Re: Re: Okiinwans

[Guest guest]

>>Given the above, it seems reasonable to infer that ALL of the higher

lifespan enjoyed in Okinawa derives purely from their lower caloric

intake.

The assumption out there right now is that the reason the Okinawans are

#1 and slightly outlive the mainland japanese is the reduced caloric

intake. However, that only takes care of the CR part of CR-ON

>>My point is that if all the benefit (perhaps more than all the

benefit, three years is not much) can be attributed to their widely

acclaimed CRON lifestyle, then all the other little details about the

okinawans may, net, have little if any benefit.

Except for the fact that if you remove point 1, the lower calories, we

end up with point 2, which, while I don't know what it is exactly, it

has something to do with their lifestyle, which would also be something

that they do share or is similar to the mainland japanese, who are

second in longevity. So, now we have this common denominator. As we

move down the list and we get to Italy and greece, we have a different

lifestyle, but there are many common denominators.

In these common denominators, lie some important info.

I like to look at it this way. Remember the old IBM punch cards that

were used to program computers with the differing " holes " punched in

them? Well, if we take all the long lived populations of the world,

and put their characteristics on an IBM punchcard and lined them all up

together and held them up to the light, we would find certain " punches "

or holes, the lined up in all of them. Might be 2, might be 10. My

guess is there would be several common denominators that showed up in

all the long lived populations. To me, those are the most important

areas to focus on. In regard to diet, these would be what help define

the ON part of CR-ON.

The PIMA Indians are another great example to learn from. Two identical

genetic groups, with a huge difference in weight and disease rates.

When they look at the difference, certain factors arise, that my guess

is, have a lot to do with what my punch card experiment would also have

shown us to be importan variables.

Now, if you wanted to make a lot of money, and/or market a product,

pill, supplement, or program, you would find the " punch " that was

different in any one of the long lived populations than the other, and

than market it is as the " solution " . Like Soy, or Olive Oil, or Coral

Calcium, or ......

Hmmm, I think I just got an idea for a new product.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>So what is the major lesson we can learn from the okinawans? EAT

FEWER CALORIES. But then we knew this already, I think?

I don't know if everyone is famaliar with the DALE scale or the

Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy rating, which the WHO came out with

in 2000 for the first time. Its not based on how long you life, but

how long you live before " disabilites " set in.

Again, Japan is number one.

From the article

" Japanese have the longest healthy life expectancy of 74.5 years among

191 countries, versus less than 26 years for the lowest-ranking country

of Sierra Leone, based on a new way to calculate healthy life expectancy

developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). "

" Several factors go into making Japan number one in the rankings. One is

the low rate of heart disease, associated with the traditional low fat

diet. The national diet is changing, with high fat foods such as red

meat becoming common. The effect of tobacco has also been mild until

recently, with low lung cancer rates. These rates for men are expected

to jump in coming years as the long-term effects of the post-World War

II smoking popularity begin to hit. "

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html

Its also been applied to the USA which you can see here. Hawaii is

number one for males and females either figured from birth or from age

65

http://www.pophealth.wisc.edu/wphi/publications/reports/statedis.pdf

From the article...

" Results: Table 1 displays the summary results for 1990 life expectancy

and two measures of Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy for males and

females at birth and at age 65: The national mean life expectancy at

birth for males is 71.75 and for females is 78.62, a difference of 6.87

years. The range across the 50 states is from 68.62 in Mississippi to

75.37 in Hawaii (a difference of 6.75 years); for females the range is

from 76.67 in Louisiana to 81.36 in Hawaii (a difference of 4.69 years).

For life expectancy at age 65 the national mean is 15.10 for males and

19.03 for females, a difference of 3.93 years. The range is from 13.90

in West Virginia to 17.62 in Hawaii for males (3.72 difference) and from

17.64 in Nevada to 21.01 in Hawaii for females (3.37 difference). "

[Guest guest]

>>Perhaps the commonest common denominator is that Okinawa, Japan,

Crete, and Sardinia are all islands.

Does this make a penisula (florida) second best?

>>It reminds me of a conversation with my brother. When I pointed out

to him that the most dangerous (number of deaths) leisure-time activity

in most countries was fishing, his reply was: " I wonder if it has

something to do with the water! "

Cute. It reminds me when I heard that most all traffic accidents happen

within 1 mile of your home. When I heard that, I realized I should

move.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

First if I could clarify my earlier comments. I was not dismissing the Okinawa

experience just attempting to put it in perspective.

