Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: was:Kcal vs. protein- mac ratios & lies

September 30, 2005

It's been a while since I railed against too much focus on macro

nutrient ratios, so I will offer my short version; first-cover all bases

for nutrient and essential food needs (essential fats, protein,

vitamins), then- the rest is energy. Insulin stimulant effects of high

GI diets are somewhat mitigated by low energy balance diets, but lower

GI is always good and high fiber content may be even more beneficial to

those eating less.

Lies, damn lies, and labels:

I should have known better but I recently tried using sugar-free gum to

satiate hunger attacks and started to get suspicious first when I found

myself chewing 3-4 pieces at a time, and secondly when a sensitive tooth

started reacting as if I was exposing my mouth to pure sugar. Trusting

soul that I was, I assumed a sugar free gum, wouldn't be very high in

sugar, fat, or protein. With the sundry artificial sweeteners available

it should also be very low calorie..... While I've yet to find a

citation of the actual caloric content apparently they sweeten with

alcohol sugars, which sounds pretty much like sugar to me....

It's been about a week since I stopped and I feel a little different, a

little better. Sugar free snacks that contain sugar are never a good

thing. IMO constantly dosing with sugar is not a good way to manage

appetite either.

JR

J^3 wrote:

> my main concern is what would be the macro-nutrient proportions that

> would be best for our health now

> i'm not so concerned what we ate when we lived in caves (before or after

> fire)

>

> i find the experiments below interesting and they provide hope with

> regards to cr

>

> but what i'm trying to understand is with regards to human life

> extension how would these experiments translate

>

> this is my bottle neck:

> if one would perform a cr experiment on both a carnivore (lion for

> example) and on a herbivore (cow for example)

> i don't see how macro-nutrients would even play a part in the experiment

> the carnivore would be given a high % protein and fat diet and the

> herbivore would be given a high % carb diet

>

> believing that humans are omnivores, i understand that its a little more

> complicated than that

>

> i just don't see (with a great certainty) how i could base my

> macro-nutrient proportions on another animal who may or may not be

> genetically predispose to a certain " diet "

>

> thanks for the response below,

> i just trying to get a foot hold on cr

>

> On 9/29/05, *Rodney* <perspect1111@...

> <mailto:perspect1111@...>> wrote:

>

> Hi J^3:

>

> Yes. Although, by the nature of the thing, high carb means low

> something else, and it may be the low something else that is the key

> issue - i.e. is it low fat? Or low protein? Or either very low fat

> or very low protein, that extends maximum lifespan? The

> Mair/Partridge study currently underway should, I hope, provide a

> clear answer to that question for flies.

>

> I have no good advice as to the nature of the human " natural diet " .

> When you ask that question do you mean what did we eat when we lived

> in caves? And if so then are you talking before we discovered fire,

> or after? Or are you asking what macronutrient proportions would

> provide the best health? They may not be the same, of course.

>

> In addition, what maximized lifespan back then very likely is not

> what would maximize our lifespans today. And what maximized it would

> also vary depending on the climate we happened to be living in.

> Those of us in Africa at the time would have had very different needs

> from those trying to cope with the ice age.

>

> Rodney.

>

September 30, 2005