Re: Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

[Guest guest]

The people die from malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia. Austad's book is great. A unique outlook, a realistic outlook, and a unique style of writing.

He says the best way to live to 110 yo, is to live in an area where the people are illiterate and keep poor records. (ha)

Just reread some of it - if you keep flies in a frig at the right temp they live 10 times longer. Now that supports the notion of slowing biochemical processes and surely exercise does not do that. Of course, not many people spend their time living in a controlled lab.

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:06 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

More info on these people please.Why are they dying so young?> IMO, Dr Mirkin and fitness people don't know what exercise is.> > Ref Austad's book:"Why we age". An excellent read. > Pg 42:"People living in the bush in Papua New Guinea eat a low fatdiet (less than 5%...) from necessity... Their daily life involvesexercise at levels that would cripple or kill most Americans, eventhose athletically inclined. A friend of mine who has run dozens ofmarathons told me that a two day walk he took in the mountains ofPapua ....was the hardest thing he had ever done."> They say they have never had anyone die of a heart attack. > > {They} don't get atherosclerosis, and they live until their sixtiesor seventies." > > Regards.> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rodney > > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 3:24 PM> Subject: [ ] Exercise >>> Immunity> > > Hi folks:> > I get Dr. Mirkin's regular email newsletter. He seems to be regarded > around here as a source who is worth listening to. The following is > an excerpt from a recent newsletter. Can anyone suggest where we can > find supporting evidence for this? It seems a bit 'kooky' to me. I > will email them and ask, also. ty> > "How Lack of Exercise Shortens Lives> > Many recent studies show that people die from inactivity, > not just from aging. We know that as people age, they lose > muscle, their immunities weaken and because of their weakened > immunity, they are more likely to die of cancer and infectious > diseases. As you age, you lose your ability to kill germs because > of lack of muscle. When germs get into your body, you must > make white blood cells and proteins called antibodies to kill them. > Antibodies and cells are made from protein and the only place that > you can store extra protein is in your muscles. When you have > large muscles, you have a ready source of protein to make > antibodies and cells. When you have small muscles, you have a > very limited source of amino acids to make protein, so your > immunity may be inadequate to kill germs. ................"> > If this is true I should be exercising a lot more. And lifting > weights, it seems.> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

It only takes an hour to walk 3 miles. I did mine.

Physically demanding jobs as in fishing in Finland is not healthy.

So we might break the "exercise" into

physical work (where you can count the physics calories).

athletics, except weight lifting

weight lifting/body building

aerobic

Work does not equal exercise.

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:54 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

It is MY understanding that the most long-lived people engage infrequent if not continuous physically demanding work throughout theirlives, they don't sit on their butts posting a computer all day long.

[Guest guest]

> It is MY understanding that the most long-lived people engage in

> frequent if not continuous physically demanding work throughout their

> lives, they don't sit on their butts posting a computer all day long.

Yes. For example, old Okinawins live lives that would be considered arduous

by our standards.

Al

[Guest guest]

Before we had groups we had sci.med nutrition:

This is from a cardio in Finland.

ollisallinen8720

Oct 2 1998, 3:00 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.med

From: ollisallinen8...my-dejanews - Find messages by this author

Date: 1998/10/02

Subject: Re: hypertension

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article <3613B85B.7__

jwwri...livingston (DOT) net wrote:

The majority are working. The climate here in Finland, I mean the athmospere and working conditions are hard. Many work at the edge of exhaustion. In this place this is the most common reason for hypertension. Get retired? Olli Sallinen, MD, Helsinki

Regards.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:54 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

