Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 In a message dated 6/28/04 4:52:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, beeline@... writes: > The time honored axiom ..is .. " Everything in moderation " . > It is in the C.O. manufacturers/sellers to drum up all the positive > aspects of C.O, whilst understandably not spending as much time reminding us that > smaller portions may be a healthier option etc....But it is no secret that > the probably the biggest single biggest factor in ensuring (in general)..a long > & healthy life ..is , systematic undereating ...ie going hungry reguarly (as > our very early ancestors were often forced too do since they didnt have a > local supermarket etc for emergencies) ..whilst still maintaining a healthy > diet when you are eating. > They also would have periodically *feasted* when they came across food (they didn't have refrigerators, in addition to not having supermarkets). The idea of periodic undereating and overeating seems to contradict the idea of " everything in moderation. " The modifiers " under- " and " over- " imply precisely a deviation from moderation, each in an opposite direction. Calorie restriction lengthens life at the direct expense of growth and reproductive capacity, but periodic fasting and periodic overeating seems to have the same longevity benefits, more protective benefits within other realms, but not to diminish the ability to grow and reproduce. (CR doesn't harm that ability, just " turns it off " until calories are increased at a later time). I think you are correct in a certain sense, in that everyone has a particular range of a given thing that is good for them, and that's their personal range of moderation which they should stay within. On the other hand, since this range will be different for everyone, it may appear to some people that some folks are far beyond moderation when they are actually well within their own range of moderation, because of their own personal needs. For example, someone on the group recently said that CO has helped her very much, but over a certain amount (3 Tbsp, I think), she gets a rapid heartbeat or palpitations, and someone dug up a few articles that pieced together that CO raises pregnenolone, and that excessive pregnenolone supplementation cause palpitations in some people. I, on the other hand, have been using 6-9 Tbsp of CO a day, with no problem. I'm male, eat more alltogether than her, and my exercise habits probably put a demand on my body for increased DHEA and testosterone, so the pregnenolone is probably less likely to build up in my body to toxic levels and rather just go to DHEA and finally to testosterone. It seems the best thing to me is to " listen to your body " to find where that range of moderation is. Not to mean " eat what you want, " but simply to pay close attention-- keep a log if necessary-- of how your health reacts as you vary your diet. Rather than beginning with preconceived notions of what is " moderate, " define moderate for you personally, perhaps in ways that are entirely immoderate for others, based on your empirical personal experience. And thus, my soapbox, too, expires. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 > > The time honored axiom ..is .. " Everything in moderation " . > > It is in the C.O. manufacturers/sellers to drum up all the positive > > aspects of C.O, whilst understandably not spending as much time reminding us that > > smaller portions may be a healthier option etc....But it is no secret that > > the probably the biggest single biggest factor in ensuring (in general)..a long > > & healthy life ..is , systematic undereating . First I've heard of this theory --- where does regular exercise fit into this equation? That seems to have been overlooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 In a message dated 6/28/04 1:49:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jazzbo@... writes: > First I've heard of this theory --- where does regular exercise fit > into this equation? That seems to have been overlooked. It doesn't really, except it helps reduce insulin resistance. The proposed mechanisms for how calorie restriction or periodic fasting increase longevity are related to insulin/IGF-1 signaling, but that's almost entirely speculation. No one really has any clue why it works. To make things more confusing, *smelling* food affects insulin levels. When C. elegans (worm most commonly used for longevity studies) has certain olfactory and gustatory neurons spliced that are responsible for tasting/smelling certain food compounds, the worms experience the same benefits with respect to longevity that the calorie restricted worms do. BUT, obviously EATING the food will raise insulin levels! So, what's going on here? If you figure it out I'm sure someone has an honorary PhD waiting for you... Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 > > > The time honored axiom ..is .. " Everything in moderation " . > > > It is in the C.O. manufacturers/sellers to drum up all the positive > > > aspects of C.O, whilst understandably not spending as much time reminding us that > > > smaller portions may be a healthier option etc....But it is no secret that > > > the probably the biggest single biggest factor in ensuring (in general)..a long > > > & healthy life ..is , systematic undereating . > > First I've heard of this theory --- where does regular exercise fit > into this equation? That seems to have been overlooked. Hi I don't know if this has been mentioned lately but medium chain fatty acids, such as in coconut milk, are touted to increase body temperature very shortly after eating them. The phenomenon is called thermogenesis. AFAIK, its the long chain fatty acids which do not initiate thermogenesis. Those two kinds of fatty acids travel through different metabolic pathways, the longchain through the liver and the mediumchain through the lymph system. Wow I sound like a coconut doctor. Here is a Google search on thermogenesis + coconut oil. If the link gets chopped in two just paste both lines together in your browser bar. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & ie=UTF- 8 & q=thermogenesis+coconut+oil Darrell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 > > > The time honored axiom ..is .. " Everything in moderation " . > > > It is in the C.O. manufacturers/sellers to drum up all the positive > > > aspects of C.O, whilst understandably not spending as much time reminding us that > > > smaller portions may be a healthier option etc....But it is no secret that > > > the probably the biggest single biggest factor in ensuring (in general)..a long > > > & healthy life ..is , systematic undereating . > > First I've heard of this theory --- where does regular exercise fit > into this equation? That seems to have been overlooked. Hi I don't know if this has been mentioned lately but medium chain fatty acids, such as in coconut milk, are touted to increase body temperature very shortly after eating them. The phenomenon is called thermogenesis. AFAIK, its the long chain fatty acids which do not initiate thermogenesis. Those two kinds of fatty acids travel through different metabolic pathways, the longchain through the liver and the mediumchain through the lymph system. Wow I sound like a coconut doctor. Here is a Google search on thermogenesis + coconut oil. If the link gets chopped in two just paste both lines together in your browser bar. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & ie=UTF- 8 & q=thermogenesis+coconut+oil Darrell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Hi Chris I'm not going to address your entire email..because unfortunately I just don't have the time. But I will point out that my suggestion of fasting 1 day (36 hrs )..a month minimum ..is not exactly what I would define as caloric restriction ( which is what you seem to suggest),...when you consider how we live for the other 29 odd days of the month ... All I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't hurt ( & for most of us would probably improve our health), too occasionally give our digestive systems a rest .. You seem quite happy to acknowledge the " Feast or Famine " axiom in theory & follow the " Feast " part of that axiom to the full ..but nowhere in your email did I see mention of you personally partaking in the famine part of the equation, ..that part of the equation that ancient man was forced to follow by dint of his pre-civilisation circumstances. All I'm saying is that most like you seem to acknowledge the rule .....but not many are willing to walk the walk...because we (humans) have a very strong instinct to eat ( & a great liking for it)...so the predication when you live in a situation of plenty (which most of us do , ...100% of the time) ,...is to overdo the " Feast " ..side of the equation,..but underdo...(or totally ignore)..the " Famine " part of the equation ,... My mention of the Caloric deprivation leading to longer life's in general was merely as a prelude to help demonstrate that a 36 hr /month water (or Urine if you prefer) fast..is not going to be a negative for most (possibly all) of us Long term. I mention urine in conjunction with the water fast in case there are some who are worried about muscle tone wastage etc whilst fasting (although 36 hours quite frankly isn't enough to cause loss of muscle tone, but for those thinking of fasting Longer it could be a consideration), since it is very muscle sparing even under severe fasting conditions. As for your mention of that other axiom... " Listen to your body " ...I agree with this in general ..but when your fridge is always full ..as it is for most of us ...your body is going to suggest ..LETS EAT, most of the time ...unfortunately (or fortunately maybe).. for poor old caveman who would have liked to listen to his body all the time, when hungry , ....it wasn't always possible obviously. I find also for a person who regularly practices a small percentage of time in abstinence from food ...somewhat ironically,.. the ability & /or tendency to pig out at famine time is slightly reduced from that of a person who eats regular meals almost every day of their life ..whether its the size of their stomach or habit or the body processes adjusting to the circumstances over time...or all of the above....i.e. in other words a glutton often will be able to out- eat most others (all other things being equal) ...because the glutton gets plenty of practice (Slightly simplified of course & I'm also assuming here the glutton is still in good health of course ..obviously the ability to overeat recedes with many modern illness/disease situations).... I realize my email got a bit offtopic ...but it just seemed pertinent to the original email I was replying too. I wont be able to address