Skip to comments.
Living Longer: Calories that Count (Longevity - live to 158!)
PBS - Stealing Time series ^
| ?
| Dr. Roy Walford
Posted on 12/26/2002 7:47:46 AM PST by theFIRMbss
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
It sounds persuasive.
Still, it is from PBS.
Anyone tried it?
To: theFIRMbss
I'd rather live only until 80 with about 10 years (70 to 80) as a hobbling old person rather than live to 160 with 90 years as a hobbling old person or wheelchair bound.
2
posted on
12/26/2002 7:50:01 AM PST
by
xrp
To: theFIRMbss
Gee, eat less overall, but consume healthier foods, and you'll live longer...where do I get in on these studies???
Can I get a grant to determine why there are only 8 buns in a bag but 10 hot dogs in a package?
3
posted on
12/26/2002 7:53:20 AM PST
by
IYAS9YAS
To: theFIRMbss
You get to live to be 150, but you have to eat three heads of cabbage each day...
To: T. P. Pole
>The effect is only related to calories.
As long as essential nutrients are present, the relative amounts of protein, carbohydrate, and fat make no difference.
>>...three heads of cabbage
Zone Perfect people
probably have a leg up.
They get good balance...
To: theFIRMbss
There have, of course, been many involuntary calorie-restriction diets. None have produces 100+ year lifespans.
On the other hand, my parents are both in their mid-nineties and just now beginning to have problems living alone. They did it the old fashioned way -- by having long-lived ancestors. My father was a smoker for over twenty years, and quite a bit overweight by official standards. He was active, but never did anything just for "exercise". Neither has ever been on any of the fad diets -- low fat, low cholesterol, etc.
6
posted on
12/26/2002 8:11:46 AM PST
by
js1138
To: theFIRMbss
Shouldn't this be on the History Channel?
7
posted on
12/26/2002 8:20:01 AM PST
by
Drango
To: theFIRMbss
Yeah right on be on social security for 90 years and in a nursing home for 60
Who the hell is going to pay for that
8
posted on
12/26/2002 8:24:26 AM PST
by
uncbob
To: theFIRMbss
Why would I want to live to 150 with a BS diet (go see what you get to eat on the links), when I can live to be 100 and eat what I want ?
Besides that. I have to just hold out till about 100 (2070)by then anti agathics shuold be available or some form of nanotech rejuventation.
To: T. P. Pole
You get to live to be 150, but you have to eat three heads of cabbage each day...And spend a third of your life on the toilet, so it averages out the same anyway...
10
posted on
12/26/2002 8:29:32 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: theFIRMbss
If you don't enjoy good food wine and friends it will at least seem like you live longer, time will seem to pass slowly and life will be boring.
To: theFIRMbss
Check out the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. They've been doing nutritional studies and cancer studies for years and the data supports the article. I'd love to live to 150 and beyond.
To: theFIRMbss
It only follows that a restrictive diet eliminates sugar, which is high in calories.
For those who have cancer or loved ones that do, please eliminate sugar from the diet, which only feeds the cancer cells and keep them alive and happy...Cancer loves sugar.
sw
13
posted on
12/26/2002 8:36:52 AM PST
by
spectre
To: theFIRMbss
As much as it makes sense in the lab, I think it has little relevance to the real world. In animal populations such as moose and deer, the biggest male gets to increase his gene pool the most by mating with the most females of their species. Low weight is generally associated with high birth fatalities. Taller people (who get that way by eating more calories, especially protein) live longer and are more wealthy then their shorter peers.
I could go on, but there seems to me many examples where healthy, well-fed members live longer, prosper more, and add more to the gene pool than their weakened, smaller counterparts. Also, in the wild it would be extremely difficult to reduce calories without reducing nutrients, given that the food supply for all members is basically the same, which would imply that nutrients are proportional to calorie intake, generally speaking.
I would take a well-fed (but not obese) member of a species any day over a small rival. I should admit that I am a very healthy male of 6-1, and have no desire to be the weakling on the block.
To: theFIRMbss
It's all a matter of degree. Lots of people live on a much lower than average caloric intake, to various degrees, and statistically they quite reliably live longer than people who eat more and are heavier throughout their lifetimes. At 5'4" and 108 pounds I'm probably going to live a good deal longer than if I went through my adult life at 125 or 140 pounds. And I'd probably live longer if I cut my caloric intake further to where I hung around 100 pounds.
To: uncbob; xrp
Read the article more closely -- a calorie restricted diet doesn't just extend the amount of time you live, it also drastically delays the aging process. You won't be hitting the wheelchair 'til your 130 or so.
To: CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour; kmiller1k; GOPJ; ...
((((((growl)))))
![](http://members.shaw.ca/brightstar1/Sabertooth.jpg)
To: spectre
Excess sugar is ceratinly bad, but so is a diet like the one linked to above, which is way short on essential fatty acids. No matter though, as the research shows that the proportion of fat, protein, and carbs can be varied without losing the anti-aging effect, so long as the total calories are kept restricted.
To: theFIRMbss
Hmmmm this article is making me hungry. Pizza anyone?
To: theFIRMbss
bttt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson