jts

Thirsting for Health -- Loren Lockman

Recommended Posts

This is Loren Lockman speaking mainly about hydration. 1 hour 22 minutes.

 

My comments are in square brackets.

2:40   He begins by talking about fasting, even tho the talk is supposed to be about hydration. He says processing food takes more energy than anything else we do.

[ I wonder how he measures energy to make this claim. T C Fry used to say digestion takes 25% of our energy, no mention of how this is measured. I would expect that the percentage of energy that is used to digest food would depend on the kind of food and the amount of food and the amount of energy one has, and considering these variables the variation would be huge. ]

3:00   He says we tend to lose appetite when we are sick.

[ This is called the natural fast, as opposed to the elective fast. It means the body itself calls for a fast. If you are too sick to even look at food, let alone eat it, and your stomach throws the food back in your face, that should be a clear enough hint that your body does not want food. At least one fasting doctor is of the opinion that the natural fast is always correct and the elective fast is always wrong. ]

3:50   He says here that he had 300+ cases of hypertension with a 100% recovery rate.

[ Alan Goldhamer published a paper in a scientific journal about fasting and hypertension. The results were far superior to drugs, without the negatives of drugs. These results should not be surprising if during the fast the blood vessels get unclogged. But I have to wonder whether they are measuring blood pressure during the fast or after the fast. If it is during the fast, it is no fair because during the fast the metabolism is reduced and the body goes into a state of physiological rest and so quite naturally the heart slows down and the blood pressure is reduced. ]

4: 20  He says he has a 100% success rate reversing type 2 diabetes.

[ It seems that every lifestyle doctor (as opposed to drug doctor) knows how to reverse t2 diabetes. John McDougall's starch based diet reverses t2 diabetes. Joel Fuhrman's nutritarian diet reverses t2 diabetes. Gerson therapy reverses t2 diabetes in just a few days. Fasting reverses t2 diabetes. Even a ridiculous rice and sugar diet  (a bad diet) reverses t2 diabetes. It seems that almost everything short of poison reverses t2 diabetes. If all these claims are true, then t2 diabetes is no big hairy deal and is trivial to reverse. But a word of caution. Shelton refused to take cases of t2 diabetes who have been taking insulin for a long time. The reason is the body's ability to make insulin atrophies when it is not used and it can atrophy beyond repair. ]

4: 30  He continues with other examples of the body's ability to heal itself during a fast. The list of diseases is long.

[ A word or 2 of caution about fasting to reverse diseases. While everything he says is probably true as is evidenced by success stories, fasting has limits and can be dangerous. Some diseases are caused by deficiencies and to fasting with a nutritional deficiency is as dangerous as all hell. During a fast you rely on nutritional reserves. ]

[ Every fasting doctor advises to not fast beyond a certain number of days without supervision. They differ about the number of days. I personally do not follow this advice but following my example is not necessarily a good idea. Fasting can be dangerous EVEN WITH SUPERVISION. It is probably not humanly possible for any one doctor to be qualified to handle all health emergencies that can come up during a fast. At TrueNorth they have a team of doctors, each with a different specialization, all watching their fasting patients like hawks, daily. Not one fatality in 15,000 fasts. If the slightest problem comes up they terminate the fast. There are some fasting horror stories in association with Doug Graham and Loren Lockman. Do they have a team of highly qualified doctors, each with a different specialization? I doubt. Do they recognized the limits of their expertise? I don't know. ]

5:10   He says if you have a health problem, it is not your body's fault.

[ This is an exaggeration. Some people have a genetic defect that impairs health. Some people have a genetic weakness that requires them to work harder to achieve and maintain health. And we are programmed to die of old age no matter how healthy we are. ]

6:25   Here he starts talking about detox during a fast.

8:00  Here he talks about the toxicity school of thought  and he is about to introduce a different idea,

[ He calls Natural Hygiene a philosophy. Shelton called it a science and a branch of biology. One of the dictionary definitions of 'hygiene' is the science of health. Hygeia was the goddess of health. ]

8:40  Here he challenges the idea that the biggest source of poisons is the body itself, metabolic waste.

