How To Live To Be 100

January 14, 2005

As a Physio I used to work with elderly people full time .A major factor in

untimely deaths is a result of falls and consequently hip fractures. IMHO

this can be improved by

removal of Obstacles, kitchen redesign, Relocation?, ?supervision, eye

tests,appropriate footwear,regular podiatry,walking aids, medication and

physical checks,and importantly hip protectors. These are worn inside a

special pair of underwear and help to pad the bit of the femur that can be

broken if someone falls just a few ramblings......

all the best

Philip

January 14, 2005

Hi Philip:

Those are some of the most helpul, practical 'few ramblings' I have

seen. GREAT input. Thank you.

As regards 'podiatry', could you elaborate on the kinds of problems

older people tend to have with their feet which podiatrists can fix?

Rodney.

> As a Physio I used to work with elderly people full time .A major

factor in

> untimely deaths is a result of falls and consequently hip

fractures. IMHO

> this can be improved by

> removal of Obstacles, kitchen redesign, Relocation?, ?supervision,

eye

> tests,appropriate footwear,regular podiatry,walking aids,

medication and

> physical checks,and importantly hip protectors. These are worn

inside a

> special pair of underwear and help to pad the bit of the femur that

can be

> broken if someone falls just a few ramblings......

>

> all the best

>

> Philip

January 15, 2005

hi about Podiatry

In the UK podiatrists (chiropodists) can perform minor surgery removal or

cutting of nails

corns callouses etc.

Advise on cleanliness issues

They can provide orthotics if necessary

Advise re suitable footwear (this in my opinion is one of the most

important)

Check limbs for signs of other pathology ie diabetis,ulcers, fungal

infections,and signs of decreased blood supply and refer to DR as

necessary.

I feel it is vital for all elderly people to get their feet checked

regularly. If you are supporting an elderly relative a once monthly podiatry

appt can keep a lot of problems at bay.Nursing homes in UK sometimes have

sporadic access to chiropodists, many with dubious qualifications.

If the elderly person has diabetis I would double check credentials. The

diabetic foot is a very delicate area and needs expert care

So if granny has been wearing the same shoes for a few years and it is

obvious that they are unsuitable get her sorted out with a wee bit of

professional advice.

Obviously painful feet have an adverse effect on mobility, when this is

compromised problems really start!

hope this is useful......

Philip

January 17, 2005

Hi Francesca:

Thank you. Good point. So here is a question. After someone has

gotten the 'ON' right, by cutting out the junk, when they then decide

what to cut back on, in order to implement 'CR', where do you suggest

the best place is for them to cut their calories?

[Of course different starch-containing foods have different glycemic

indexes. (Chick peas, as an example, have a relatively low glycemic

index). They also have different degrees of aflatoxin risk. So

would you find it acceptable if I were to suggest, instead, to cut

calories by eliminating the starch calories in the foods that will

from time to time be affected by aflatoxin, or which have a high

glycemic index? Thereby continuing to eat the starch-containing

foods that are almost always aflatoxin-free and have a low GI? I

would have to give some thought to which these would be. Chick peas

and sweet potatoes would probably both qualify. But calories have to

reduced somewhere.]

Rodney.

Hi folks:

>

> I didn't read all of Al's post below. But from what I did

> read, it

> seems to have a message that tends to confirm the suspicions

> of some

> people here regarding what may be the best way to

> implement 'CR'.

>

> After doing as Francesca advises for

> implementing 'ON' : " first stop

> eating the junk " , (someone should put that in the Dictionary

> of

> Quotations!!!) and therefore having arrived at a diet

> composed of

> healthy foods, but perhaps with a not-much-reduced caloric

> intake,

> how should one then proceed to reduce the calories?

>

> The answer that seems to drop neatly out of the material in

> Al's post

> is: gradually reduce intake of starch. Not to zero, but

> enough to

> get caloric intake down to where one would like it to be.

> There are

> a number of reasons for this approach.

