or movement, it will track the number of steps, jumps,
bounces, etc. the person wearing it participates in.

I first heard about the pedometer from Paul and Kitty on morelife.org
on the "physical activities" page.  I thought it might be a good idea
to be able to track my daily activity without actually having to
measure distance.  I was a bit discouraged at first, as I thought
that such a useful device would cost a bit of money.  In fact, I
purchased mine at Wal-Mart for $4.99 and I was surprised by the low
price!

Since I have owned the pedometer it is quite useful.  When I leave
the house to do errands, exercise, or run, I clip it on my waistline
or belt on my pants and forget about it.  When I get home I can look
at it and see how many "steps" I have done that day.  It is very
simple to use and interesting to see my activity level.

One interesting thing to note is I went jogging one morning and the
pedometer came to around 4500 steps.  This jogging took quite a bit
of patience on my part, as many of us know, jogging can be boring.
However, I noticed something interesting that I had never thought
of:  when I played basketball with my brother and weightlifting
friend a few days later, the basketball games came to 4700 steps, and
it seemed like it took less effort!  It was surprising to me that I
got so much activity during such a short time period.  I have since
decided to try to participate in more aerobic activities that I
actually *enjoy*, so as to likely get *more* exercise during that
time (the saying:  "time flies when you're having fun").

I found the pedometer at Wal-Mart in the sporting-goods section of
the store.

[The use of a pedometer was added to our Mental & Physical Activities page -
http://morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html - on 4/7/2008 in its own
subsection "Walking Goals Make a Difference". The price of the one purchased was
given as "(less than US$5.00) in WalMart". **Kitty]

Hi Paul and Kitty

I hope you are well

About Paul's prolix/sparing attitude

There was another Paul's attitude I didn't understand:

 it was in our posts exchange about acipimox and autophagy: first here from me  http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1774

[In the above Francois had placed the message number of his last post on that subject (1805) instead of his first (1774), so I corrected that error before releasing the message from the queue. --Paul]

I was a bit surprised (disappointed in fact) and I didn't understand why Paul didn't reply . He could have said "I still think that you are not right because .." or "I agree with your point" or a bit of both but he said nothing.

 At that day, I used to think that he didn't want to reply. Now I'm more inclined to think that Paul thought my answer was quite alright and didn't need a reply/comment. Maybe I'm wrong.

I made this post not in order to hurt anybody (especially not Paul)  but just because I was hurt by not understanding Paul's no comment.

François Rose
--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, François ROSE <fr.rose@...> wrote:
> >Paul wrote :
> >> On 03/22/2008 02:06 PM, Francois ROSE wrote:
<snip>
 
> >> in MoreLife: http://morelife.org/prescripdrugs/acipimox.html
> >> in point 6: http://pmid. us/15236765<snip> "We have
> >> observed that acipimox does not affect autophagy and biomarkers of
> >> aging if given to rats fed ad libitum (unpublished) ." "Present
> >> observation shows that treatment with the antilipolytic drug
> >> intensifies the anti-aging effects of submaximal calorie
> >> restrictions and makes them maximal." the first part of this
> >> sentence seems true
> >> but "makes them maximal" is false (I did the same remark in the
> >> following point) but the results are still impressive.
> >
> > I am not sure why you think the statement is false. There may be a
> > misunderstanding because of a possible ambiguity in the sentence,
> > which may be related to the fact that the study authors
> > are Italian but writing in English. What the statement is saying
> > (and what the results show) is that the addition of acipimox
> > to one-day-a-week fasting (ie the FWA group) caused the measured
> > physiological parameters of aging to be significantly the same
> > (within the range of experimental error)
> > at 24 months as for the every other day fed (EOD) group.
>
> I think I didn't read the paper enough carefully but with reading
> again I still don't agree with your latter statement:
>
> In fig.3 of http://morelife.org/references/full_papers/15236765.pdf
> (page 5), if the liver dolichol content is "significative different
> from previous treatment at the same age (t-test, P , 0:05)." they mark
> with a *. As I understand it, at the age of 24 months, the only
> significative difference is between AD Libitum Group and the three
> others (Once a Week Fasting Group ,Once a Week Fasting + Acipimox Group
> and Every other Day Fasting group): at the age of 24 months there is no
> significative difference between these 3 other groups !!!!!! So the
> fig. 2 of http://morelife.org/references/full_papers/12888255.pdf is
> giving a wrong idea since the three last groups show no significative
> difference and nevertheless it is written that "The effects of age,
> diet and drug were significant"!!!! They used the Tukey test to
> determine that there was no significative difference (at 24 months)
> between the last 3 groups (Once a Week Fasting Group ,Once a Week
> Fasting + Acipimox Group and Every other Day Fasting group). I didn't
> go at all into the calculation of a Tukey test but it seems that this
> test is very safe regarding the error but is also very conservative
> (that means that it is hard to prove that there is a significative
> difference between two averages)
>
> But though there is *no significative difference between these 3 groups*
> (Once a Week Fasting Group ,Once a Week Fasting + Acipimox Group and
> Every other Day Fasting group), there seems to be a trend: liver
> dolichol content is higher in Once a Week Fasting Group than in Once a
> Week Fasting + Acipimox Group which is even higher than in Every other
> Day Fasting group; so though it is not significative, it seems that
> Acipimox increases the effects of a small Caloric restriction but not
> maximizes them
> (I'm wondering if these two paragraphs I wrote are really
> clear !!!! )
>

<snip unrelated>
> >> By the way, it is false to say that the use of an antilipolytic
> >> agent maximizes the beneficial effects of mild caloric
> >> restriction on two parameters; since
> >> it only increases the beneficial effects (the every
> >> other day regimen without acipimox shows even higher benefits
> >> than the one day a week fasting +acipimox) but the results
> >> of the one day a week fasting + acipimox >>are
> >> still impressive.
> >
> > As I explained above, I don't think it is false when significance
> > considerations are taken into account - ie. the difference between
> > them is not experimentally significant. To see this look at both
> > the values and the error bars of 24 month values in figs 2 and 3
> > of PMID 15236765.
>
> I agree with you about fig.2: at the age of 24 months, Fig 2 shows a
> significative difference between Once a Week Fasting Group and the
> two
> others but not between Once a Week Fasting + Acipimox Group and Every
> other Day Fasting group.
>
> But as I wrote above (maybe in a confusing style !!!!), in fig 3 of
> PMID 15236765, there is no significative difference (at the age of 24
> months) between the 3 groups (Once a Week Fasting Group ,Once a Week
> Fasting + Acipimox Group and Every other Day Fasting group); so fig 3
> doesn't show a significative interest for acipimox or even for a more
> severe caloric restriction compared to a small CR!!!!
> So if you take the significative point of view, regarding dolichol,
> there is no difference between the three fasting groups
> And if you don't take the significative point of view and if you
> look at the value of dolichol content, adding Acipimox increases the
> effect of a little CR but not maximizes it.
>

Hi Jack and Paul

I hope you are well

This is a very enlightning exchange.