It is MY understanding that the most long-lived people engage infrequent if not continuous physically demanding work throughout theirlives, they don't sit on their butts posting a computer all day long.> > > Hi folks:> > > > > > I get Dr. Mirkin's regular email newsletter. He seems to be > > regarded > > > around here as a source who is worth listening to. The following > > is > > > an excerpt from a recent newsletter. Can anyone suggest where we > > can > > > find supporting evidence for this? It seems a bit 'kooky' to me. > > I > > > will email them and ask, also. ty> > > > > > "How Lack of Exercise Shortens Lives> > > > > > Many recent studies show that people die from inactivity, > > > not just from aging. We know that as people age, they lose > > > muscle, their immunities weaken and because of their weakened > > > immunity, they are more likely to die of cancer and infectious > > > diseases. As you age, you lose your ability to kill germs because > > > of lack of muscle. When germs get into your body, you must > > > make white blood cells and proteins called antibodies to kill > > them. > > > Antibodies and cells are made from protein and the only place that > > > you can store extra protein is in your muscles. When you have > > > large muscles, you have a ready source of protein to make > > > antibodies and cells. When you have small muscles, you have a > > > very limited source of amino acids to make protein, so your > > > immunity may be inadequate to kill germs. ................"> > > > > > If this is true I should be exercising a lot more. And lifting > > > weights, it seems.> > > > > > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Do you have some data to support that?

Risk/reward benefit, etc, - for humans.

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

From: drsusanforshey

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:43 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

A casual "3 mile walk" is not exercise either, IMO. Not to me. That'snot nearly enough.> It only takes an hour to walk 3 miles. I did mine.> Physically demanding jobs as in fishing in Finland is not healthy. > So we might break the "exercise" into > > physical work (where you can count the physics calories).> athletics, except weight lifting> weight lifting/body building > aerobic > > Work does not equal exercise. > > Regards.> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: drsusanforshey > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:54 PM> Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity> > > It is MY understanding that the most long-lived people engage in> frequent if not continuous physically demanding work throughout their> lives, they don't sit on their butts posting a computer all day long.

[Guest guest]

Folks: let's stick to the facts. If anyone has PROOF that excessive exercise leads to longer life, by all means please post. Opinions however don't count.

Until we get real proof, we'll have to go by what Walford suggests. Too much is not compatible with CR. We need enough to stay fit. See BT120 diet for details. Also see our exercise file. If there is anything new or to the contrary, by all means post with the citation to your proof.

on 7/21/2005 6:43 PM, drsusanforshey at drsusanforshey@... wrote:

A casual " 3 mile walk " is not exercise either, IMO. Not to me. That's

not nearly enough.

> It only takes an hour to walk 3 miles. I did mine.

> Physically demanding jobs as in fishing in Finland is not healthy.

> So we might break the " exercise " into

>

> physical work (where you can count the physics calories).

> athletics, except weight lifting

> weight lifting/body building

> aerobic

>

> Work does not equal exercise.

>

> Regards.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, for posting the rec's, Diane.

I agree with that, but realize when I started exercising I WAS at a lower level of exercise capability. Now I can do 3 miles in an hour easily (10% grade). Of course, I can walk farther than that, but I don't find it stimulating, with so many unknowns. And it doesn't cause me to strive higher.

Doc says 30 mins per day, I do more than that. Plus outdoor work, call it casual, but I think moving a RR tie exceeds most our public's capability. I found I could still build muscle. At the end of a week I could move a 400#er. Just for kicks, I picked it off the ground. Silly me, being impressed with strength.

That work, IMO, costs oxidation. Some of that may be good, because the body needs to "clean up" it's systems, perhaps. But extensive real work is silly. No proof it extends life, and lotsa experience it doesn't.

Granted some lifting delays osteo, but not arthritis. Some aerobic delays CVD perhaps, but not oxidation. My son lifts weights. At 215#, me at 178#, I lift him. Stupid thing to do, an aneurysm, or stroke can occur.

People die running, in fact, per Pritikin's book on running, Chapter titled: "Run and Die on the American diet", Dr reported data from Rhode Island from 1975 to 1980: For each sedentary man 30 to 64 years of age who experienced sudden death, there were 7 joggers. "

My experience? My friend's footballer son died in his dorm at Georgia, 20 yo, 86% plugged arteries. Sobering when it's that close.