>

> First, its high glycemic index which, more and more it seems,

> especially in Al's post, does matter, at least to some extent.

>

> Second, there is no nutritional need for starch beyond its

> provision

> of calories. These calories were very important to many of

> our

> ancestors at a time when food deprivation, at least on a

> seasonal

> basis, was the norm. But it does not seem likely that

> caloric

> deprivation will ever be important to us except in the case

> of a

> major asteroid strike.

>

> Third, there are some lingering suggestions of a modest

> starch/cancer

> connection, perhaps due to aflatoxin contamination in the

> growing,

> processing or storage of the product. Or, possibly, because

> those

> eating a lot of starch may not be consuming

> enough 'micronutrient

> dense', i.e. cancer protective, foods.

>

> For those who believe that whole grain products are just

> wonderful

> (perhaps they truly are?) as well as for those who believe

> one should

> not eliminate a whole food group entirely, one can add bran

> and germ

> to the diet in an amount equivalent to what is lost by

> foregoing the

> whole grain. If whole grain products truly are as beneficial

> as many

> believe, it must be, after all, the bran and germ that are

> the reason

> for the benefit.

>

> Anyway, reducing the starch is the way I am doing it. And

> after a

> lifetime of eating, and enjoying, considerable quantities of

> bread

> and potatoes that is a considerable sacrifice.

>

> All just one person's opinion. (Subject to change without

> notice!).

>

> Rodney.

January 17, 2005

First, define "starch" in the context you're using it.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 8:09 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: How to live to be 100

Hi Francesca:Thank you. Good point. So here is a question. After someone has gotten the 'ON' right, by cutting out the junk, when they then decide what to cut back on, in order to implement 'CR', where do you suggest the best place is for them to cut their calories? [Of course different starch-containing foods have different glycemic indexes. (Chick peas, as an example, have a relatively low glycemic index). They also have different degrees of aflatoxin risk. So would you find it acceptable if I were to suggest, instead, to cut calories by eliminating the starch calories in the foods that will from time to time be affected by aflatoxin, or which have a high glycemic index? Thereby continuing to eat the starch-containing foods that are almost always aflatoxin-free and have a low GI? I would have to give some thought to which these would be. Chick peas and sweet potatoes would probably both qualify. But calories have to reduced somewhere.]Rodney.> > > Rod: How can that be? The Okinawans practically live on > their high starch sweet potatoes. Jeff recently posted a > study wherein the longest lived peoples ate more legumes than > the shorter lived populations. Legumes are high starch.> >

January 17, 2005

Hi JW:

As I understand it 'starch' is an organic, carbohydrate, molecule (or

perhaps a group of organic molecules of different molecular weights)

contained in varying quantities and proportions in a variety of

plants, along with proteins, fats and other stuff. It can be broken

down by the body into glucose for use as energy.

How would you define it? I am not a biochemist!

Rodney.

> >

> > Rod: How can that be? The Okinawans practically live on

> > their high starch sweet potatoes. Jeff recently posted a

> > study wherein the longest lived peoples ate more legumes than

> > the shorter lived populations. Legumes are high starch.

> >

January 17, 2005

Hi Rod: First I don't agree with your premise. IMHO just

doing ON does lower calories. Or at least enough for

moderate CR. I think Tony (who by his own admission is 10%

CR'd) might agree with me. In our files we now have quite a

bit of evidence that moderate CR works pretty well; that

BMI's between 18.5 and 22 are the most desirable etc etc.

I didn't read the whole way through Al's studies and posts

either. BUT I assume they're not on humans. As for

's amazing changes without starch, he is an anomoly

and most of us do fine with are not allergic to starch.

In fact many of us may " need " starch for better brain

function. Some people get depressed w/o a certain amount

(there's a book called " depression and potatoes " or something

like that which links depression to not enough seratonin

producing food like potatoes as an example).

So without going into too much more detail: my motto is cut

out starch at your own risk. As for me, I'm on the

CRON " portfolio " diet which you actually recommended (thank

you!). So it's hummous, beans, etc. for me. I'll take the

Okinawan diet anyday.

January 17, 2005

Hi Francesca:

I do not advocate eliminating every last trace of starch from the

diet. By all means eat the less calorically dense legumes. I do.

The 'little red beans' we have discussed before may be the best

choice. But it seems to me that since, if one is going to practice

CR, calories must be reduced somewhere, concentrated sources of

calories (starch is one such concentrated source) that have a high GI

(or probably better, a high II); low levels of micronutrients and

antioxidants per calorie; and/or those most likely to be contaminated

with aflatoxin, are good candidate foods to reduce.

Let me put it this way: it is probably better to reduce those than

to reduce sources which have a low II; high levels of micronutrients

and antioxidants per calorie; and low susceptibility to aflatoxin.

Also remember that in Dr. Spindler's older mice, those put on a diet

restricted 49% (and I am not advocating 49% restriction in older or

younger humans, nor practicing it) compared with the amount those

mice are generally considered to need - solely by means of the almost

complete elimination of starch - lived a lot longer than the mice he

restricted by only 10%. From the study:

" Here we demonstrate that CR initiated in 19-month-old mice begins

within 2 months to increase the mean time to death by 42% and

increase mean and maximum lifespans by 4.7 (P = 0.000017) and 6.0

months (P = 0.000056), respectively " , and here is the study design:

" Study Design. Male mice of the long-lived F1 hybrid strain B6C3F1

were purchased (Harlan Breeders, Indianapolis). On arrival, mice were

housed four per cage and fed ad libitum a nonpurified diet (no. 5001,

Purina). For the survival study, 19-month-old mice were randomly

assigned to control and CR groups of 60 each. Control mice were fed

93 kcal per week of chemically defined control diet (AIN-93M, Diet

No. F05312, Bioserv, Frenchtown, NJ). This provides & #8776;10% fewer

calories than normally are assumed to be required by a typical mouse

(9). This allows comparison of nonobese control with CR mice. CR was

introduced by reducing calories to 77 kcal per week of chemically

defined CR diet for 2 weeks, followed by 52.2 kcal per week of CR

diet thereafter (AIN-93M 40% Restricted, Diet No. F05314, Bioserv).

Defined diets were cold packed into 1-g pellets. Mice were checked

daily and weighed monthly. Necropsies were performed to determine the

cause of death and incidence of tumors. For gene expression studies,

the mice were & #8776;34 months of age when killed. Beginning at 7 months of

age, the mice were randomly assigned to LT-CON or LT-CR groups (Fig.

3, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web

site). LT-CON mice were fed 93 kcal per week of control diet. LT-CR

mice were reduced to 52.2 kcal per week of CR diet as described

above. The CR2 group were LT-CON mice fed 77 kcal of CR diet for 1

week and 52.2 kcal for another week. The CR4 and CR8 groups were LT-

CON mice switched to 77 kcal of CR diet per week for 2 weeks and 52.2

kcal per week for 2 and 6 weeks, respectively. The CON8 group was LT-

CR mice fed 93 kcal of control diet per week for 8 weeks. For the LT-

CON, CON8, and CR8 groups, n = 4. For the LT-CR, CR2, and CR4 groups,

n = 3. Mice were fasted 24 h, killed, and their livers excised as

described (7). No signs of pathology were detected in any of the

animals used. At 9:00 a.m., mice were fed two-sevenths of the weekly

allotment of food on Monday and Wednesday and three-sevenths on

Friday. Mice were given acidified water ad libitum and maintained at

20–24°C and 50–60% humidity with lights on from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00

p.m. All animal use protocols were approved by the Institutional

Animal Use Committee of the University of California, Riverside. "

While the study does not specifically say the diet eliminated starch,

you may remember that at the time the study was published I contacted

the mouse chow company for details of the diets the mice had eaten,

and those breakdowns showed that the almost total elimination of

starch was the only material difference between the two diets.