[ Shelton said the body is a poison factory. ]

9:20  Here he says in order to get waste out of the body (both from inside and from outside) the body needs energy and water. He is about to make a big deal about water. Most fasting doctors make a big deal about energy.

[ John H. Tilden had the theory that ennervation (deficency of energy, or more precisely nerve energy) leads to toxemia. Loren is adding water to this scheme of things, ]

10:00  Here he starts on his personal theory about hydration, which is the main topic of this lecture.

One small but possibly interesting point he mentions is electrical energy. He says food is the fuel but not the energy.

[ Tilden and Shelton called it 'nerve energy'. But electrical energy exists in cell walls in general and have to do with how the cell works. It seems we are in large part electrical beings. ]

22:45  Here he mentions odorless bowel movements.

[ There is the joke about someone is so arrogant that he thinks his shit doesn't stink. I'm not sure whether he is saying he doesn't need to wipe his ass. ]

26:00  Here he says fasting is about resting.

[ OL members who have been reading the stuff I wrote about fasting should know this by now. But here is a professional explaining it. ]

28:00   Here he says the correct way to drink water during a fast is to sip it.

[ By coincidence this is what I instinctively do during a fast. Small amounts and frequent. ]

Then he goes into the subject of how much water to drink. There is no fixed amount. It depends on the person.

[ Alan Goldhamer requires his fasting patients to drink at least 1 quart per day, no upper limit. And he gives them something to measure with. Shelton says drink according to body demand, no more and no less. ]

29:25   Here he talks about why water drinking is important in a fast.

[ There is a cult or subculture or whatever it is about dry fasting. They have their reasons but I think it's BS. ]

29:45   But do not drink too much water during a fast. There is such a thing as too much water. You lose electrolytes. It's not so bad during eating because you replace electrolytes but still not good.

32:40   Now he is back on the subject of sipping water. Why is it important to sip water during a fast?

36:20   Here he bashes the regular medical profession.

[ You gotta expect this from him. He is what most people call a quack. ]

41:00   Here he states his lack of credentials.

[ Most people in OL will enjoy this. ]

He explains why and how he became a doctor  quack health professional.

44:00   He talks about antibiotics. Antibiotics kill bacteria. But you have ten times more bacteria cells than you have human cells. And you have them because you need them. He explains why we need bacteria.

48:30  The rule of drinking water only when you are thirsty is not good enough. By the time you are thirsty you are already water deficient.

[ This is in contradiction to Shelton who said nothing is gained by drinking more than thirst demands. Also it puts in doubt the rule to eat only when hungry. What is thirst? It is hunger for water. ]

49:35   He is starting on a new point here. Drinking water is not enough to get hydrated, no matter how much water you drink.

50:20  You are supposed to get all or nearly all the water you need from food. You are supposed to eat food of high water content.

[ It is possible to go without drinking anything for months at a time and presumably forever. Most people don't believe it but it is possible. Most fruits are mostly water. Lettuce is mostly water. This is the water sufficient diet. You can even get too much water this way, without drinking anything. But you need to drink water during a fast. ]

51:20  You gotta get the old stuff out before you can get hydrated.

52:00   A story about a failure from another fasting that didn't get the desired result, probably because of not enough water.

[ He didn't say which other fasting place but Loren Lockman and Alan Goldhamer have some differences of opinion about fasting. I don't know if this is a hint or not. ]

52:50   Another bashing of medicine. The old stuff does exist.

54:45    Stories about healing from injuries.

56:50    He walked away from a very lucrative business because he wanted to become a quack  help people.

59:50   If your food has roughly less than 80% water, it is taking water from your body. Do not eat dry stuff.

1:01:30   Most of what we call aging is dehydration.

1:04:20   Q and A

He claims a good rate of success with cancer.

[ One question to ask when success with cancer is claimed is -- was it cancer? Shelton never claimed success with cancer, but he also said most cases that are diagnosed with cancer are not cancer. ]

1:09:50   He is thumbs down on distilled water.