[I am inserting the text to which your "above" refers (in your next
sentence below) because it is best for all messages to be as
self-contained as possible, and readers will need to have the text to
which you refer right in front of them when they read your comments
about it. --Paul]


> [It is important to point out that my method of gaining and having
> information does not and never has included having an encyclopedic
> knowledge of any subject area. Rather early on in my learning, I
> decided to never memorize, but instead to specialize on fundamental
> understandings of and interrelationships between general concepts and
> specific data, and also on methods of acquiring details from the
> literature. This means that when I am asked a question, except for the
> simplest kind, it is rare that I can provide an answer "in two
> seconds". I too must "do the research and find out for [my]self". Now
> it may be easier, and faster, for me to do such research than for the
> questioner. However, a major reason why I want the questioner to "do
> the research and find out for [hir]self" is because I want hir to
> learn how to do such research in an effective and efficient manner. It
> is exactly like the Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed
> him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
> --Paul]


What Paul has written above explains some of his attitude I didn't
understand.

Paul was often very prolix in his explanations/replies and sometimes
very sparing in his answers and I didn't understand why. Moreover I
couldn't find what makes this change happened. Moreover this change is
(I don't know how to say it in english) quite a change and sometimes
happens very quickly (according to my memories) and it has puzzled me a
while. It is probably due to Paul's extrem frankness and openess. Extrem
openess that he can withdraw in a blink if he is not confident in his
interlocutor (and he is in his right).

What I understand from Jack's post is that he has the same problem as I
and that he's solved this problem by not asking.

This is possibly one reason for the lack of replies at yahoo more life.
As Jack has stated,

> The point being is I do not bother asking a question, if
> I really want to know the answer I would spend time researching it.
<snip>
> I think Paul and Kitty are very smart people and I [appreciate] their
> effort and do learn from them. I know I do not support them enough
> for the value I [receive], but will rectify some of that shortly.


I feel mysef also a bit like that. So in order not to bother with asking
for big fishes from Paul, we're fishing our little fishes on our own.

Maybe the new policy of the group can improve that

Have a nice day

François

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, François ROSE <fr.rose@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Oli
>
> Thanks for this report about your diet.
>
> Possible spelling mistake: Poplicosanol (sic) - 6mg

You're right, that was supposed to read Policosanol. Thanks, I've
fixed that error now.

BTW, FYI policosanol is one of those supplements I would not bother
taking if I had to take them separately. The main reason I take it is
because I can add it to my customcapsule mix at almost no cost. The
main reason it is so cheap is because 6mg is such a small amount. If I
would buy a policosanol supplement separately containing 6mg of
policosanol per capsule it would cost much more because most of the
capsule would consist of a filler and also because I'd have to pay for
an additional bottle and to ship all the extra weight. 6mg of
policosanol added to my customcapsule mix on the other hand takes
almost no room in the capsule and there is no need to add a filler
(the capsule already contains plenty of ingredients to fill it up) so
it comes out very cheap and convenient since there's no need to take
any extra capsules.

The main benefit I'm interested in, with respect to the policosanol,
is that it may increase HDL cholesterol, and mine isn't as high as I'd
like it to be. Also of importance is that policosanol has been shown
to be virtually free of side effects and non toxic in animal studies
in doses more than 1000 times higher than that normally used in
humans. The dose I take is also quite moderate, AFAIK most human
studies use doses in the range of 5-20mg.

> I read in sle here: http://tinyurl.com/6opk69 that you've changed your
> intake of creatine up to 6g /day
> However it is written 3g/day in your file!!

After making that statement I did some more thinking over this and
reversed my decision to up my dose to 6g per day. I did so before
ordering more of the custom whey protein mixture I take that contains
the creatine I take. So I ended up never increasing my dose at all.
Even though creatine is a relatively cheap supplement I still do not
think the potential benefits from taking a higher dose outweigh the
added cost and the potential negative effects for me. There are
several reasons for this.

The concentration of creatine in the blood in humans has been reported
to be very low. About 95% of the creatine in humans is found in
skeletal muscle, the remaining 5% is found in the brain, liver,
kidney, and testes. Creatine is transported to these tissues by the
creatine transporter. The creatine transporter serves to distribute
creatine throughout the body, but research suggests that once creatine
is intracellular, it appears to be locked in the muscle, being unable
to diffuse out or diffusing out at an extremely slow rate. This is why
studies on humans show a rapid increase in intramuscular creatine
stores in response to high dose creatine supplementation with a
saturation in intramusclar stores within a few days. The saturation
has been hypotethized to be caused by downregulation of creatine
transporter number or function.

The main route of degradation of creatine in the body is by it's
degradation to creatinine which is then eliminated by the kidneys. In
a 70kg human with a total creatine pool of approximately 120g this
appears at a rate of approximately 2g of creatine per day. With
respect to this the authors of http://pmid.us/12793840 stated the
following:

"Given a half-life of 40 days and an upper limit of 160 mmol/kg dry
mass (20 g/kg dry mass), then about 2.5–3 g/day will be lost and
therefore ingesting 2–3 g/day may be sufficient to maintain saturated
muscle stores."

In line with this research has shown that after initially giving
humans 20g of creatine a day for 5-6 days muscle creatine stores
become saturated and can be maintained thereafter by supplementation
of only 2g of creatine daily in healthy humans http://pmid.us/8828669
http://pmid.us/12660409 . Given that 95% of creatine is found in
muscle tissues and that creatine is transported to the brain, liver,
kidney, and testes by the creatine receptor, the same transporter
responsible for transporting it into muscle tissue, it seems logical
to me that once muscle tissue creatine stores are saturated the
tissues of the brain, liver, kidney, and testes are likely to be
saturated also. Therefore I do not think there will be any significant
additional benefits from taking a dose of creatine that is higher than
that needed to saturate intramuscular stores. Large doses beyond that
needed to saturate intramuscular stores would most likely just
contribute to elevating blood levels of creatine. And all the major
benefits of creatine of which I am aware come from higher levels of
intracellular creatine not that of creatine circulating in the blood.
Based on all this I think taking any more creatine than that needed to
saturate intramuscular creatine stores is most likely a waste of
money. Given that 2-3g of creatine appears to be enough to saturate
and maintain intramuscular creatine stores, and based on the fact that
I already get approximately 1g of creatine daily from my diet (from
meat and fish), I think taking an additional 3g daily as a supplement
should be plenty for me to keep my creatine stores saturated.