Now, of course, as someone is almost bound to point out, mice are not

humans. But Dr. Walford devoted a considerable amount of his life to

experimenting with CR in mice. I suggest he used mice not because he

felt an urgent need to find a way to extend the lives of mice, but

because he thought it likely that humans might respond to CR in a

manner manner to mice.

Of course we still do not know for certain that they do/will.

So, in summary I suggest reducing calories by the selective

elimination of the least desirable sources of starch. I assume the

least desirable forms of fat will have already been eliminated.

Rodney.

>

> Hi Rod: First I don't agree with your premise. IMHO just

> doing ON does lower calories. Or at least enough for

> moderate CR. I think Tony (who by his own admission is 10%

> CR'd) might agree with me. In our files we now have quite a

> bit of evidence that moderate CR works pretty well; that

> BMI's between 18.5 and 22 are the most desirable etc etc.

>

> I didn't read the whole way through Al's studies and posts

> either. BUT I assume they're not on humans. As for

> 's amazing changes without starch, he is an anomoly

> and most of us do fine with are not allergic to starch.

>

> In fact many of us may " need " starch for better brain

> function. Some people get depressed w/o a certain amount

> (there's a book called " depression and potatoes " or something

> like that which links depression to not enough seratonin

> producing food like potatoes as an example).

>

> So without going into too much more detail: my motto is cut

> out starch at your own risk. As for me, I'm on the

> CRON " portfolio " diet which you actually recommended (thank

> you!). So it's hummous, beans, etc. for me. I'll take the

> Okinawan diet anyday.

January 17, 2005

Don't count grains and starchy foods out, yet!

See this blazing article on pigments in foods:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050108/bob9.asp

However, some of the most dramatic effects attributed to anthocyanins

have emerged in studies of blue and purple foods. For instance, when

Japanese scientists gave mice high-fat diets augmented with an

anthocyanin-pigmented extract from purple corn, the animals maintained

normal weights. Mice on the same diet but without the extract became

obese. Moreover, only the latter group of animals developed excessive

sugar and insulin concentrations in their blood, Takanori Tsuda of

Doshisha University in Kyoto and his colleagues reported in 2003.

Last year, Tsuda's team showed that the purple-corn extract increased

the activity of a gene that regulates the function of fat cells. It's

the first food component to do so, the scientists reported in the

March 26, 2004 Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.

They also recommended that anthocyanins be explored as nutritional

supplements for " preventing obesity and diabetes. " Tsuda says, " We

need to perform a human study as soon as possible. "

January 17, 2005

" So without going into too much more detail: my motto is cut

out starch at your own risk. As for me, I'm on the

CRON " portfolio " diet which you actually recommended (thank

you!). So it's hummous, beans, etc. for me. I'll take the

Okinawan diet anyday. "

>>its impossible to guess if the okinawans centarians would live

even longer if they cut their starch a bit, but according to Willcox

and Suzuki (okinawa program, p.70) the okinawans centarians ate 54%

of calories from starch (but mainly from sweet potatoes, tofu and

soya) so on an 1800 cal diet that's 243g of starchy carbs from

those foods listed. So presuming we are not too genetically

different from okinawans then those kind of starches should help us

reach 100 plus (presuming no allergies), but what would happen if

you switch the sweet potatoes and tofu and soya for the more western

favourites of pasta, oats and bread, will you live as long as the

okinawans. Willcox and Suzuki seem to think that you can, (who

knows), Rodney, Francesca et al are the vangaurd of this CR movement

and like it or not they are the guinea pigs that later generations

will learn from (unless somebody invents the immortality pill first

and does away with the whole calorirestricting idea.)

in my opinion the best thing to do is eat a starchy meal of the

usual CR proportions then do a blood sugar test (finger prick) after

two hours and then after another two hrs to see if your blood goes

above 110, if it does or stays near that number for any period of

time then its best to cut back on starches, otherwise no need to

bother. I am using 110 as a health limit for safe blood spikes. but

I would not be surprised if that figure is eventually discovered to

be 90

richard ...