[ This is a controversial subject. Shelton was thumbs up on distilled water. TrueNorth uses distilled water.  Both sides of the controversy have something to say. ]

[ There is a disaster story about a fast with Loren Lockman and one of the complaints was the water was too acid. ]

1:19:50   His experience fasting MDs. All around him people were healing from things that this MD had been trained to believe were impossible to heal from.

1:20:35   The scientific literature on the subject of fasting. Yup. It exists.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 8:11 AM, jts said:

56:50    He walked away from a very lucrative business because he wanted to become a quack  help people. 

Nope. He fled the country after a death of a 'patient' under his care. https://casewatch.net/board/un/lockman.pdf

Edited by william.scherk
Added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Tanglewood, where people go to experience a kinder benevolent death camp...(well until it was shut down). 

Can you show evidence:

1.  That people go there and pay money for the purpose of experiencing a death camp?

2.  That Tanglewood was shut down?  (He is still making youtube videos from Tanglewood.)

I know several disaster stories came out of Tanglewood out of thousands of cases. I corresponded briefly with Loren Lockman about 2 of them. His version of each story  is very different from what you get on youtube.

I agree that Loren is a risk taker. Alan Goldhamer of TrueNorth is a safety first guy. They have different styles. Loren says the extreme caution way of TrueNorth is almost a guarantee that some problems will not be solved. Perhaps some health problems justify risk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

Oh it’s not shut down?  Well I guess people have more money than brains if they still go there.

I assume you mean if they had enough intelligence they would either go to a place like TrueNorth or fast on their own without supervision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the following is “old hat” now?

‘From: "William Dwyer" Reply-To: Starship_Forum Life Extension Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:43:48 -0700

Mary Ann, Thanks for broaching the subject of life extension.  You have a sympathetic ear.  Did I mention on this list that I have been doing something like the Pritikin diet since 1985?  Roy Walford (if you're into life extension, you know who he is) says that the Pritikin diet is very close to a life extension diet.  The fact that it's very low-fat tends to limit the calories, even though there's no limit on the quantity of food you can eat.

When I first went on it, I was craving fat like there was no tomorrow and losing weight like there was no tomorrow.  I was already pretty lean, so I became painfully thin fairly quickly.  I've since adapted to the diet -- it's been 17 years, after all -- and have gained some of the weight back, even though I don't eat nearly as much as I used to.

While I was on the diet, I worked in a lab, and was able to get blood work done as often as I wanted free of charge.  My serum cholesterol dropped from 185 to 115 in one and half months after going on the diet. But I found I could raise it significantly simply by going off the diet. What I discovered by getting tested repeatedly over a span of many years is that serum cholesterol is strictly dependent on diet and can be altered dramatically by dietary alterations.

Don't let any doctors tell you otherwise.  The only cases in which this is not true are those involving people with hypercholesterolemia due to heredity (in which there are very few cholesterol receptors in the liver, so the cholesterol builds up in the blood), and these folks make up a very small percentage of the population.

But you have to alter the dietary fat significantly to gain any significant change in your blood values.  Altering it slightly, which is what most doctors tell you to do, doesn't help.  You can't drop the fat from 40% of total calories to 30% and expect to gain much of a benefit. You have to reduce it to 10% (or, at the most, 15%) of total calories, to have any appreciable effect.

If you can get your LDL cholesterol below 100 or total cholesterol below 150 (which will normally would bring the LDL to below 100, if your HDL isn't too low), and keep it there for several years, you can actually ~reverse~ the process of arteriosclerosis that everyone develops on the standard American diet. Unfortunately, most doctors won't advise their cardiac patients to go on the Pritikin diet, because they think it's too difficult to follow.

Calorie restriction without malnutrition is really the only proven way to significantly extend maximum (versus mean) lifespan.  But if you're on a calorie restricted diet, it is important to take supplements to ensure you get all the essential nutrients.  Moreover, calorie restriction is best done gradually.  I didn't do it that way, and I lost too much weight too quickly, although I've since adapted, but it's best to cut down in small increments over many years.  That's difficult to do, however, from a practical (and motivational) standpoint, so you may have to jump in and just do it, and then find your comfort level.