I agree that common elements in successful populations are worthy of study and

if appropriate emulation. I am just cautious about

thinking we know more than we do. These are still educated guesses especially

wrt to how we will be affected.

Re: the Pima, perhaps also an endorsement for activity, or perhaps for following

diets similar to those we evolved under, or " insert

your favorite theory here " .... They appear to be very sensitive to energy

balance, lifestyle issues, and perhaps macronutrient

ratios (I don't know if that has been studied while controlled for energy

balance).

Genes do have something to do with out individual outcomes. Know your family

tree. Perhaps if you can manage try to have Oki parents

:-). If your parents are Pima Indians, put down that Twinkie and start jogging.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeff Novick [mailto:jnovick@...]

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:44 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Okiinwans

>>Given the above, it seems reasonable to infer that ALL of the higher

lifespan enjoyed in Okinawa derives purely from their lower caloric

intake.

The assumption out there right now is that the reason the Okinawans are

#1 and slightly outlive the mainland japanese is the reduced caloric

intake. However, that only takes care of the CR part of CR-ON

>>My point is that if all the benefit (perhaps more than all the

benefit, three years is not much) can be attributed to their widely

acclaimed CRON lifestyle, then all the other little details about the

okinawans may, net, have little if any benefit.

Except for the fact that if you remove point 1, the lower calories, we

end up with point 2, which, while I don't know what it is exactly, it

has something to do with their lifestyle, which would also be something

that they do share or is similar to the mainland japanese, who are

second in longevity. So, now we have this common denominator. As we

move down the list and we get to Italy and greece, we have a different

lifestyle, but there are many common denominators.

In these common denominators, lie some important info.

I like to look at it this way. Remember the old IBM punch cards that

were used to program computers with the differing " holes " punched in

them? Well, if we take all the long lived populations of the world,

and put their characteristics on an IBM punchcard and lined them all up

together and held them up to the light, we would find certain " punches "

or holes, the lined up in all of them. Might be 2, might be 10. My

guess is there would be several common denominators that showed up in

all the long lived populations. To me, those are the most important

areas to focus on. In regard to diet, these would be what help define

the ON part of CR-ON.

The PIMA Indians are another great example to learn from. Two identical

genetic groups, with a huge difference in weight and disease rates.

When they look at the difference, certain factors arise, that my guess

is, have a lot to do with what my punch card experiment would also have

shown us to be importan variables.

Now, if you wanted to make a lot of money, and/or market a product,

pill, supplement, or program, you would find the " punch " that was

different in any one of the long lived populations than the other, and

than market it is as the " solution " . Like Soy, or Olive Oil, or Coral

Calcium, or ......

Hmmm, I think I just got an idea for a new product.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Rod: part of the awe towards the Okinawans is the fact that

they reach their advanced ages vital and healthy. That's the

important part to me. I hope that I can live to be near 100

like my mother, without pain, decline or disease. Living to

be over 120 (which is probably the maximum human lifespan at

the moment) will be a bonus which I'm not counting on.

Especially since I have committed many " eating sins " in my

youth and I am already " of an age " . Also I think other causes

of death will rear their ugly heads. (Sorry to be

pessimistic - I hope I'm wrong). Thanks for the

clarification. I'll try to remember what you mean next time.

[Guest guest]

While lifespan is inarguably (even by me) the most important comparison of

success between different dietary interventions, I

wouldn't ignore the QOL in the later years before that last breath.

As another post today noted some of these other populations not only live long

but remain active and vital up to the end. While many

in our culture while still breathing are hardly leading a similar existance.

I suspect a fair comparison of the two should include a factor for not only

length but quality of that life. This may make the

differences more significant.

Western Medicine and drug Cos, are perhaps better characterized by how long they

keep sick folks alive and racking up bills than

keeping them well and vital in the first place.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:47 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Okiinwans

Hi Francesca:

I strongly agree with your post. Indeed, in my own post I

said: " ......... can be attributed to their widely

acclaimed CRON lifestyle " .

When people talk here about eating fewer calories do we not all

understand that to mean CRON, including the 'ON'?

So there is no disagreement here. Perhaps I should have been more

explicit in each reference I made to caloric intake. I have gotten

into the habit of assuming we all understand the need to get adequate

amounts of protein and fat along with plenty of all the

micronutrients at the same time we reduce calories.

------------------------

So let me attempt to clarify what I was trying to communicate by

elaborating a little. I was not suggesting that it would be a good

idea to eat a small number of calories and ignore nutrient intake.