I would also like to point out that people differ in their response to
creatine supplementation. Increase in intramuscular creatine stores is
usually accompanied by an increase in intracellular water content. As
a result of this it is quite common for people to quickly gain 1-2kg
of weight when loading on creatine, most of it of course being
intramuscular water. However this response is very individual and
while some people experience such weight gains in response to creatine
supplementation, others do not, or experience a much milder weight
gain. The explanation for this difference in response between
different individuals has been proposed to be that some people may
have higher creatine levels to start with and thus may already be
close to having saturated stores. Such individuals will not experience
as much of an increase in intracellular creatine and the accompanying
water gain. I appear to be one of those people. A few times in the
past I have loaded up on creatine (by taking 20g a day for a few days
before going on a maintenance dose), and so has Egill, my twin
brother, but neither of us has ever experienced any weight gain as a
result from this despite monitoring our weight closely. This suggests
that perhaps our stores are close to being saturated to begin with.
Possible reasons for this might be that we are already producing
plenty of creatine endogenously (creatine is synthesized in the liver,
kidney and pancreas), that we already get sufficient amounts of it
from our diet, or that we have high number of creatine transporters in
our muscles. In any case this is another reason I think that for me
taking more than 3 grams daily is probably a waste of money. Of course
if I had more money and/or were much older I might take a higher dose.

BTW much of the factual information in the above writing on creatine
was taken from the full text articles of http://pmid.us/18022765 and
http://pmid.us/12793840 . Unfortunately neither of these has a free
full text access, but for those interested here is a good one I
recommend that does http://pmid.us/11356982 .

On 07/28/2008 11:50 PM, tlbrabham wrote:
> --- 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

Since aspirin is so important to be able to tolerate and use for various
purposes, I strongly suggest that you read some of the 221 hits on
PubMed garnered by the search words "aspirin desensitization".
Searching with the above as a phrase (ie. placed within quotes in the
PubMed search box) even gives 70 hits.

It is my understanding that most non-protein chemical sensitivities
can be eliminated by starting with minute doses and ramping up very
slowly giving the body time to rid itself from any intolerance.

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...>
wrote:
>
> This evening I uploaded a new article to the Self-Sovereign
> Individual Project's Focus on Freedom section - "Getting to the
> Bottom of the US Economic Woes" It can be seen among the other many
> titles on the Focus Index page - http://selfsip.org/focus/
<http://selfsip.org/focus/>
> As I mention at the bottom of this newest article, it was first
> published 7/31 on OpEdNews.com (OEN), because it started off as a
> comment to another article there.
>
> My comments at the OEN website are rarely just a few sentences, some
> nearing the length of my shorter articles
> (http://www.opednews.com/author/author6434.html
> <http://www.opednews.com/author/author6434.html>    [B-)])  If
> solving the problem at the root of the societal mess (not just in
> the US but virtually everywhere) was so easy, I and Paul would have
> no reason to write as much as we do at SelfSIP.org because the
> solutions would have been realized decades, if not centuries,  ago.
> But such is not the case and most individuals continue to want to
> apply band-aids and props to the already heavily patched system in
> the US (among the best of what exists, which is not saying a lot for
> it), rather than examining it at its roots and analyzing its basis
> for consistency with reality. I repeat this general theme in most of
> what I write at OpEdNews.com because there I am definitely not
> "preaching to the choir", but rather I am in the midst of
> individuals most of whom sincerely want a better world but seek
> mostly more - but maybe different - government measures as
> solutions to the problems that have been caused by government in the
> first place.....
> But read the new article, and those qualified to post are urged to
> bring their comments forward here. Anyone who registers at OEN can
> comment on articles there for the 14 days following an article's
> publication.
>
> Included in today's upload is an update to the Supporting page
<http://morelife.org> - always
> a pleasant task  [:)]
>
> **Kitty

I could not find the article/post of the above subject, but did come
across your post/article about GPS. That was very interesting from
a historical view point. I and other use to employ "expensive
surveyors" to run EDN equip ect, now with GPS I can teach some person
who is paid $6.00 an hour to run GPS. They have no idea of what the
are doing or why, we  teach them when the little arrows on the screen
come together you are where you are suppost to be. Of course these
cost savings are passed on to my clients.

Jack Henderson

[The articles in the Focus on Freedom section are in order of publication - the
most recent are at the bottom of the list. A red indication of "New mm/dd/yyyy"
is printed after the brief description on the ones that have been added in the
past 6 or 8 months.

Also, the newest Focus articles are listed directly on the MoreLife.org home
page, below the main Self-Sovereign Individual Project Link and those for the
Natural Social Contract and the the essays on Social Preferencing and Social
Ordering Technologies - all of which is under the red heading "Liberty: The
Primary Social Requirement for Life" **Kitty]

[Note: Rather than waiting a week, I am responding to this
immediately, and by moderator comment before posting, because I think
it is important to set the record straight on one particular comment
from Jack (see below). --Paul]


--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Baumgartner" <gfbyhgfb@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Gary, I learned a long time ago I do not know enough to even ask a
> > question on this site.
> >
> > Jack Henderson
>
> Okay, I searched for your posts to this group and looked at your
> profile to get an initial idea of your background, interests and
> interactions with the group and Paul and Kitty.
>
> It appears that you have provided value to Paul and Kitty in ways
> outside the group, and also that your posts indicating interest
> and/or agreement are accepted and valued.
>
> I can't tell much about your background, but for the moment will
> keep in mind research on changes in learning styles with aging
> (there's a lot here I suddenly want to say about the applicability
> and non-applicability of research, to reassure you that I won't
> impose a model on you, an individual --- and also something snipped
> above about my learning style factors in, but I'll leave that part
> for later and this note to remind me).
>
> So as a start, you could briefly let us know what you know, that we
> could leverage (e.g. by relating what we say to it, or not
> explaining things that you likely already know).
>
> And then what more specific topics would you like to be able to ask
> questions in? Maybe someone here knows a good resource. E.g. to
> learn something in Physics, I ask a Physicist and tell them I have
> what's called "mathematical maturity" so that they can reject the
> many Physics books aimed at an audience that considers mathematics a
> necessary evil, and then also tell them the specific Physics I
> already know, so that they can try to find a book closest to my
> dream book: "Some intuition behind Cosmology for non-research
> Mathematicians who know some Quantum Mechanics but don't need to do
> research in Cosmology."

