Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 In a message dated 2/20/2004 11:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, dowlic@... writes: My motivation is being a very late in life first time mother. Our son>is 2 and I'm looking forward to seeing him grow up.> My motivation was to gain back years of life lost to undisciplined eating, lack of exercise and inflammatory disease. According to www.deathclock.com I will live to be 97! Whoo hoo! Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Interesting that one would ask. Following such a plan appears, to me, the only logical choice, given it's got the best probability of extending one's health and lifespan, of all currently understood options. I was watching the news this morning regarding corrupt CEOs who had spent millions of ill-gotten gains on mansions and yachts. I fail to comprehend why more resources are not devoted to the preservation of vital lifespan, and wasted on such transient goals. >From: " bernadettepawlik " <bernadettepawlik@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Why CR? >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:03:04 -0000 > >I'm just curious as to why other folks have decided to adhere to CR. >My motivation is being a very late in life first time mother. Our son >is 2 and I'm looking forward to seeing him grow up. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 A poll was taken back in Oct on this question. 37% answered: " desire to live as long, happy, healthy as possible " . The second largest group (30%) answered: " interest in extending lifespan " . Click " polls " in the left hand column on the home page to see all the results. For me personally, I want to live without suffering, decriptitude. I will be happy if I live as long as my mother (almost 98) but without the pain she suffered from arthritis in her declining years. on 2/20/2004 2:03 PM, bernadettepawlik at bernadettepawlik@... wrote: > I'm just curious as to why other folks have decided to adhere to CR. > My motivation is being a very late in life first time mother. Our son > is 2 and I'm looking forward to seeing him grow up. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hi Bernadette: CR could be described as 'first generation life extension technology'. I am doing it because I hope it will enable me to live long enough to take advantage of 'second generation life extension technology', whatever that turns out to be. And that, hopefully, may extend my life far enough to be able to take advantage of 'third generation life extension technology', which may be the cure for aging - being restored to 25 years old, permanently - with the help of telomerase, perhaps. I want to see what the world will be like, what science will have discovered, what peace and prosperity can be nurtured 200, 500, or 1000 years from now. Rodney. PS1 Dr. Walford has expressed a somewhat similar view I believe. PS2 Of course it may not quite work out as described above! But even if it doesn't, getting there is 95% of the fun. > I'm just curious as to why other folks have decided to adhere to CR. > My motivation is being a very late in life first time mother. Our son > is 2 and I'm looking forward to seeing him grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Welcome to the group . You were eating 800-1200 cal every other day? And what (if anything) were you eating on the " off " days? You say you've been doing this for 23 years. Do you mean CR or do you mean CRON? There's a big difference. You could be eating your calories with junk. Many of the ON benefits were discovered quite recently so , it's doubtful that you've been on ON for 23 years. on 2/20/2004 3:43 PM, Lady of the Mote at mpr059@... wrote: > my diet since the age of 21 was 800-1200 cal > per day every other day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 In that case, you were ahead of the curve. Congratulations on your wise decisions all these years !! If you were having heart palpitations at 108 lbs, the doctor was probably wise in telling you to gain some weight. At 5'3 " and 115 lbs and 44 years old, you don't sound like you need to lose much weight, if any Especially since at 108, you were having ill effects. Why not try losing just a couple of pounds and then see how you feel? Moderation is always a wise idea. We have people who have gotten sick from too much weight loss and from anorexic tendencies. You can ruin your health. on 2/20/2004 4:01 PM, Lady of the Mote at mpr059@... wrote: > Hi Francesa, > nice to meet you, > I meant I would eat 800cal one day and 1200 cal the > next,there were no off days,sorry,about that, > I have been doing what I thought would be CRON,(in my > limited understanding of it all) > eating as healthy as I can,thats why I was so pleased > to read the benefits,that I was trying without knowing > it,but I also find out I have so much to learn and > that, what I am doing is not truly CRON yet,so thats > why I am here to learn, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hi All and Rodney. Yes. Wang K, Li D, Sun F. Dietary caloric restriction may delay the development of cataract by attenuating the oxidative stress in the lenses of Brown Norway rats. Exp Eye Res. 2004 Jan;78(1):151-8. PMID: 14667836 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Cheers, Al Pater. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi : > For example, almost everyone finds (I believe so, I am NOT a > physician) that the lenses of their eyes begin to 'freeze up' > starting around the age of 45. By the time they are 55 they can only > focus their eyes at one distance. (In my case that is beyond > infinity!) It will be very interesting to see if your 'lens freeze > up' is delayed beyond age 45, and by how much. > > I have been on something pretty close to 'ON' for about 30 years but > while by some measures aging seems to have been delayed somewhat, my > lenses froze up right on schedule, fwiw. So 'ON' did not seem to > influence the aging rate of my eyes. It will be very interesting to > see if 'CR' does in your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hi, thought I'd respond to this too. Like , I did CR for many years just for the asthetics, also often rotating days around 800 cals, then around 1200 cals, however unlike her, I didn't concern myself with the ON part. (many years = from about age 15 to early 30s). I'm 5'5 " and for one