Pritikin blames it on diet. So if we're going to suggest people run, etc., we need to arm them with the diet to go with it. Perhaps the diet comes first, in the case of a person 100# over weight. The diet in that book is not too unlike the foods suggested by Walford, Ornish, etc.

But the question was immunity. Oddly, and maybe this is just my conclusion, but the body's immune system attacks itself when inflammation is involved. Anything I do to incur inflammation, muscle breakdown/rebuilding, wrong diet, not the right fatty acids, causes some tissue to change. Inflammation drives athero/CVD/PAD/ brain VD, cancer, arthritis, BPH.

There are these systems that feed on themselves. Inflammation causes flakes in the joint, the flakes cause irritation, and the irritation causes further inflammation.

I don't see how any exercise improves that over the amount necessary to sustain certain biological functions that are assisted by moving around. Granted things like GH might need to be stimulated.

For those who think you're in shape:

Find a three year old and follow him around the house for a day.

Find a tall building and walk up 20 REAL floors and down again.

Find a RR tie and lift it off the ground. Or even one end.

Or follow my wife around a half mile 2 story mall shopping.

Regards.

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

From: Diane Walter

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:16 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

I haven't had time to look up data yet (but I feel certain there arereams and reams of it). Here's what the AHA says:American Heart Association RecommendationFor most healthy people:For health benefits to the heart, lungs and circulation, perform anymoderate-to-vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 30minutes on most days of the week at 50-75 percent of your maximumheart rate. You can accumulate 30 minutes in 10 or 15 minute sessions.What's important is to include physical activity as part of a regularroutine.These activities are ESPECIALLY beneficial when done regularly: * brisk walking, hiking, stair-climbing, aerobic exercise * jogging, running, bicycling, rowing and swimming * activities such as soccer and basketball that include continuousrunningThe training effects of such activities are most apparent at exerciseintensities that EXCEED 50 percent of a person's exercise capacity(maximum heart rate). If you're physically active regularly for longerperiods or at greater intensity, you're likely to BENEFIT MORE. Butdon't overdo it. Too much exercise can give you sore muscles andincrease the risk of injury.What about moderate-intensity activities?Even moderate-intensity activities, when performed daily, can haveSOME long-term health benefits. They help lower the risk ofcardiovascular diseases. Here are some examples: * walking for pleasure, gardening and yard work ( 3 MPH WALKS) * housework, dancing and prescribed home exercise * recreational activities such as tennis, racquetball, soccer,basketball and touch footballWhat risk factors are reduced?Regular physical activity can also help reduce or eliminate some ofthese risk factors: * High blood pressure -- Regular aerobic activities can lowerblood pressure. * Cigarette smoking -- Smokers who become physically active aremore likely to cut down or stop smoking. * Diabetes -- People at their ideal weight are less likely todevelop diabetes. Physical activity may also decrease insulinrequirements for people with diabetes. * Obesity and overweight -- Regular physical activity can helppeople lose excess fat or stay at a reasonable weight. * High levels of triglycerides -- Physical activity helps reducetriglyceride levels. High triglycerides are linked to developingcoronary artery disease in some people. * Low levels of HDL -- Low levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol(less than 40 mg/dL) have been linked to a higher risk of coronaryartery disease. Recent studies show that regular physical activity cansignificantly increase HDL cholesterol levels and thus reduce yourrisk.What are other benefits of physical activity? * Physical activity builds healthy bones, muscles and joints, andreduces the risk of colon cancer. Millions of Americans suffer fromillnesses that can be prevented or improved through regular physicalactivity. * Physical activity also helps psychologically. It reducesfeelings of depression and anxiety, improves mood and promotes a senseof well-being. * The 1996 Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity alsosuggests that active people have a lower risk for stroke.

[Guest guest]

But recognize they represent a small segment of the total centenarians said to number 50,000.

Visiting my bro in his upscale retirement home, there was a man who walked briskly down the hall, using ski poles to keep his balance. He said he walked 2 miles per day and he was going at least 3 mph, maybe 3.5. He was 95 yo, about 6 feet tall, guess about 175#. Long strides.