Gary, I will proberly get some flack about not following the posting
protocal, but I was just being facetious about not knowing enough to
ask a question.
  The issue here is like being in the work place and
you ask your associate "what is the subsurface volicity of the upper
Texas gulf coast and he knowing the answer, says go do the research
and find out yourself. Sure I could have gone and researched the
question for hours, when he could have told me in two seconds.
I know this how Paul and Kitty equate value for value and I agree
with them. The point being is I do not bother asking a question, if
I really want to know the answer I would spend time researching it.
In 99% of the time I do not care about the answer that much.
I think Paul and Kitty are very smart people and I appricate their
effort and do learn from them. I know I do not support them enough
for the value I recieve, but will rectify some of that shortly.

Jack Henderson

[It is important to point out that my method of gaining and having
information does not and never has included having an encyclopedic
knowledge of any subject area. Rather early on in my learning, I
decided to never memorize, but instead to specialize on fundamental
understandings of and interrelationships between general concepts and
specific data, and also on methods of acquiring details from the
literature. This means that when I am asked a question, except for the
simplest kind, it is rare that I can provide an answer "in two
seconds". I too must "do the research and find out for [my]self". Now
it may be easier, and faster, for me to do such research than for the
questioner. However, a major reason why I want the questioner to "do
the research and find out for [hir]self" is because I want hir to
learn how to do such research in an effective and efficient manner. It
is exactly like the Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed
him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:

<snip>
> Included in today's upload is an update to the Supporting page
<http://morelife.org>
<snip>

Was that meant to be a direct link to the supporting page?

[When Paul was doing his editing review of my message in the queue he
noted to me that I had not put in any link in regards to this part of
the message. I was working on something else and just told him to make
it to the front page. When I later looked at what he did I hesitated
and was going to insert my typical comment about how everything is
accessible via the front page. I didn't do that but just let the link
stand as it was, from the words "Supporting page" (visible that way in
html email).

The portion of the MoreLife.org home page that goes to the Supporting
page is right below "We are proud to be value traders and not
altruists" - the link that states "See Value for Value". In essence,
the home page serves as an index page for the Supporting page. I
almost always put a link to a section's index page rather than a
particular subpage newly created or updated so that readers will have
the opportunity to see all the other related material available.
**Kitty]

[Effectively the error (difference from what is the Internet
"standard" for a link) occurred because we were newly using HTML mode
for composing group messages. If we had been using the previous text
mode then the above sentence would have been written as:

"Included in today's upload is an update to the Supporting page
accessible from home page <http://morelife.org> (click on 'Value for
Value') or from the footer text of any other page of the website"

Note that immediately to the right of that link on the home page is a
red note showing when the page was last updated. Kitty very diligently
always does this on its index page link every time that she has made
more than a trivial correction to a page. Also updated for *any*
change to a page is the date it was last modified. --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Over the last few decades, I have increasingly noticed, first a trend,
> but more recently an avalanche of media depictions/descriptions of
> various actions/events in nature, both animate and inanimate, as having
> human purposes, intents, desires, thoughts, feelings and reasons. The
> entire spectrum of such occurrences and the negative effects they have
> is beyond the scope of this small note, which will only deal with one
> example of such anthropomorphizing of the evolutionary processes.

Because of the counter-intuitiveness of evolution to most people, and
its fundamental importance to biology (as well as its emerging
importance to other areas not as well known), I agree as strongly as
saying that a world where those who understand evolution always avoid
anthropomorphizing terminology when discussing it is probably a better
one (warning: I suspect "better one" could add to fuzzy thinking about
Self-SIP ideas).

I recommend "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett to those still
uncomfortable with evolution. It's directed at a lay audience, but the
author can think deeply and precisely. Anyone who tries or has tried
to read it, please let me know your experience of it (including some
of your background), so I can fine-tune who I recommend it to (if
necessary, see my recent post "Asking initial questions" for a *bit*
more on this).

> What
> is most negatively notable here is that my example comes not from the
> words of a journalist who is trying to explain nature to an audience
> who s/he thinks are effectively children, but rather from the words
> of a scientist being quoted for an article about his research.

And if the researcher also teaches, then it is explicitly part of
their job to adapt their presentation in courses, and they should be
able to notice and be aware that different audiences require different
presentations. And I say that as someone who knows (and agrees) that
other faculty are not expected to be as good at teaching as me and my
teaching-only colleagues.

> My example is taken from an interesting article in today's email
> edition of ScienceDaily:
>
> "How Some Bacteria May Steal Iron From Their Human Hosts"
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731140223.htm
<snip: discussion based on this example>

I left in the title of the article, because some of you might
understand when I say I had an "oh no, not another article about iron
and health" reaction, momentary dread, and then amusement when I
realized why and that this is not in the usual context.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@...> wrote:
<snip>
> Gary, I learned a long time ago I do not know enough to even ask a
> question on this site.
>
> Jack Henderson

Okay, I searched for your posts to this group and looked at your
profile to get an initial idea of your background, interests and
interactions with the group and Paul and Kitty.

It appears that you have provided value to Paul and Kitty in ways
outside the group, and also that your posts indicating interest and/or
agreement are accepted and valued.

I can't tell much about your background, but for the moment will keep
in mind research on changes in learning styles with aging (there's
a lot here I suddenly want to say about the applicability and
non-applicability of research, to reassure you that I won't impose a
model on you, an individual --- and also something snipped above about
my learning style factors in, but I'll leave that part for later and
this note to remind me).

So as a start, you could briefly let us know what you know, that we
could leverage (e.g. by relating what we say to it, or not explaining
things that you likely already know).

And then what more specific topics would you like to be able to ask
questions in? Maybe someone here knows a good resource. E.g. to learn
something in Physics, I ask a Physicist and tell them I have what's
called "mathematical maturity" so that they can reject the many
Physics books aimed at an audience that considers mathematics a
necessary evil, and then also tell them the specific Physics I already
know, so that they can try to find a book closest to my dream book:
"Some intuition behind Cosmology for non-research Mathematicians who
know some Quantum Mechanics but don't need to do research in Cosmology."