The best results were obtained by dropping total calories by 1/3 over a period of five to seven years (in human terms).  You shouldn't lose more than 1/2 pound a month, but, of course, that's very difficult to do, unless you're very precise and scientific about it, and absolutely disciplined in every way.  For most people, it's just not practical, which is why I recommend the Pritikin diet; it's the next best thing to the kind of calorie restriction that was so successful with the laboratory animals.

If you're an older person, the dietary restriction should be more modest.  If it's too severe, it can actually shorten lifespan, but it has to be pretty severe to do that!  The best results for life extension are obtained by starting on a calorie restricted diet very early in life.  The earlier you start, the longer you'll live.  But people can still gain significant benefits, if they begin in their middle-aged years. (To be continued.) Bill

From: "Technotranscendence Re: Life Extension Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:18:24 -0400 On Saturday, May 18, 2002 5:46 PM Bill Wells yahoo-nospam@twwells.com

wrote:  >> There seems to be good evidence that caloric restriction may extend life... "Dogged Dieting", _Science News_, May 11, 2002: "...even though the calorie-restricted retrievers lived longer on average, no individual dog had a significantly longer lifespan than the longest-lived dogs in the fully fed group." On the strength of the study, one would conclude that diet restriction doesn't extend life. Rather, it eliminates certain obstacles to living one's "natural" lifespan.

Caloric restriction (with full nutrition) [CR] is not a way to extend life span per se, but would probably "square the curve" -- meaning more people would make it to the maximum human life span (which is probably about 150; admittedly a guess, but probably a good one*) in decent health along the way.  The point here is not to accept 150 and then the grave, but to live longer in hopes that future therapies will improve on this. Also, I wouldn't base my whole view of this on one study -- any more than I would use one study of purely negative results to make me run out and stop doing something.:)

That said, CR has been tested since, I believe, the 1960s in everything from spiders to primates, IIRC.  There seems to be a solid case for it, though, again, it's hard to carry out long term CR studies in humans. (An interesting thing to note is that one thing a lot of labs have to be sure of is that any life extension results they get aren't from a hidden CR cause.  What do I mean here?  If you put substance X in the lab rats' feed and they don't like the taste, they might eat less -- going on a sort of CR -- and you might assume substance X is making them live longer when it's really a CR artifact.  Substance X might even have no or a negative effect on longevity, but the bad taste is enough to trigger CR.  Add to this, different animals have differing senses of smell and taste.)  Some research being funded now is on trying to understand exactly what CR does so that some other easier to apply therapy can take its place. Cheers! Dan

     See more of my ranting and raving at: http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/  Why don't we see, then, a cohort of 150 year old humans?  Humans aren't mice living in a lab.  So, the comparison is like comparing lab mice -- or dogs in the _Science News_ article -- who make it to their maximum span versus wild ones who succumb to all sorts of other things before they get there.

From: "Mary-Ann A RE: Life Extension Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:55:10 -0600

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to correct Bill D.'s misapprehension: | Mary Ann, | Thanks for broaching the subject of life extension.

Due to the way Dan quoted my response to _his_ broaching of the subject, it easily appeared as if the words could all have been mine. You may have figured this out by now, if you went back to the beginning of the thread (or by the fact that Dan has been more involved in it).  🙂  No matter, however;  and Dan doesn't seem to have taken offense.  <g>

Bill wrote: |  Did I mention on this list that I have been doing something like the Pritikin diet since 1985?  Roy Walford (if you're into life extension, you know who he is) says that the Pritikin diet is very close to a life extension diet.