I now plan to reduce to 2 miles per day when I get to 95. Next time I'm there, I'll try to keep up long enough to get more data.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:52 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

Hi Francesca:And the New England Centenarian (NEC) Study found that there was absolutely no consistent relationship between exercise and longevity in their population of centenarians. They found a few who exercised extensively. Some moderately. Some modestly. Many never. Of those who did exercise, some walked, some lifted weights, some played occasional tennis, etc. etc.. It was, they said in an email to me that I posted about here some months ago: "all over the map."This is, they said, the reason they do not mention exercise in the list on their website of the behaviours/characteristics typical of the centenarians they have studied.My opinion is that one will need a modest amount of exercise to enable one (modest endurance capacity, enough flexibility to pick things up off the floor, enough strength to move things that need to be moved) to do the things one will need to do when one gets to be 100. But apparently, from the NEC data, people can and do achieve that while taking no out-of-the-ordinary exercise at all.(And the average male lifespan in Okinawa, as we have discussed previously, is only about three years longer than it is in the US notwithstanding the atrocious average north American diet. Perhaps it is too much exercise that is keeping the Okinawa average lifespan below its potential?)Rodney.

[Guest guest]

:

Excessive exercise can possbly do harm. See our files + BT120YD (page 248 is one good source of the drawbacks of too much exercise - release of free radicals and increase of metabolism).

Once again, please post with citations, otherwise it's just your opinion.

on 7/22/2005 11:58 AM, drsusanforshey at drsusanforshey@... wrote:

At worst the excess exercise will do no harm. At best it just might

attenuate some inadvertent and possibly chronic error in your

nutritional judgement.

CRON + OE = !

[Guest guest]

Exercise and longevity?

From McArdle Katch & Katch, EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY: Energy, Nutrition and Human

Performance

" Research concerning the lifestyles and exercise habits or 17,000 Harvard

alumni, who enetered college between 1916 and 1950 gives strgon evidence that

moderate aerobic exercise, equivalent to jogging about 3 miles a day, promotes

good health and may actually add years to life. Regular exercise countered the

life-shortening effects of cigarette smoking and excess body mass. Even for

people with high BP, those who exercised regularly reduced their death rate by

one -half. Genetic tendencies toward an early death were countered by regular

exercise. ......... From the perspective of energy expenditure, the life

expectancy of harvard alumni increased steadily from an energy expenditure of

500 kcal per week - 3500 kcal; this was equivalent to 6 to 8 hours of

" strenuous " weekly exercise. In addition, active men lives an average of 1-2

years longer then sedentary classmates. Beyond weekly exercise of 3500 kcal,

there were NO ADDITIONAL health of longevity benefits. When exercise was

carried to extremes, the men had higher death rates than more moderately active

colleagues.

Title: Physical activity and coronary heart disease in men: The Harvard Alumni

Health Study.

Author: Sesso HD , Paffenbarger RS , Lee IM

Source: Circulation, 102(9): 975-80 2000

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The quantity and intensity of physical activity required

for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) remain unclear.

Therefore, we examined the association of the quantity and intensity of physical

activity with CHD risk and the impact of other coronary risk factors. METHODS

AND RESULTS: We followed 12 516 middle-aged and older men (mean age 57.7 years,

range 39 to 88 years) from 1977 through 1993. Physical activity was assessed at

baseline in kilojoules per week (4.2 kJ=1 kcal) from blocks walked, flights

climbed, and participation in sports or recreational activities. During

follow-up, 2,135 cases of incident CHD, including myocardial infarction, angina

pectoris, revascularization, and coronary death, occurred. Compared with men

expending <2,100 kJ/wk, men expending 2,100 to 4,199, 4,200 to 8,399, 8,400 to

12,599, and >/=12,600 kJ/wk had multivariate relative risks of 0.90, 0.81, 0.80,

and 0.81, respectively (P: for trend=0.003). When we considered the independent

effects of specific physical activity components, only total sports or

recreational activities (P: for trend=0.042) and vigorous activities (P: for

trend=0.02) were inversely associated with the risk of CHD. These associations

did not differ within subgroups of men defined by coronary risk factors.