"It's amazing that the bacteria could learn to extract iron from their environment in this way," Doyle says. "We went into these experiments with no idea that this mechanism existed. But then, bacteria have to be creative to survive in some very hostile environments; and they've had maybe 3.5 billion years to figure it out." (Bolding mine)

1. A bacterium may be able to do some things that could reasonably be called learning, but creating a new enzyme to extract iron in specific molecular forms is certainly not one of them. Nor is this something that can be done by a collection of bacteria operating in a cooperative fashion (as bacteria can do when they form biofilms). Rather, the creation of such an enzyme can only occur by the process of evolution operating on the bacterial genome over the course of many generations of bacteria lives.
   
2. As opposed to learning, which I will agree can have a bacterial counterpart, it is hard to even imagine any bacterial individual or cooperative action or process which could reasonably be called "be[ing] creative". Once again Doyle is distorting his reference to the processes of evolution which have made the bacterial genome able to live in hostile environments and perhaps even change sufficiently quickly for the genome to perpetuated itself in an environment  that is rapidly changing in hostility. As an aside, even the use of the word "hostile" is somewhat anthropomorphic, since a bacterium's environment (apart from other lifeforms) clearly can have no intention to harm a it. So a better word to replace "hostile" would be "extreme", but even there what is extreme to a human may be only commonplace or even healthy for a bacterium.
   
3. Finally the pièce de ré·sis·tance, a group of bacteria are collectively able "to figure it out" to thoughtfully determine their molecular needs, to detect such molecules in the environment, to design an enzyme to metabolize such molecules and to modify their DNA to express such an enzyme when required. Note that these are functions that humans cannot yet do in any complete, consistent and competent manner. If humans could then their lifespans would already be unbounded, and Doyle would not have needed to do his research. Once again, there is no figuring out. There is only mindless, purposely evolutionary process that cause the genome to gain such enzymes as are needed for perpetuation of itself through the medium of its transient hosts. The genomes of those lifeforms for which such necessary enzymes were not created by evolutionary processes, simply do not exist any longer.

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Baumgartner" <gfbyhgfb@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@> wrote:
> >
> > It may take a week or so to get to it, but I read every post.
> >
> > Jack
>
> I too read every post.
>
> It usually takes me seconds to skim, extract and abstract the facts
> and arguments. There is much more to say on this, but now I want most
> readers to forget that, because I have good evidence that those
> abilities are rare (though less so here since I don't yet have as good
> an understanding of the audience of this group as I (and Paul and
> Kitty) would like). So lurkers, skip to my comments below on Paul's
> comments.
>
> > [Thanks Jack, for letting us know that you are still with us. You have
> > been a member and a supporter for many years, so I include you also
> > among the "2 dozen at most". Still, do you never have any interesting or
> > informative comment that you could usefully make? Remember, what I have
> > said many times. If you have a thoughtful question then it is most
> > likely that others have a similar one and you would be helping them by
> > performing the small chore of asking it (and they would in turn be more
> > likely to return the help some other time). Similarly if you have a
> > interesting alternative or variant thought on something that is posted.
> > I find it unimaginable that I and the few commenters have exhausted all
> > the reasonable points of view and interesting related ideas on every
> > subject being discussed here. --Paul]
>
>
> Let me reinforce this, from the point of view of a long-time teacher
> of Math and currently Senior Lecturer in Computer Science at the
> University of Toronto (that title may mean little or even the wrong
> thing to most people outside U of T: it's the `tenured' version of an
> undergraduate teaching non-research stream at U of T).
>
> Paul's reaction to the amount of silence immediately makes me think of
> my pleas for more questions in lecture. Students constantly think
> they're asking me questions in private that other students wouldn't
> benefit from. Those exact same questions are often being asked in
> private by other students! And I have the experience to know that when
> not they are going unasked by others even in private, or other
> students can't even formulate the question and would benefit from
> hearing it!
>
> Furthermore, students (and the best ones are often the most hesitant),
> are often trying to do my job for me: they don't realize that I can
> gauge better than them my audience (at this point), and whether and
> how to incorporate the question for the benefit of the group.
>
> Now, I don't know if that's sufficiently different enough to encourage
> a lurker who wasn't encouraged enough by Paul's encouragement, but I
> think it was worth a try. I and the moderators of the group will learn
> by the effects.
>
> I will model some of the behaviour by making this good faith attempt
> and letting the moderators do their thing. What might not be clear is
> that I've also tried to relax some of my care and not use as much of
> my expert communication abilities, putting more responsibility than
> usual in their hands. So lurkers, don't let my postings add to any
> intimidation you feel from the high level of the moderators' posts.
> And even I am somewhat "afraid" to post and take the moderators at
> their word, and also guess the level of the lurkers. In fact my first
> post got lost somewhere, and from memory (at least of the conditions
> under which I allowed myself to post it) might have been a much better
> model of a post where I put more onus on the moderators and group to
> understand me. In fact privately I asked for it back so I could polish
> it, partially out of embarassment, but it appears to be gone.
>
> [As an aside to Paul and Kitty, relevant to this post and some private
> communication that I haven't taken the time to elaborate on for the
> group: I used the term "hypomania" as a kind of Shibboleth, am going
> to bed now, and thanks.]
>
> Gary Baumgartner
>
> [It is good to have you "delurked". --Paul]

Gary, I learned a long time ago I do not know enough to even ask a
question on this site.

Jack Henderson

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <Henderson-J@...> wrote:
>
> It may take a week or so to get to it, but I read every post.
>
> Jack

I too read every post.

It usually takes me seconds to skim, extract and abstract the facts
and arguments. There is much more to say on this, but now I want most
readers to forget that, because I have good evidence that those
abilities are rare (though less so here since I don't yet have as good
an understanding of the audience of this group as I (and Paul and
Kitty) would like). So lurkers, skip to my comments below on Paul's
comments.

> [Thanks Jack, for letting us know that you are still with us. You have
> been a member and a supporter for many years, so I include you also
> among the "2 dozen at most". Still, do you never have any interesting or
> informative comment that you could usefully make? Remember, what I have
> said many times. If you have a thoughtful question then it is most
> likely that others have a similar one and you would be helping them by
> performing the small chore of asking it (and they would in turn be more
> likely to return the help some other time). Similarly if you have a
> interesting alternative or variant thought on something that is posted.
> I find it unimaginable that I and the few commenters have exhausted all
> the reasonable points of view and interesting related ideas on every
> subject being discussed here. --Paul]


Let me reinforce this, from the point of view of a long-time teacher
of Math and currently Senior Lecturer in Computer Science at the
University of Toronto (that title may mean little or even the wrong
thing to most people outside U of T: it's the `tenured' version of an
undergraduate teaching non-research stream at U of T).