January 17, 2005

Full text of quoted study:

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/7/2125

Found some of this stuff online, but it's danged 'spensive!

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Dowling

<christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote:

> Don't count grains and starchy foods out, yet!

>

> See this blazing article on pigments in foods:

>

> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050108/bob9.asp

>

> However, some of the most dramatic effects attributed to anthocyanins

> have emerged in studies of blue and purple foods. For instance, when

> Japanese scientists gave mice high-fat diets augmented with an

> anthocyanin-pigmented extract from purple corn, the animals maintained

> normal weights. Mice on the same diet but without the extract became

> obese. Moreover, only the latter group of animals developed excessive

> sugar and insulin concentrations in their blood, Takanori Tsuda of

> Doshisha University in Kyoto and his colleagues reported in 2003.

>

> Last year, Tsuda's team showed that the purple-corn extract increased

> the activity of a gene that regulates the function of fat cells. It's

> the first food component to do so, the scientists reported in the

> March 26, 2004 Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.

> They also recommended that anthocyanins be explored as nutritional

> supplements for " preventing obesity and diabetes. " Tsuda says, " We

> need to perform a human study as soon as possible. "

>

January 17, 2005

Precisely. Thanks .

I think we have to be just as careful (if not more so) than

the general public when they start eliminating food groups

and encourage ill health by doing so (such as fad diets like

Atkins). For a while extreme CRONIES were eliminating

fruits. Then grains. IMHO not a good idea since we know

that these are health promoting foods.

The prudent thing is to eat like the Okinawans. They are the

only long term experiments in humans. From what we know

about them, they eat fruits sparingly, grains, legumes, some

potato and their prized purple sweet potato. Since nutrition

is such a young science, it would be folly IMHO to start

deciding from the present data what could safely be

eliminated. Every day we learn more about what is healthy

and disease preventing. Every day we learn that eliminating

a whole group has its consequences.

To answer Rod: By eating healthier, cutting way back on red

meat, fats, white breads, eliminating sweets and

desserts ,switching to non-fat milk, yogurt etc etc. calories

will be eliminated. From there a person can work on portion

control if it's still necessary to cut calories more (of

everything with the exception of perhaps veggies which are

very low in calories).

I suspect for example that you eat lots of your thick soup

that you often tell us about. Perhaps you need to cut back

on that and add a bit of the foods that you might not be

getting.

January 17, 2005

Jeff said " So, Whole Wheat Pasta, and Oatmeal actually produced lower

insulin reactions

than fish or beef or cheese. Apples and oranges produced a response

not much

different than Fish. " -

> but do we want to consume a high glycemic high starch food (bread,

oats, some fruit) and then be in a position where our body reacts

with a SLOW insulin response, I certainly do not. In reality eat 200

calories of fish, whey, meat or cheese and it will have only a small

effect on your blood glucose over a few hours due to a third of the

protein calories being converted to glycogen. But the dairy will

also stimulate your body to produce a larger FASTER amount of

insulin (Milk products deviate from other carbohydrate-containing

foods in that they produce high insulin responses, despite their low

GI, pubmed: 15531672.).

But 200 calories of oatmeal, bread or fruit will send you blood up

to 100-110 if you are healthy and that puts more stress on the body

as kidneys, liver, heart etc have to deal with this and the smaller

insulin reaction means that this starchy sugar hangs around your

body a lot longer and do we really want this in our blood as it

certainly passes through our heart arteries a good few thousand

times thus glycosylating any wandering LDL particles it may meet on

the way. These glycated particles are then gathered together like

prisoners, stored in the heart artery lining (as macrophages and

eventually these macrophages also known as " foam cells " burst open

causing a thrombosis heart attack, especially if your prone to

inflamation.) But these foam cells are hard to detect if you have a

heart scan as they are only tiny bumps, so you leave the doctors

with so called clean arteries then bang, a foam cell erupts and your

having a heart attack.