Finally, among men with multiple coronary risk factors, those expending >/=4,200

kJ/wk had reduced CHD risk compared with men expending <4,200 kJ/wk.

CONCLUSIONS: Total physical activity and vigorous activities showed the

strongest reductions in CHD risk. Moderate and light activities, which may be

less precisely measured, showed nonsignificant inverse associations. The

association between physical activity and a reduced risk of CHD also extends to

men with multiple coronary risk factors.

Title: Associations of light, moderate, and vigorous intensity physical

activity with longevity. The Harvard Alumni Health Study.

Author: Lee IM , Paffenbarger RS

Source: Am J Epidemiol, 151(3): 293-9 2000

Abstract: Physical activity is associated with better health; however, the

optimal intensity of activity remains unclear. A total of 13,485 men (mean age,

57.5 years) from the Harvard Alumni Health Study reported their walking, stair

climbing, and sports/recreation in 1977. Between 1977 and 1992, 2,539 died.

After adjusting for the different activity components, distance walked and

storeys climbed independently predicted longevity (p, trend = 0.004 and <0.001,

respectively). Light activities (<4 multiples of resting metabolic rate (METs))

were not associated with reduced mortality rates, moderate activities (4-<6

METs) appeared somewhat beneficial, and vigorous activities (> or =6 METs)

clearly predicted lower mortality rates (p, trend = 0.72, 0.07, and <0.001,

respectively). These data provide some support for current recommendations that

emphasize moderate intensity activity; they also clearly indicate a benefit of

vigorous activity.

Title: Exercise intensity and longevity in men. The Harvard Alumni Health

Study.

Author: Lee IM , Hsieh CC , Paffenbarger RS

Source: JAMA, 273(15): 1179-84 1995

Abstract: OBJECTIVE--To examine the independent associations of vigorous (> or

= 6 resting metabolic rate [MET] score) and nonvigorous (< 6 MET score) physical

activity with longevity. DESIGN--Prospective cohort study, following up men from

1962 or 1966 through 1988. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS--Subjects were Harvard

University alumni, without self-reported, physician-diagnosed cardiovascular

disease, cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 17,321). Men with

a mean age of 46 years reported their physical activities on questionnaires at

baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--All-cause mortality (3728 deaths).

RESULTS--Total energy expenditure and energy expenditure from vigorous

activities, but not energy expenditure from nonvigorous activities, related

inversely to mortality. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative

risks of dying associated with increasing quintiles of total energy expenditure

were 1.00 (referent), 0.94, 0.95, 0.91 and 0.91, respectively (P [trend] < .05).

The relative risks of dying associated with less than 630, 630 to less than

1680, 1680 to less than 3150, 3150 to less than 6300, and 6300 or more kJ/wk

expended on vigorous activities were 1.00 (referent), 0.88, 0.92, 0.87, and

0.87, respectively (P [trend] = .007). Corresponding relative risks for energy

expended on nonvigorous activities were 1.00 (referent), 0.89, 1.00, 0.98, and

0.92, respectively (P [trend] = .36). Analyses of vigorous and nonvigorous

activities were mutually adjusted. Among men who reported only vigorous

activities (259 deaths), we observed decreasing age-standardized mortality rates

with increasing activity (P = .05); among men who reported only nonvigorous

activities (380 deaths), no trend was apparent (P = .99). CONCLUSIONS--These

data demonstrate a graded inverse relationship between total physical activity

and mortality. Furthermore, vigorous activities but not nonvigorous activities

were associated with longevity. These findings pertain only to all-cause

mortality; nonvigorous exercise has been shown to benefit other aspects of

health.

[Guest guest]

" Each 1-MET increase in exercise capacity conferred a 12 percent improvement in

survival. "

NEJM

Volume 346:793-801 March 14, 2002 Number 11

Exercise Capacity and Mortality among Men Referred for Exercise Testing

Myers, Ph.D., Manish Prakash, M.D., Victor Froelicher, M.D., Dat Do,

M.D., Sara Partington, B.Sc., and J. Edwin Atwood, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Exercise capacity is known to be an important prognostic factor in

patients with cardiovascular disease, but it is uncertain whether it predicts

mortality equally well among healthy persons. There is also uncertainty

regarding the predictive power of exercise capacity relative to other clinical

and exercise-test variables.

Methods We studied a total of 6213 consecutive men referred for treadmill

exercise testing for clinical reasons during a mean (±SD) of 6.2±3.7 years of

follow-up. Subjects were classified into two groups: 3679 had an abnormal

exercise-test result or a history of cardiovascular disease, or both, and 2534

had a normal exercise-test result and no history of cardiovascular disease.

Overall mortality was the end point.

Results There were a total of 1256 deaths during the follow-up period, resulting

in an average annual mortality of 2.6 percent. Men who died were older than

those who survived and had a lower maximal heart rate, lower maximal systolic

and diastolic blood pressure, and lower exercise capacity. After adjustment for

age, the peak exercise capacity measured in metabolic equivalents (MET) was the

strongest predictor of the risk of death among both normal subjects and those

with cardiovascular disease. Absolute peak exercise capacity was a stronger

predictor of the risk of death than the percentage of the age-predicted value

achieved, and there was no interaction between the use or nonuse of

beta-blockade and the predictive power of exercise capacity. Each 1-MET increase

in exercise capacity conferred a 12 percent improvement in survival.

Conclusions Exercise capacity is a more powerful predictor of mortality among

men than other established risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

[Guest guest]

Thanks very much, Rodney,

I plan much the same. I think I'll do (stay at) less than 2800 kcals per week measured by the treddy, and on those days I don't exercise do some wine (not my favorite either).

The other thing I've wondered about excited by 's post: In a regression to determine the independent impact of medical and social factors on mortality, unimpaired renal function, good vision, avoiding afternoon naps, volunteer or compensated work, physical activity and IADL independence all correlated with improved survival. "

reminds me almost no consideration for liver and kidneys, arguably as important as the heart, is discussed in CR groups.

Like who in their 80's has unimpaired renal function?

I wonder how many fitness types actually get a renal or liver scan, stress tests BEFORE doing excess exercise? Much less, what is the effect of long term exposure to excess exercise. And none of them get an invasive monitor of BP during exercise. for sure.

BP rises unusually higher in about 1/3 of healthy trained military aviators.

Resting BP doesn't detect it.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:28 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

Hi folks:Well here is another perspective on this issue. Below I post excerpts from two studies.The first study (from Jeff's post) shows a behaviour that reduces the relative risk of all-cause mortality to 0.91 (or perhaps 0.87). The other shows a different behaviour that reduces the relative risk of mortality to 0.51. ====================Here is the relevant excerpt from first study:MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--All-cause mortality (3728 deaths). RESULTS--Total energy expenditure and energy expenditure from vigorous activities, but not energy expenditure from nonvigorous activities, related inversely to mortality. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risks of dying associated with increasing quintiles of total energy expenditure were 1.00 (referent), 0.94, 0.95, 0.91 and 0.91, respectively (P [trend] < .05). The relative risks of dying associated with less than 630, 630 to less than 1680, 1680 to less than 3150, 3150 to less than 6300, and 6300 or more kJ/wk expended on vigorous activities were 1.00 (referent), 0.88, 0.92, 0.87, and 0.87, respectively (P [trend] = .007). Corresponding relative risks for energy expended on nonvigorous activities were 1.00 (referent), 0.89, 1.00, 0.98, and 0.92, respectively (P [trend] = .36).===================Here is the relevant excerpt from the second study abstract:DESIGN--Prospective population study with baseline assessment of alcohol intake, smoking habit, income, education, and body mass index, and 10-12 years' follow up of mortality. SETTING--Copenhagen city heart study, Denmark. SUBJECTS--6051 men and 7234 women aged 30-70 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Number and time of cause-specific deaths from 1976 to 1988. RESULTS--The risk of dying steadily decreased with an increasing intake of wine--from a relative risk of 1.00 for the subjects who never drank wine to 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.81) for those who drank three to five glasses a day. Intake of neither beer nor spirits, however, was associated with reduced risk. For spirits intake the relative risk of dying increased from 1.00 for those who never drank to 1.34 (1.05 to 1.71) for those with an intake of three to five drinks a day. The effects of the three types of alcoholic drinks seemed to be independent of each other, and no significant interactions existed with sex, age, education, income, smoking, or body mass index. Wine drinking showed the same relation to risk of death from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease as to risk of death from all causes. CONCLUSION--Low to moderate intake of wine is associated with lower mortality from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease and other causes. Similar intake of spirits implied an increased risk, while beer drinking did not affect mortality. PMID: 7767150 ================As you can see, it appears that you can either exert yourself to the tune of more than 6300 kj/week and drop you mortality by nine percent, or, if you prefer, you can drink some wine daily and reduce it by 49%.As I have said here many times before, very little about nutrition/health is known for absolutely certain, so in this vacuum of unreliable information we each have to place our bets as regards what our behaviour should be based on our best judgment about what seems to make sense given the information we think we possess today.I plan to follow the advice suggested by both the above studies. But not in excess, and especially so, not the first.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