Paul's reaction to the amount of silence immediately makes me think of
my pleas for more questions in lecture. Students constantly think
they're asking me questions in private that other students wouldn't
benefit from. Those exact same questions are often being asked in
private by other students! And I have the experience to know that when
not they are going unasked by others even in private, or other
students can't even formulate the question and would benefit from
hearing it!

Furthermore, students (and the best ones are often the most hesitant),
are often trying to do my job for me: they don't realize that I can
gauge better than them my audience (at this point), and whether and
how to incorporate the question for the benefit of the group.

Now, I don't know if that's sufficiently different enough to encourage
a lurker who wasn't encouraged enough by Paul's encouragement, but I
think it was worth a try. I and the moderators of the group will learn
by the effects.

I will model some of the behaviour by making this good faith attempt
and letting the moderators do their thing. What might not be clear is
that I've also tried to relax some of my care and not use as much of
my expert communication abilities, putting more responsibility than
usual in their hands. So lurkers, don't let my postings add to any
intimidation you feel from the high level of the moderators' posts.
And even I am somewhat "afraid" to post and take the moderators at
their word, and also guess the level of the lurkers. In fact my first
post got lost somewhere, and from memory (at least of the conditions
under which I allowed myself to post it) might have been a much better
model of a post where I put more onus on the moderators and group to
understand me. In fact privately I asked for it back so I could polish
it, partially out of embarassment, but it appears to be gone.

[As an aside to Paul and Kitty, relevant to this post and some private
communication that I haven't taken the time to elaborate on for the
group: I used the term "hypomania" as a kind of Shibboleth, am going
to bed now, and thanks.]

Gary Baumgartner

[It is good to have you "delurked". --Paul]

Hi Oli

Thanks for this report about your diet.

Possible spelling mistake: Poplicosanol (sic) - 6mg

I read in sle here: http://tinyurl.com/6opk69 that you've changed your
intake of creatine up to 6g /day
However it is written 3g/day in your file!!

François Rose

The main purpose of this reply was to see if the enabling of HTML is
also resulting in better formatted replies. A similar reply was first
done in Rich Text format at the group website, but the result in the
queue had the HTML portion removed leaving only the plain text. We had
already found out that a reply to a previous text message even when
using Rich Text format for the reply still ended up as plain text
only. However, this reply is also sitting here in the queue only in
plain text form, even though I used HTML formatting in my email on a
message that I received in HTML format. Finally, I had Kitty send a
new test message from her email program using HTML format and that one
also appeared in the queue as just plain text.

The result of all this is that Yahoo HTML handling appears to have
problems, which may be related to the fact that HTML has always been
disabled for this group until recently. For the moment HTML is only
available for messages sent from the website and composed using the
Rich Text Editor. Sorry about that.

I will try to find out from Yahoo if this situation can be fixed, but
groups support is very poor, so I am not confident about any quick
resolution.

I made a small correction of a typo in the original message below.

--Paul

On 07/31/2008 06:22 PM, Paul Antonik Wakfer wrote:
> In an effort to make message composition, posting and replying on this
> group as easy as possible, HTML message formatting has been re-enabled
> effective immediately *for a test period of time*. It was originally
> removed for two reasons:
>
>    1. Some people only want to receive text mode formatting and would
>       not then see any of the special formatting that is in the
>       message and may be a necessary part of the full information
>       contents/meaning.
>    2. In Moderator edit mode an HTML message appears in two separate
>       boxes, one for pure text and the other with all the HTML code
>       around the text. This required the moderators to put comments
>       separately in each of the two boxes, which was very time
>       consuming, particularly if the message was complex and had
>       complex HTML.
>
> There have now been two changes that make the enabling of HTML now
> more reasonable for this group.
>
>    1. On the message composition screen at the group website there is
>       now a Rich-Text Editor entry m ode (which I am using for this
>       message.
>    2. There now are only occasional, generally small editorial
>       comments added to messages by moderators before a message is
>       posted, which should not be too difficult for us to duplicate in
>       the two boxes (and the extra effort will help to /regulate and
>       minimize / our usage of this internal commenting mode :).
>
> The result of this is that all messages that are sent to the group
> using HTML mode (pretty standard with most people) now should be able
> to be kept in and sent out in the same format. This may enable better
> automatic wrapping of lines (which is the chief formatting problem).
> However, whether or not the line wrapping works well may depend on the
> email applications that people are using to send new and reply
> messages. HTML mode should also make tables much easier to format and
> to post (but note that fixed width font such as Courier is always best
> to use for such tables).
>
> As stated above this change is only in test mode to start with, until
> we see how it works out. We also do not what a lot of extra /baggage/
> with the HTML messages

"What" above should clearly be "want".

> so please *do not use backgrounds* in your messages. And also *do not
> send any attachments* (which had to also be enabled at the same time
> for the group). Files and photos should be put in their respective
> group sections, not in messages.
>
> --Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Max Watt" <maxwatt2002@...> wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Floyd Jr" <fallaxus@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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).

This looks stronger than what Paul abstracted about the situation
below (though not necessarily stronger than what he thinks). Paul also
mentioned causality. The presentation of information below about the
adenovirus emphasized (though not exclusively) the causality.

The above could also cover discrimination upon rational consideration
of statistical probabilities, e.g. if certain groups for non-causal
reasons (e.g. even such "unfair" reasons as the effects on the group
of previous irrational discrimination against it) can be determined to
be *currently on average* meaningfully different, and the expected
impact (probability X meaning of the difference) outweighs other
considerations (including ones that are more individual and applicable
to the interaction, but may be prohibitively expensive in terms of
resources (i.e. time, accuracy, etc)).

So I'm interested in a few things:

Did the discussion include this, and how did that impact the discussion?

What do people think of presenting both components (causality and
freedom to employ rational predictive power) when believing, e.g.,
that the second is sufficient, in order to reach agreement on a
specific case (e.g. obesity, leaving aside for the moment the virus
issue)?