summer weighed 97 lbs (TOO low) but averaged between 800 and 1200 cals and around 105 - 110 lbs except during pregnancy. For about 5 or 6 years in my early 30s I quit exercising and increased eating a LOT. Bounced up to around 140 - 150 lbs. At 37 I got pg with twins (I also have 3 older kids). After the girls were born I lost down to about 150, then went on an eating binge up to around 170. That's when, like Bernadette, I decided that I'd better start taking care of myself if I want to see my girls grow up. They're 2 1/2 now and I'm almost 40 (in Aug), and I want to be healthy enough to play with THEIR children, and even their GRANDchildren. So, I started out about a year ago on a CR diet and exercise. Since my primary interest was (and is) quality of life as I aged, rather than longevity, I started learning about nutrition and slowly worked into a steady CRON lifestyle. I lost 50 lbs in 8 months, and felt great. Somewhere towards the 6 month mark I began learning about life extension and eventually about CRON. As long as the quality of life remains high, I like the idea of extending life, but I don't want to be like most of the elderly I know (especially in my family) who are misserable by age 70 or so. Due to a MAJOR life crisis at the end of Aug, just after joining this group, I've only lurked occaisionally, and slowly reverted back to a " average american " diet (and gained about 20 lbs) but I felt better eating 1200 to 1500 cals and around 120 lbs. So, I'm working my way back into a CRON diet and hope to learn a LOT from all of you about the ON part. Thanks, this is very interesting! Shanna > I'm just curious as to why other folks have decided to adhere to CR. > My motivation is being a very late in life first time mother. Our son > is 2 and I'm looking forward to seeing him grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hi : It looks very much like presbyopia IS what I am talking about. (Thanks for providing the correct term for it). My (inadequate) understanding is that starting around age 45 the lens progressively becomes more rigid and by age 55 the shape of the lens becomes fixed. Thereafter, the distance at which one is able to see objects in focus depends on the DIAMETER of your eyeball. If you have a large diameter eyeball, light from all distances may be focussed closer to the lens than the retina (so there is no distance for which light is focussed on the retina). If you have a small eyeball (as I do) all light may be focussed beyond the retina, so, again, there is no distance for which the light focusses on the retina. Those who have a middle-sized eyeball will find that light from one particular distance will be in focus (it could be far distance, or middle distance or reading distance). But only because of their eyeball size in relation to the focal point of their, now rigid, lens. Anyway the point I am making about this with regard to CRON is that this change in lens rigidity is age-related. It would be interesting therefore to see whether those who have been on CRON for 25 years starting at age 20 experience this phenomenon significantly later than average. (Fifteen years of '~ON' appears to have made no difference in my case). Rodney. > > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> > >Reply- > > > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? > >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:36:53 -0000 > > > >Hi : > > > >I was referring to loss of lens flexibility, and hence the inability > >after about age 55 for the muscles attached to the lens to adjust > >lens shape so as to focus light from different distances. > > > >Al looked for stuff that could be relevant to aging in the eyes and > >came up with cataracts, another feature of eye aging, but not the one > >I was referring to. (Al is an invaluable source of information on > >just about any aspect of health! Thanks again, Al) > > > >Rodney. > > > > So you're not referring to presbyopia? > > http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/presbyopia.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hi : Yes. I saw that suggested as a measure one could use to determine biological age. But I do not remember seeing any material indicating there was evidence that CRONies benefit from later onset of presbyopia. But it is a year or more since I last read it. (Btw: by the 'standing on one leg with eyes shut' measure I seemed to have a negative (sic) biological age. After about five minutes I got bored!). Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> > > > >Reply- > > > > > > > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? > > > >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:36:53 -0000 > > > > > > > >Hi : > > > > > > > >I was referring to loss of lens flexibility, and hence the > >inability > > > >after about age 55 for the muscles attached to the lens to adjust > > > >lens shape so as to focus light from different distances. > > > > > > > >Al looked for stuff that could be relevant to aging in the eyes and > > > >came up with cataracts, another feature of eye aging, but not the > >one > > > >I was referring to. (Al is an invaluable source of information on > > > >just about any aspect of health! Thanks again, Al) > > > > > > > >Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > So you're not referring to presbyopia? > > > > > > http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/presbyopia.htm > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Hi Peg: My bet is the reason is that your eyeball is just exactly the right size (diameter) for your, now rigid, lens to focus light coming from reading distance. (See my earlier post on this issue). Rodney. > In a message dated 2/21/04 3:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dowlic@h... writes: > > > > . I believe there was a measure of close vision acuity in Walford's 120 > > year diet book. I originally read this in the 1980's and don't remember > > specifically, but I think it had one measure the closest distance at which > > one could read newsprint. This measurement was used to assess one's > > biological age, along with other biomarkers such as blood pressure > > I have to doubt this. I am 71 and myopic-----I can read the finest print > without glasses (if it is close enough!) but that has nothing to do with my > health and biological age! Peg 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.