If this is what it truly took to extend life or have a healthy one, I'd opt for a shorter life! Seriously, there's probably nothing wrong with the Pritikin diet;  I have known people off and on throughout the last 10 or 20 years who tried it for varying lengths of time and reasons.  I was never attracted to it, and this harkens back to what I said to Alex recently about "body intelligence" and doing what you feel your body is telling you -- especially, feeding it what it wants.  I realize that for many folks that's a prescription for disaster!  But you are talking to someone who can keep opened bags of candy in her desk for a few _months_.  I eat them whenever I want, and as many as I want.  It just happens that, since I'm pretty good at "listening," it never turns out that I want the whole bag in an afternoon or even a week.  Now, candy is just an example.  I eat almost everything;  the most notable exceptions are members of, broadly, the insect kingdom, and amphibians 🙂

I have been blessed with a generally fast metabolism, and cursed with fidgetiness and high-strungedness (like those words?!) <g>  This is very fortunate, as I have never been the dieting type.  I'm _always_ hungry, and frequently I'm ravenous!  (You would _not_ want to feed me!)  I find I cannot eat adequate amounts of  low- or no-fat food to make up for, or get adequate satisfaction from my food without, liberal quantities of fat.  That isn't to say _prodigious_ quantities, but then again, "eye of the beholder" and all that!  But I think I've found an explanation for some of it. For the past 2 years, I have been progressively changing over to Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo's _Blood Type Diet_ as completely as possible.  (Some of my favorite foods are on my "No" list, and that's unacceptable to me!)  My type is O.  We are the hunter-gatherers, and the "foundational" human blood type.  We thrive on red meat..., and on other foods, too, of course.  At the other end of the spectrum, if you can call it that, are the blood type A folks, who are "designed" to be vegetarians with only small quantities of meat once or twice a week. I recommend at least skimming through "Eat Right For Your Type" in a bookstore.  If you have any interest in subjects like nutrition, biochemistry, life extension, etc., you will probably buy the book, particularly if you recognize yourself in its pages 🙂

Now, to each his own.  I am definitely not putting anyone down for Pritikin or any other diet or nutrition plan they follow.  But some of the diets out there would be disastrous for certain people, IMO. Type O would fare much better on a low carb, high protein diet than an A would.  "Nutrition," broadly construed, is a very complex subject, especially if you add vitamins, herbs, and blood type into the mix. There's a certain amount of it that's one-size-fits-all, but to get the best results you really have to tune a whole program to your particular body.  However, having said that, it nonetheless makes logical sense to me, though I can't prove it, that any steps one takes in this direction will help and are probably cumulative.  In other words, I don't think you have to get it _all_ right and get all the plates spinning at once, else it's useless;  on the contrary, there is _so_ much to know and learn, and so many pieces to the puzzle, that you might never begin if you wait to have it perfectly figured out!

I have been a consumer of alternative medicine since around age 20.  I became a vegan for 3 years at 19 or 20 (interesting experience/experiment).  At age 13 or so, I thought about a career as a nutritionist.  I only mention these things as a way of pointing out that I have very much had this predilection or bent my entire adult life.  I've noticed that people who _don't_ do much about the things I've been speaking about here, although many of them will hire someone like a nutritionist or alternative doctor to spell out a plan for them.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, if you don't have the burning interest yourself.  While I was on the diet, I worked in a lab, and was able to get blood work done as often as I wanted free of charge.

This is very important;  I'm quite aware of that fact, though I don't do it.  I have instead always relied on my "listening" skills.  I realize this is counter-intuitive to what I've said so far, but money was always an issue, and now time is probably a bigger one.  (Public accountants don't have too much of either 🙂

The fact is, if you want to run truly "scientific" experiments on yourself, you have to get blood work done.  And since we change _So_ much and in response to so many, varied things -- some that we may not even realize are impacting us -- it has to be done often.  Every 2 or 3 months would be pretty conservative and should be as much as nearly anyone would need, whereas every 6 or so months would be the minimum needed to be watchful and keep yourself on the right track, for the most part. I better be careful that I don't cross a line here, and look like I'm attempting to practice medicine without a license!

| My serum cholesterol dropped from 185 to 115 in one and half months after going on the diet.  But I found I could raise it significantly simply by going off the diet.  What I discovered by getting tested repeatedly over a span of many years is that serum cholesterol is strictly dependent on diet and can be altered dramatically by dietary alterations.