Properly applied, the conjunction (i.e. the "and") won't move people
to restrict freedom except in cases they would have already. It's also
not contradictory in intent (this actually implies the first sentence
about applicability, but is not equivalent to it: in fact it's the
same distinction between correlation and causality that I've brought
up, or in logic and philosophy it's the issues around "relevance",
"material implication", "extension", "intention", etc).

On the other hand, some of you might believe that the freedom aspect
is a more important goal, and (assuming that it's more difficult to
accept than the combination) the increased benefits of its acceptance
outweigh the decreased chances that it will be accepted.

I suspect that Paul's attitude to this can be determined from his
selfsip writing, so right now I'm *using* an approach related to the
above "combined" approach. I'm unlikely to post right now with more
explicit and careful connections to selfsip, but with less investment
have perhaps added to the discussion in a way consistent with and
beneficial to that eventual goal. So I'm also interested in what
members of the group think about that kind of posting and interaction
within this group.

Gary Baumgartner

> > 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
> >
>
> Exposure to adenovirus-36 (Ad-36) apparently is a cause of obesity.
> One could be no more be held accountable for the results of
> inadvertent exposure to such a virus than for such exposure to any
> other virus, such as Epstein-Barr or mononucleosis, or for the color
> of one's hair or skin.  (Of course failure to take preventative
> meansures where such were possible or known to exist, or to avail
> oneself of treatment of the condition if such were possible is
> something for which one would be responsible.)
>
> The point is that at least some cases of obesity may truly be beyond
> an individual's control.  I've heard it estimated that between 10 and
> 20 per cent of cases of morbid obesity may be due to a virus.
> Shouldn't such individuals be treated differently than those who are
> guilty of willful gluttony?
>
> Exposure to undesirable dietary components as a child can result in
> epigenetic changes that also lead to obesity as an adult.  High
> fructose corn syrup in so many convenience foods coud be an example of
> such a slow-acting toxin.  (Would the willful inclusion of such
> substances by a manufacturer when their effect is scientifically
> proven and known, be considered a criminal act?  Would social
> preferencing alone be sufficient to "punish" such behavior?)
>
> Certainly it is unfair to be discriminate against all obese people,
> specifically those who were ifected by a virus, or exposed to
> environmental toxins they had not hte knowlege or the means to avoid.
> But then again, life is often unfair.....
>
> Max Watt (Richard Kaufman)
>
> > [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 07/26/2008 02:58 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- 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.

The above would be better written "What consistently follows is ...".
"Rational" and "consistent" are not identical concepts. Consistency is
only one part of rational action. Inconsistency implies irrationality,
but irrationality does not imply inconsistency, since there are many
other ways to be irrational which are not related to consistency or
inconsistency.


> This "legal protection*, if
> enacted, could severly limit the number of criteria upon which an
> employer could base a rational hiring decision.

The problem with your statement above, lies in the definition of
"*rational* hiring decision" and who decides whether or not any
decision/action is rational. Most everyone thinks that hir
decisions/actions are rational, else s/he would not make/take them.
And, furthermore, since there is no objective definition of rational,
such a person cannot be logically shown to be irrational. In fact,
the irrationality of someone's decision/action can ultimately only be
determined and admitted by hirself, perhaps after seeing that such
decision/action did not optimally increase hir lifetime happiness. But
even then, there is an important difference between an innocent error
and an evasion, whether consciously willful or merely subconscious
habit. Therefore current laws already "severly (sic) limit the number
of criteria upon which an employer [can] base a rational hiring
decision". This is because some bureaucrat, legislator or group of
them has decided which choices/actions are rational and which are not,
totally against the reality-based entitlement of an employer, to have
total control over just who and who not s/he wishes to contract with
for work related to the employer's property.


> I don't want *my*
> decision criteria limited by any laws.  I would guess that many
> others might feel the same.

Here you did not place "rational" in front of "decision criteria",
presumably because you think that all your decisions will be rational.
But then you must be prepared to extend that same consideration to
others, who equally think that their own decision criteria are rational.
They are part of the "many others [who] feel the same". This is what
equality of entitlements under a social contract is all about.


> 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.

The problem here (again like the determination of what is and is not
rational) is that once it has been accepted that what is and is not
"prejudice" is objectively verifiable, and furthermore that prejudicial
actions must be forbidden under penalty of the legal use of force
against whoever is judged to have use prejudice, the
philosophical/political door is wide open to make the same kind of
decision about any general type of action that anyone decides to take,
whether or not such action is the Effective Cause of Responsible Harm
to another person. See the Natural Social Contract and its annotations
for my highly crucial definitions of "Effective Cause" -
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#effective_cause and "Responsible
Harm" - http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#responsible_harm

So you will be fighting a losing battle to prevent any legislation
forbidding discrimination against obese people, if you accept/endorse
the forbidding of *any* kind of "prejudice". A prejudiced employer can
only be shown (and will only learn) that s/he has made a wrong decision
in hiring someone by seeing that such person performs better than the
one that s/he did hire. The realization that one's action has not
optimally increased one's lifetime happiness is ultimately the *only*
consequence that will convince anyone that hir action was irrational,
and thus potentially alter hir future decisions, or at least those of
onlookers.

--Paul

>  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

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Floyd Jr" <fallaxus@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
>

Exposure to adenovirus-36 (Ad-36) apparently is a cause of obesity.
One could be no more be held accountable for the results of
inadvertent exposure to such a virus than for such exposure to any
other virus, such as Epstein-Barr or mononucleosis, or for the color
of one's hair or skin.  (Of course failure to take preventative
meansures where such were possible or known to exist, or to avail
oneself of treatment of the condition if such were possible is
something for which one would be responsible.)

The point is that at least some cases of obesity may truly be beyond
an individual's control.  I've heard it estimated that between 10 and
20 per cent of cases of morbid obesity may be due to a virus.
Shouldn't such individuals be treated differently than those who are
guilty of willful gluttony?

Exposure to undesirable dietary components as a child can result in
epigenetic changes that also lead to obesity as an adult.  High
fructose corn syrup in so many convenience foods coud be an example of
such a slow-acting toxin.  (Would the willful inclusion of such
substances by a manufacturer when their effect is scientifically
proven and known, be considered a criminal act?  Would social
preferencing alone be sufficient to "punish" such behavior?)

Certainly it is unfair to be discriminate against all obese people,
specifically those who were ifected by a virus, or exposed to
environmental toxins they had not hte knowlege or the means to avoid.
But then again, life is often unfair.....