"unlikely" doesn't mean impossible.

I recall even degrey, hayflick?, thinks it's unlikely.

Being a scientist, I doubt CR works in humans, as well, simply because we already live longer and incur more threats.

But the question is to avoid those things that lower mortality, at least.

CR is a domain not covered exactly by the medicals.

Then there's the question of what to recommend in a group read by a lot of people. We better have clinically proven data you can take to court.

My aunt died at 56 yo following a healthnut on the first TV shows. My fat mother lived to 75.

Regards.

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

From: Diane Walter

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:04 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

--- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...>wrote:> Hi folks:> > And at the risk of repeating misself [but for the benefit of those > who are new or have poor memories (!)] do not forget the wisdom of > Dr. , cardiologist at Cornell Medical Center, NYC, in his > book 'The Exercise Myth' that ............. "... fitness has > absolutely nothing to do with health."> > Rodney.> He also states in the book that, while we can shorten our 80 year lifespan, it is unlikely we can lengthen it. So he's not touting CReither.Diane

[Guest guest]

Why does a 20yo footballer die of heart disease?

The doctor and Pritikin said it was diet.

AHA rec's DIET and exercise.

In a recent discussion with a cardio, he said the heart will repair itself (essentially) by developing new paths. Exercise is thought to promote that.

My take it must be in conjunction with the right diet.

They don't rec excess exercise.

Also, exercise by whom? Those joggers may be unknowledgeable folks who get up one day and started to run, without doing heath checks first, like an angiogram. I mean why do they do that to begin with? Their overweight state by itself indicates a health risk.

My experience with exercise everytime is I got heavier, when I needed to lose weight not build more muscle.

Regards.

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

From: Diane Walter

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Exercise >>> Immunity

--- In , "jwwright" <jwwright@e...>wrote:> People die running, in fact, per Pritikin's book on running, Chaptertitled: "Run and Die on the American diet", Dr reporteddata from Rhode Island from 1975 to 1980: For each sedentary man 30 to64 years of age who experienced sudden death, there were 7 joggers. "Jim,While I agree that people die running (I have a friend who did, but healso had genetically-caused high cholesterol), I have a very hard timebelieving this statistic. If it were true in general, then why doesthe American Heart Association recommend running? This statisticmakes it sound like running is worse than smoking.Diane

[Guest guest]

>>> I feel certainly details that your quotation is not a true

indication of the certain results of the experiment.

Isnt that always the case? And why we keep looking

Here are all the response/letters

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/11/793#related_letters

Its not " my quote " per see, put some more data I posted to add to the

discussion.

I posted my personal " thoughts " on exercise and how much a few months back.

Regards

Jeff