So a faster insulin reaction which can be caused by dairy and other

animal foods will help your body mop up any excess sugar floating

around in your veins, maybe before it starts glycosylating those LDL

particles, which therefore might not be such a bad thing. And maybe

this saves the okinawans as they have dairy, meat and fish in their

diets and it may mop up the starchy potatoes etc.

all this does though is back up the idea of not avoiding any food

groups as walford made sure there was a balance of animal produts in

his books probably because he suspected they may be useful in just

such a way as described above.

richard ....

January 17, 2005

Hi :

Now, when they manage to genetically modify these potatoes such that

they still have their flavanoids, but without the calories (mostly

starch) we will be away to the races ;; ^ )))

Rodney.

> Don't count grains and starchy foods out, yet!

>

> See this blazing article on pigments in foods:

>

> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050108/bob9.asp

>

> However, some of the most dramatic effects attributed to

anthocyanins

> have emerged in studies of blue and purple foods. For instance, when

> Japanese scientists gave mice high-fat diets augmented with an

> anthocyanin-pigmented extract from purple corn, the animals

maintained

> normal weights. Mice on the same diet but without the extract became

> obese. Moreover, only the latter group of animals developed

excessive

> sugar and insulin concentrations in their blood, Takanori Tsuda of

> Doshisha University in Kyoto and his colleagues reported in 2003.

>

> Last year, Tsuda's team showed that the purple-corn extract

increased

> the activity of a gene that regulates the function of fat cells.

It's

> the first food component to do so, the scientists reported in the

> March 26, 2004 Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.

> They also recommended that anthocyanins be explored as nutritional

> supplements for " preventing obesity and diabetes. " Tsuda says, " We

> need to perform a human study as soon as possible. "

January 17, 2005

Hi folks:

**Young** red wines are especially well endowed with anthocyanins.

It is the anthocyanins that give young red wines their purple hue,

which evolves to 'garnet' and 'ruby' colors with age, and eventually

to yellows and browns. And young wines are generally less expensive

than older ones.

Rodney.

> > Don't count grains and starchy foods out, yet!

> >

> > See this blazing article on pigments in foods:

> >

> > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050108/bob9.asp

> >

> > However, some of the most dramatic effects attributed to

anthocyanins

> > have emerged in studies of blue and purple foods. For instance,

when

> > Japanese scientists gave mice high-fat diets augmented with an

> > anthocyanin-pigmented extract from purple corn, the animals

maintained

> > normal weights. Mice on the same diet but without the extract

became

> > obese. Moreover, only the latter group of animals developed

excessive

> > sugar and insulin concentrations in their blood, Takanori Tsuda of

> > Doshisha University in Kyoto and his colleagues reported in 2003.

> >

> > Last year, Tsuda's team showed that the purple-corn extract

increased

> > the activity of a gene that regulates the function of fat cells.

It's

> > the first food component to do so, the scientists reported in the

> > March 26, 2004 Biochemical and Biophysical Research

Communications.

> > They also recommended that anthocyanins be explored as nutritional

> > supplements for " preventing obesity and diabetes. " Tsuda says, " We

> > need to perform a human study as soon as possible. "

> >

January 17, 2005

While I am not one to micromanage macro things, I am interested in the

BG/insulin axis as a definite

lifestyle disease vector.

You suggest that high BG leads to .....clip- " glycosylating any wandering LDL

particles " . Is this the only or even primary

mechanism?

From a recent Al Pater post (Diet sugars and cardiovascular disease) clip-

" Molecular studies indicate that physiological

hyperglycemia induces overproduction of superoxide by the mitochondrial

electron-transport chain, resulting in inflammatory

responses and endothelial dysfunction. "

Further the study Al posted suggests the mechanism is average, but that may be

an artifact of their study measurement methods rather

a true comparison of peak vs. average BG effects.

I have always been interested in inflammation wrt n3/n6. It looks like BG is

another factor driving general inflammation levels.

Inquiring minds want to know....

JR

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

From: rwalkerad1970 [mailto:rwalkerad1970@...]

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:43 AM