Re: longevity test

[Guest guest]

Ed: good for you on the longevity test. But how much stock can we put in

that stuff. Last time I took that test, it did not factor in CRON at all.

But good for you if you make it to 97 or more in good health.

We had a thread a while back on how many overweight people (women mostly)

were living or had lived long healthy lives. Mentioned were: Child,

Queen mother (who died last over at over 100) and a couple of

others. So go figure....... We can only hope that our diets do the trick.

on 10/17/2002 7:38 PM, Ed Sullivan at Sully@... wrote:

> Al,

> I took Perl's longevity test. Even though I am overweight (although I am

> more than 20% under set point for calories). To my

> suprise, my unhealthy but long-lived aunts gave me a boost, and the test

> says I'm looking at a possible 97 - without the cron effect - ?

> Thanks, Al. I needed that.

>

> Ed S.

[Guest guest]

Francesca,

I don't place any " stock " in those gimmiks at all. But, they're fun. I

was surprised to see that longevous aunts counted so heavily. I saw the

book on the bookstand some time ago, and didn't buy it. I do buy most

books on this subject. Most, of course, are worthless. Among those of

value (to me) are, first, all of Walford's books, then Ornish's first book

in which he outlines his entire program. When I do the non-diet parts,

it's easier to do the diet parts... Then perhaps the Omega Plan for a

couple of readings, then a number of books including the Okinawa Program

for reinforcement and answers to specific questions. I have tried most of

them, including Sears. I modify them all with Walford and dwidp. Ornish

with fish a couple of times a week works best, for me, but I am convinced

that the one each person can stay with, with reduced calories and excellent

nutrition, is best for that person.

If there is value in this kind of test, it points out that there are

specific things, perhaps surprising, that can help us avoid what's going

to kill us for a while (I believe that's the way RLW put it).

But best thing we can do is eat nutritiously and eat below our setpoint.

Exercise, but not to exhaustion, comes next. Then this other stuff. Most

of the other stuff was part of cron eating anyway...after all, there aren't

enough calories in a low calorie diet to eat hot dogs or sausage. I don't

even eat the soy kinds. We're best off ignoring our theoretical longevity

heritage. It's unlikely that our ancestors ate well from a longevity

standpoint, and there are many factor involved in how long we live that

have nothing to do with either diet or our ancestry. I haven't figured out

how to fix my ancestry. I can't even fix yesterday.

There is much discussion about the details of an optimal diet, what to eat,

what to avoid....but it's important to remember, along with Delaney,

that the long lived lab animals simply ate calorie restricted lab chow that

was optimized by adding supplements to it. The equivalent of ordinary (not

a lethal sad regimen) food with a one a day pill mixed in. There were a

number of experiments with macronutrients. They didn't make much

difference. Not enough to say for sure that one was the best.

I enjoy the discussions, and it helps me keep on target to be involved,

but ultimately, each of us must eat well, and be a little bit hungry a lot

of the time. In my opinion.

Ed

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

From: " Francesca Skelton " <fskelton@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:22 PM

Subject: Re: [ ]longevity test

> Ed: good for you on the longevity test. But how much stock can we put in

> that stuff. Last time I took that test, it did not factor in CRON at all.

> But good for you if you make it to 97 or more in good health.

>

> b>

> > Al,

> > I took Perl's longevity test. Even though I am overweight (although I

am

> > more than 20% under set point for calories). To my

> > suprise, my unhealthy but long-lived aunts gave me a boost, and the

test

> > says I'm looking at a possible 97 - without the cron effect - ?

> > Thanks, Al. I needed that.

> >

> > Ed S.

>

>

>

>