Rather I was hoping to make the point that while many articles

written about Okinawa give the impression that it is a CRON health

utopia, the difference in lifespan between an apparently very healthy

Okinawan male and his obviously very unhealthy, on average, north

America equivalent, is only three years.

And the difference is three years, even despite the AIDS; poverty

ghettos; violence; smoking and drugs in north America, all of which I

would bet are much less of a problem in Okinawa, and must have the

effect of reducing average lifespan here. I wonder if the average

lifespan in Okinawa is any higher than that in average, non-kinky

america, even with the paunches - i.e. ignoring the murders, drug

deaths, AIDS cases, and smoking-related deaths.

Part of the reason I feel this way is that my impression is that

an 'Okinawa Food Fad' industry is being marketed fairly aggressively

(including books and 'by subscription' websites) the basis of which

is a rather marginal demonstrated benefit.

It seems to me the Okinawa advantage is CRON. And if three years is

the maximum advantage that can be expected from a fairly determined

adherence to CRON and a lot of other things (daily exercise, mental

activities, social support groups, whatever), all supposedly

exhibited by the Okinawans, then it is a disappointingly small return

for a great deal of effort. Some people have alluded to 150 to 160

year lifespans for humans. We know there isn't even one 120 year old

in Okinawa.

I would prefer to believe that the CRON benefit for Okinawans is

fifteen to thirty years (as with the experimental mice) and the

reason they only live three more years than we do is that they are

doing lots of things WRONG. Which we can try to do right. If we can

figure out what they are!

So I personally do not hold up the Okinawans as if they are off-the-

chart in regard to their health status. They are a little ahead of

us, perhaps, depending on which segments of the populations you want

to consider.

> " If the okinawans represent absolute perfection in almost all

> aspects of nutrition and lifestyle (as some people would have us

> believe) then surely they should be expected to get more than three

> years out of it? "

Rodney.

> > >

> > > I agree that the Okinawan data should be looked at and evaluated

> > > approrpiately and kept in context, whenever and whatever that

may

> > be.

> > > Theres a lot to learn from it, as there is from other long lived

> > > population data.

> > >

> > > On the contrary though, finding something wrong with the data,

> > doesn't

> > > eliminate the value of all the other good information.

> > >

> > > If " good data " is the example and/or the standard, than it

should

> > apply

> > > equally to everything.

> > >

> > > I am always surprised when people want to negate something due

to

> > some

> > > concern with the best data we have to date, and then willing

to

> > accept

> > > something else that has no data to support it.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > jeff

[Guest guest]

I'll argue the pain. I don't think that's realistic.

Probably being able to continue reading these silly groups, in my case.

I visualize, seeing my bro in the hosp at 90yo (his), advising the doc to put in the pacemaker.

later talking to my bro - he'll say "I didn't want this" and I'll say, you had nothing to say about it.

The longer I keep you alive the longer I keep me alive. Every morning you'll face the east and make the cross with this emagnet to keep the pacey charged."

A few days later he'll be back at his work. In the evening, we'll go to the local restaurant and my sis-in-law and I will order a large salad, while my wife and he will order fish. Later my sis and I will have 2 glasses of red wine, while my wife will have vodka and OJ, and he a dish of low fat ice cream.

He will tell me again everything a younger bro needs to know, and sis will be watching Lawrence Welk on TV. I will be typing on my wireless laptop connected to my walker (ha), powered from the light in the room, commenting on the same dumb questions we have today.

Figure out number 7? Having something to do at 90 or 100 or 110 or 120yo.

Believe it, we will need something.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:06 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Okiinwans

Hi Francesca:Your post prompts me to make (another!) little list. Criteria for a satisfactory old age (90+):1. Acceptably mobile.2. Mentally alert.3. Free of pain.4. Senses functioning.5. Satisfied with lot in life.6. Maintaining civility/sociability.7. ............... ????8. ...............(Richer than Croesus! etc. etc. etc. )Rodney. > Rod: part of the awe towards the Okinawans is the fact that > they reach their advanced ages vital and healthy. That's the > important part to me. I hope that I can live to be near 100 > like my mother, without pain, decline or disease. Living to > be over 120 (which is probably the maximum human lifespan at > the moment) will be a bonus which I'm not counting on. > Especially since I have committed many "eating sins" in my > youth and I am already "of an age". Also I think other causes > of death will rear their ugly heads. (Sorry to be > pessimistic - I hope I'm wrong). Thanks for the > clarification. I'll try to remember what you mean next time.