The _Life Extension_ book I mentioned (Pearson and Shaw) contains some other alternatives (using a B vitamin) for lowering cholesterol. There are also herbs that are effective.  I need to run some therapies on myself and then get a blood test to check out the results.  (I've used some of the therapies, but then didn't get tested.)  Last I was told, my s.c. was higher than yours, but I find it difficult to take that very seriously.  I really couldn't explain to you why someone so health conscious simply ignores something so "generally accepted" and blatant.  It goes back, I think, to my stubborn refusal to accept that eggs (a favored food) were bad.  Then, to my huge satisfaction, 6 or 8 years later, eggs were good!  Then 6 or 8 years later, oops! eggs are bad!  That whole egg farce contributed a great deal to my thinking that the cholesterol thing is nonsense.  Another factor impacting my attitude is the fact that our body _makes_ most of our cholesterol, and would make it whether or not we consumed any.

Far worse than cholesterol, IMO, and something I _do_ worry _quite_ a lot about, is peroxidized (rancid) oils and hydrogenated fats.  Also, kinds of oils you eat is enormously important!  Palm oil and cottonseed oil, especially hydrogenated forms, are to be avoided like the plague, to coin a phrase 🙂

 

 you can actually ~reverse~ the process of atherosclerosis that everyone develops on the standard American diet. I'd be cautious about saying "everyone."  I don't expect to be a victim, but I'll have to let you know later, won't I? 😜 | which is why I recommend the Pritikin diet; it's the next best thing to the kind of calorie restriction that was so successful with the laboratory animals. I am familiar with the calorie restriction research on rats.  It is certainly very interesting, but not in the least appealing 🙂  While I am by no stretch "obese," I am not a rail such that I would be mistaken for a calorie-restricted research subject.  I'm a healthy girl!  🙂 Happy eating to you all 🙂 Mary-Ann

From: "William Dwyer" Life Extension Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:42:26 -0700

Mary Ann wrote, "The _Life Extension_ book I mentioned (Pearson and Shaw) contains some other alternatives (using a B vitamin) for lowering cholesterol."

Right; that's niacin, but you have to take a lot -- 1.5 grams or more -- and if you don't like the flushing that comes with the high doses (it's a vasodilator), the experience can be unpleasant.  Also, when taking such high doses of niacin, you need a methyl supplement like choline or DMAE (dimethylaminoethanol); otherwise, the high intake of niacin can cause liver problems by creating a deficiency of methyl groups.  Most doctors who recommend niacin don't tell you that.  Pierson and Shaw were careful to take a lot of choline along with the niacin, and they didn't mind the flushing.

Mary Ann wrote, "There are also herbs that are effective."

Oh really; I hadn't heard of that.  Which ones are they?

[Mary Ann:] "I need to run some therapies on myself and then get a blood test to check out the results.  (I've used some of the therapies, but then didn't get tested.)"

Yes, very important; otherwise, you don't know if they're working.

[Mary Ann:] "Last I was told, my s.c. was higher than yours, but I find it difficult to take that very seriously."

If you're pre-menopausal and a non-smoker, then your HDL (the good cholesterol) is probably pretty high, since you’re a woman, in which case, you would have less to worry about than a man, who would probably have an HDL that was not as protective.  But once you reach menopause, everything changes, and your risk factors for a given level of total cholesterol tend to be similar to those of man at the same age.

[Mary Ann:] "I really couldn't explain to you why someone so health conscious simply ignores something so "generally accepted" and blatant.  It goes back, I think, to my stubborn refusal to accept that eggs (a favored food) were bad."

I'm allergic to eggs, so that was never my problem. 🙂

[Mary Ann:] "Then, to my huge satisfaction, 6 or 8 years later, eggs were good! Then 6 or 8 years later, oops! eggs are bad!  That whole egg farce contributed a great deal to my thinking that the cholesterol thing is nonsense."

One egg contains 240 milligrams of cholesterol, which is significant. By comparison, a four-ounce serving of steak contains only around 70. Based on epidemiological studies, Pritikin recommends that you keep your dietary cholesterol below 100 mg/day.  That means no eggs!