replies on this unfortunately ..not for a while anyway ...because I will be travelling for the next approx 3 weeks. said... They also would have periodically *feasted* when they came across food (they didn't have refrigerators, in addition to not having supermarkets). The idea of periodic undereating and overeating seems to contradict the idea of " everything in moderation. " The modifiers " under- " and " over- " imply precisely a deviation from moderation, each in an opposite direction. Calorie restriction lengthens life at the direct expense of growth and reproductive capacity, but periodic fasting and periodic overeating seems to have the same longevity benefits, more protective benefits within other realms, but not to diminish the ability to grow and reproduce. (CR doesn't harm that ability, just " turns it off " until calories are increased at a later time). I think you are correct in a certain sense, in that everyone has a particular range of a given thing that is good for them, and that's their personal range of moderation which they should stay within. On the other hand, since this range will be different for everyone, it may appear to some people that some folks are far beyond moderation when they are actually well within their own range of moderation, because of their own personal needs. For example, someone on the group recently said that CO has helped her very much, but over a certain amount (3 Tbsp, I think), she gets a rapid heartbeat or palpitations, and someone dug up a few articles that pieced together that CO raises pregnenolone, and that excessive pregnenolone supplementation cause palpitations in some people. I, on the other hand, have been using 6-9 Tbsp of CO a day, with no problem. I'm male, eat more alltogether than her, and my exercise habits probably put a demand on my body for increased DHEA and testosterone, so the pregnenolone is probably less likely to build up in my body to toxic levels and rather just go to DHEA and finally to testosterone. It seems the best thing to me is to " listen to your body " to find where that range of moderation is. Not to mean " eat what you want, " but simply to pay close attention-- keep a log if necessary-- of how your health reacts as you vary your diet. Rather than beginning with preconceived notions of what is " moderate, " define moderate for you personally, perhaps in ways that are entirely immoderate for others, based on your empirical personal experience. And thus, my soapbox, too, expires. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:50:19 -0000, Darrell <135798642goodkind@...> wrote: > I don't know if this has been mentioned lately but medium chain fatty > acids, such as in coconut milk, are touted to increase body > temperature very shortly after eating them. The phenomenon is called > thermogenesis. I'm not disputing coconut oil as a thermogenic (which boosts yoru metabolism and induces you to burn fat) - I'm disputing the fasting theory proposed. Skipping meals slows down your metabolism because your body thinks a famine is coming on and conserves energy. If you want to boost your metabolism, you actually have to eat more often (smaller meals 5 times a day, or every 2-3 hours) and don't skip meals. And exercise is always good for you - not incorporating exercise into a healthy lifestyle (as was suggested) means you are sedentary and a likely candidate for all sorts of chronic diseases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 In a message dated 6/29/04 4:50:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, beeline@... writes: > But I will point out that my suggestion of fasting 1 day (36 hrs )..a month > minimum ..is not exactly what I would define as caloric restriction ( which > is what you seem to suggest),...when you consider how we live for the other > 29 odd days of the month ... I wouldn't define that as CR either. I was just making a somewhat elaborated tangent addressing the two forms of modifying eating schedules that I've seen studied with respect to their effects on longevity. I also believe that would be a good thing to do. > All I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't hurt ( & for most of us would > probably improve our health), too occasionally give our digestive systems a > rest . Agreed. > You seem quite happy to acknowledge the " Feast or Famine " axiom in theory > & follow the " Feast " part of that axiom to the full ..but nowhere in your > email did I see mention of you personally partaking in the famine part of the > equation, ..that part of the equation that ancient man was forced to follow > by dint of his pre-civilisation circumstances. Nowhere in my email did I acknowledge partaking of the " feast " part either. I didn't mention my personal dietary intake at all, except in a segment (unrelated to my feast/fast point) where I mentioned my coconut oil intake. > All I'm saying is that most like you seem to acknowledge the rule > .....but not many are willing to walk the walk...because we (humans) have a very > strong instinct to eat ( & a great liking for it)...so the predication when you > live in a situation of plenty (which most of us do , ...100% of the time) > ,...is to overdo the " Feast " ..side of the equation,..but underdo...(or totally > ignore)..the " Famine " part of the equation ,... I'm not sure why you're challenging my personal dietary integrity, but I practice the Warrior Diet, which involves 20 hours of undereating per day and four hours of overeating, and I occasionally liquid fast for several days. (The latter I have done sporadically rather than systematically, but at some point I plan to include liquid fasts on some sort of regimented schedule). That said, my point was merely the converse-- that many people emphasize the fasting but do not actually do the feasting. While I'm not saying *you* advocate calorie restriction, the logical conclusion of regular fasting without a concomitant rise in caloric intake on non-fasting days amounts to calorie restriction, obviously. And, when calorie restriction is taken to the point where it has significant effects on longevity, it also has a variety of effects that, while neutral from the perspective of the survival of the organism, most people would consider negative from the vantage point of subjective experience. Furthermore, intermittent feeding, which has been studied much less, is much more effective in promoting overall health and equally important at promoting longevity, despite involving " feasts " where food is eaten at twice the rate the typical organism eats and no significant overall reduction in calories. > As for your mention of that other axiom... " Listen to your body " ...I agree > with this in general ..but when your fridge is always full ..as it is for > most of us ..your body is going to suggest ..LETS EAT, most of the time > ...unfortunately (or fortunately maybe).. for poor old caveman who would have liked > to listen to his body all the time, when hungry , ....it wasn't always > possible obviously. I elaborated on what I meant by this phrase, and I didn't mean to follow your body's desires. I explained that I meant to watch your body's health improve or decline with variations in your diet and to track them, which is a wholly different phenomenon than you are describing above. > I find also for a person who regularly practices a small percentage of > time in abstinence from food ...somewhat ironically,.. the ability & /or > tendency to pig out at famine time is slightly reduced from that of a person who > eats regular meals almost every day of their life ..whether its the size of > their stomach or habit or the body processes adjusting to the circumstances over > time...or all of the above....i.e. in other words a glutton often will be > able to out- eat most others (all other things being equal) ...because the > glutton gets plenty of practice (Slightly simplified of course & I'm also > assuming here the glutton is still in good health of course ..obviously the > ability to overeat recedes with many modern illness/disease situations).... > I realize my email got a bit offtopic ...but it just seemed pertinent > to the original email I was replying too. That may be the case, but that's not necessarily a positive thing. There's not really any value to an overall reduction in calories, by itself anyway, and the research on intermittent feeding, slim as it is, seems to indicate that " pigging out, " when combined with fasting, is a health promoting phenomenon. Chronic pigging out is equally insidious, but so is chronic undereating. The ironic thing here is that both fasting and feasting are deviations from moderation, and so it would seem that with respect to eating schedules, the message is " Never eat with moderation " ! > I wont be able to address replies on this unfortunately ..not for a while > anyway ..because I will be travelling for the next approx 3 weeks I'm sorry I didn't see this to the end. I won't expect a reply any time soon :-) Have a safe trip. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 In a message dated 6/29/04 6:31:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jazzbo@... writes: > I'm not disputing coconut oil as a thermogenic (which boosts yoru > metabolism and induces you to burn fat) - I'm disputing the fasting > theory proposed. Skipping meals slows down your metabolism because > your body thinks a famine is coming on and conserves energy. If you > want to boost your metabolism, you actually have to eat more often > (smaller meals 5 times a day, or every 2-3 hours) and don't skip > meals. That's what's reprinted endlessly in magazine columns in exercise magazines, but it is contradicted by the relatively new research on intermittent feeding, anecdotal evidence of people following the _WD_, for example, and a lot of biochemical and physiology research that would lead to a different logical conclusion, such as O. Hofmekler present in _Maximum Muscle, Minimum Fat: The Science of Physical Perfection_ (dragondoor). It's often pointed out that people who skip breakfast tend to be fat. But there are no standard american diet (SAD) folks who actually systematically fast. The comparison of these eat-coca-cola-for-breakfast folks and systematic fasting is completely meritless. Folks who skip " meals " per se tend to not only have snacks in their stead (read, white flour, hydrogenated oil, high fructose corn syrup), but tend to drink, not water with a slice of lemon, but soda and other sugar-drinks throughout the day. So, these people, rather than having the insulin-sensitizing benefit of fasting, have chronically *constant* insulin stimulation and caloric bombardment of their blood, and a simultaneous period where they fast merely from *nutrients*. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.