Max Watt (Richard Kaufman)

> [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
>

Normally I'd do more investigation (as I urge my Computer Science
students, who have much less ability to judge yet what parts of
computing they can assign low priority, and must also learn how to ask
for and receive good technical help), but let's see how this works out.

When asking my browser to open in a new tab an external link to LEF
from the regimen pages, I get the regimen page in the new tab instead
of LEF's page in a new tab. A quick look at the HTML source and the
accompanying pop-up behaviour when not trying to open in a new tab
suggests that the HTML is second-guessing the browser. I have had
other issues (which unfortunately I can't recall) that set off my
intuition to check the HTML (e.g. whether it was auto-generated as an
unreadable mess with quirky behaviour). It wasn't as bad as the usual
auto-generation, but surprisingly `heavy' (e.g. javascript) for what I
could determine was a site that could be straightforward HTML. It is
of course possible that besides the pop-up behaviour, I am not even
experiencing and hence not aware of the value-added features.

If the pop-up override is intentional, e.g. you want external links to
have a prominent indicator that they are not part of your site and not
automatically endorsed (I see this at times in other sites mentioned
explicitly), then I can be a single data point of someone who finds it
lowers the value of the site. Again, this assumes that it's not part
of some full-featured benefits I'm not aware of.

If it's unintentional, and others have noted similar behaviour and it
interferes with their browsing habit/model, we could investigate
further (Paul and Kitty, I hope that's not a controversial "we", being
an invitation to mutual research, but if you think so I can err in the
future on using "we" even less or not at all unless I'm certain it
fits with your goals).

Oh, and though Paul and Kitty I think consider me identified to them,
I should still probably sign this for the group.

Gary Baumgartner

[Note to members: Gary is identified to us through having had a
financial transaction with us.

Gary, it would still be appreciated if, for the benefit of other group
members, you would fill in the information about yourself that is
provided on the Yahoo ID page, including a recent picture. And yes,
since your username does not identify you in any manner, you need to
place your full name at the end of all your posts to this group.

As per the new policy, neither I nor Kitty will respond to the subject
of your message for a week, so that there is time for other readers to
comment. --Paul]

I would like to announce that I have now made my diet and supplement
regimen available in the groups file section. I am providing it as an
example of a regimen for a 27 year old healthy male. A lot of the
dietary items I eat and supplements I take I would also recommend for
other people interested in life-extension. However which ones and at
what dose will be highly individual and would depend on a lot of
factors. Therefore my regimen should not be taken as advice, it is
provided as an example only.

I have also uploaded my blood test results from the blood tests I took
in the US in April 2006 and March 2008 as well as a couple of blood
tests taken in Iceland. While the most recent blood test I took was
taken in March 2008 the diet and supplement regimen I uploaded is the
way it is now in July 2008. However, with only a few minor exceptions,
my supplement regimen was exactly as it is now and had been that way
for months when I took the blood test in March 2008. The diet was a
little bit different resulting from the fact that at the time of the
blood test I was staying in AZ at Paul and Kitty's house rather than
being in Iceland. But I tried making it as close as possible to what
it usually is when I'm in Iceland so there were no major differences.
Therefore the blood test results should give a good reflection of how
my parameters are when I am in Iceland and am closely adhering to my
regimen.

A few additional points regarding my regimen:
As the results of the blood test I took in March 2008 show my iron
stores were very low at the time. Most certainly they were lower than
optimal. This was unexpected since I had been trying to raise them by
taking some extra iron for a few months prior to the blood test yet
they did not seem to have increased at all. After having visited a
gastroenterologist I was scheduled for various tests to determine the
cause of my difficulty in raising my iron stores. Finally a
colonoscopy revealed that I have an ulcer in the colon that caused
loss in blood and the resulting loss of iron. This ulcer is exactly
where my colon was attached to my small intestines when more than half
of my colon was removed when I was about one year old. And this is no
coincidence. According to the doctor such sites of prior surgery can
be very sensitive to ulcer development. In addition the healing of
such ulcers can be made difficult by complications of the surgery such
as scar tissue and poor blood flow among others. Ironically iron
deficiency could also possibly make it more difficult to heal. As a
result of this I have been taking some extra iron to raise my iron
stores. I did not mention this in the regimen file I uploaded since
this iron supplementation is only temporary. I also was given some
intravenous iron when the cause of my lack of response to iron
supplements was not know yet, before it was ruled out that I had any
problems absorbing iron. According to the advice of the doctor I am
now taking a modified release glucocorticoid drug called Budesonide
and will be doing so for almost the rest of the year in hope that it
will help the ulcer to heal. I have stopped taking the low dose
aspirin I usually take until it has healed because, being a COX-1
inhibitor, it can potentially impair healing of the ulcer. I will
start taking it again when/if the ulcer has healed. I have also
stopped taking the curcumin supplement I take that contains 3mg of
piperine because the piperine in it might interfere with the
metabolism of Budesonide possibly increasing it's systemic half life.
I sure don't want that since it might increase the side effects of it.
I will start taking the curcumin/piperine supplement again once I have
finished taking this drug. These changes were not mentioned in my
regimen file since these are all temporary changes in my regimen.

BTW my brother Egill just uploaded his blood test results. He did not
upload his regimen though since it is basically the same as mine in
every aspect so there is no need to upload it also. Note that Egill is
my identical twin brother. This can be seen clearly when comparing our
blood test results. Many of the parameters are strikingly similar
between the two of us. For most of the hormones f.ex. there isn't a
significant difference between the two of us considering daily
fluctuations in their levels and the fact that the methods used to
determine many of these are only accurate to +-25% or so.

Note that I am a value for value trader. Nothing I post here or
elsewhere is free in the sense that I post it expecting nothing in
return. If anyone gains value from the information I have posted to
the group or made available in the files section I would appreciate it
if he would return some of that value back to me in one form or another.

I welcome any questions or comments relating to my regimen and test
results.

Olafur

1. Some people only want to receive text mode formatting and would not then see any of the special formatting that is in the message and may be a necessary part of the full information contents/meaning.
2. In Moderator edit mode an HTML message appears in two separate boxes, one for pure text and the other with all the HTML code around the text. This required the moderators to put comments separately in each of the two boxes, which was very time consuming, particularly if the message was complex and had complex HTML.

1. On the message composition screen at the group website there is now a Rich-Text Editor entry mode (which I am using for this message.
2. There now are only occasional, generally small editorial comments added to messages by moderators before a message is posted, which should not be too difficult for us to duplicate in the two boxes (and the extra effort will help to regulate and minimize  our usage of this internal commenting mode .