[Mary Ann:] "Another factor impacting my attitude is the fact that our body _makes_ most of our cholesterol, and would make it whether or not we consumed any."

Yes, but the more saturated fat you consume (and all fat contains some saturated fatty acids), the more cholesterol your liver will produce, which is why lowering dietary fat to 10% of total calories can drop your serum cholesterol dramatically.  Exogenous cholesterol (cholesterol obtained from food rather than produced endogenously), however, does raise your serum cholesterol (specifically, your LDL), even if not as dramatically as the total amount of saturated fat that you consume.  So I'd avoid the eggs (and liver, if you're so inclined).  As one might expect, liver also contains huge amounts of cholesterol, since, as you've noted, it's the organ that produces it.

[Mary Ann:] "Far worse than cholesterol, IMO, and something I _do_ worry _quite_ a lot about, is peroxidized (rancid) oils and hydrogenated fats."

Yes, the rancid oils can cause cancer and contribute to the oxidation of serum cholesterol, and the trans fatty acids from hydrogenated fat significantly raise LDL cholesterol, the bad kind, while lowering HDL, the good kind.

[Mary Ann:] "Also, the kinds of oils you eat is enormously important!  Palm oil and cottonseed oil, especially hydrogenated forms, are to be avoided like the plague, to coin a phrase :-)"

Right; palm and cottonseed oil are heavily saturated, but then so is the fat from butter and meat.  As I mentioned, Pritikin believes that you should keep all fat consumption very low -- both saturated and unsaturated -- although I agree that some fats are better than others, and it appears that the Omega 3's are essential for good nutrition.  But you can them from a serving of fish once a week.

I wrote, "You can actually ~reverse~ the process of arteriosclerosis that everyone develops on the standard American diet."

[Mary Ann:] I'd be cautious about saying "everyone."  I don't expect to be a victim, but I'll have to let you know later, won't I? ;-p"

It is no exaggeration to say that EVERYONE develops arteriosclerosis on the standard American diet.  There are absolutely no exceptions.  You have it right now, and so does everyone else on this list to the extent that they've followed such a diet from infancy.  Nathaniel Branden had bypass surgery in his 60's, Leonard Peikoff had a heart attack when he was 59, and George Walsh had severe arteriosclerosis earlier than that, and eventually died from heart disease.

The only difference between them and you is the ~degree~ of your arteriosclerosis, which doesn't mean that yours is sufficient to cause cardiac problems (yet!).  Some people have very little; others, substantially more, but everyone gets it, and the longer you stay on the American diet, the worse it gets.

Young men in their late teens and early twenties who were casualties of the Vietnam war were autopsied and discovered to have as much as 25% closure of their coronary arteries even at that young an age.  So you can imagine what the arteries of people in their 40's look like!  The only way in which these young men could have avoided arteriosclerosis is if they had followed something very close to the Pritikin diet as children.  But nobody does that unless you're a Tarahumaran Indian of Northern Mexico, a highlander of Papua, New Guinea, or a member of a similar primitive and largely vegetarian culture.

I wrote, "I recommend the Pritikin diet; it's the next best thing to the kind of calorie restriction that was so successful with the laboratory animals."

[Mary Ann:] "I am familiar with the calorie restriction research on rats.  It is certainly very interesting, but not in the least appealing 🙂  While I am by no stretch "obese," I am not a rail such that I would be mistaken for a calorie-restricted research subject."

Actually, the OB-OB mice (those that are normally obese) appeared normal on the calorie restricted regimen (while the normal mice appeared rail-thin).

[Mary Ann:] "I'm a healthy girl!  :-)"

Good for you.  Women need a certain amount of body fat in order to maintain proper hormone levels and sufficient calcium to prevent osteoporosis, which is why young female athletes, who exercise and diet obsessively often become amenorrheic, lose bone mass and run the risk of fractures.  Calorie restriction for women must, therefore, bear this in mind.

[Mary Ann:] "Happy eating to you all :-)"

Likewise, and let me add that the Pritikin diet can be very tasty, if you know what to eat! Cheers, Bill

From: "William Dwyer" Life Extension Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:44:03 -0700 Andre Zantonavich writes, "Here's MY no-nonsense (and copyrighted) diet and exercise regimen for health and longevity:

1. Don't smoke.

2. Don't drink.

3. Don't overeat.

4. Don't do drugs.

5. Exercise and play sports a bit.

6. Be somewhat stress-free and happy.

7. Get a dog or cat or two.

8. Have a bit of R & R.

9. Enjoy some quality sex.

10. Don't follow fad or pop diet/exercise/health regimens.

"Now what 'brilliant' book or 'ingenious' guru can do better than this?"

Pritikin's books can.  The information they present is carefully backed by the research reported in reputable medical and scientific journals. (Also, I must mention Dr. John McDougall's books in this context.  They present much of the same material as Pritikin's, and are also carefully referenced and documented.)

Moreover, you are ignoring what is now widely recognized as sound dietary advice for the prevention of cancer, heart disease and other degenerative diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes and osteoporosis. Don't smoke, don't overeat and don't do drugs is fine as far as it goes, but it's not enough. It ignores the importance of restricting dietary fats, sugars, cholesterol and protein, as well as the dangers of oxidized fats and oils.  You also neglect to mention the value of antioxidants and phytochemicals.  These dietary factors and supplements are not "snake oil."  They are widely recognized as promoting health and longevity.

If you doubt what I'm saying, read Pritikin's, McDougall's (and Roy Walford's) books, and check the references.  If are skeptical, you can go to a medical library and look up the studies.  Nothing is fabricated here.  This is not the latest fad that GNC happens to be promoting!  It is sound, well-documented advice.

Also, "don't overeat" is too vague.  Does it mean don't eat more than the average?  The average is already too high.  A better prescription is: "Undereat (without being undernourished, of course)"! 🙂 Bill

From: "Mary-Ann A." Life Extension Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:56:08 -0600 Hello everyone:

Bill wrote: "Right; that's niacin, but you have to take a lot -- 1.5 grams or more --and if you don't like the flushing that comes with the high doses (it's a vasodilator), the experience can be unpleasant. Also, when taking such high doses of niacin, you need a methyl supplement .... "

I didn't mention the vitamin by name to avoid going into all that. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting not only here, but throughout your post 🙂  You are quite right in all the facts you supplied.  I should have expected that you would have carefully researched any subject in which you were interested, or your name isn't Bill 🙂

When I was using niacin therapeutically, I always found the flushing interesting and only occasionally uncomfortable, but I'll be the first to quickly admit I am Weird 🙂   If you can stand it, I think it (the vasodilation) has generally positive effects on your skin.

Bill wrote: "Pierson and Shaw were ....."

Durk is a son-of-a fruit, not a son-of-a dock.  I have the book right next to me 🙂

[MA]  "There are also herbs that are effective."

[Bill]  "Oh really; I hadn't heard of that.  Which ones are they?"

A search of a "Materia Medica" in my library _just through the letter "H"_ turns up the following:

Alfalfa (among secondary uses of the herb);

Apples [the fresh or stewed fruit - not an "herb"] (secondary use) --

Is that why "an apple a day keeps the doctor away"?;

Calamus [make a tea from the dried rhizomes] (among its primary uses);

Dandelion root (among secondary uses of the herb);

Devil's Claw [root] (among primary uses);

Eleuthero [Siberian ginseng] (among primary uses);

Fenugreek [seed] (primary);

Fo Ti (secondary);

Garlic (primary);

Glucomannan [powdered root of] (primary);

Gugulipid [extract of the soluble portion of the resin] (secondary);

Hawthorn [leaf, berry, flower] (primary); ..........

[From:  _How To Be Your Own Herbal Pharmacist:  Herbal Traditions, Expert Formulations_ by Linda Rector Page, N.D., Ph.D. Copyright 1991.  ISBN: 1-884334-77-6.   Available at natural foods stores (I got mine at Vitamin Cottage) or by calling 800-736-6015.]

This list would at least double by the time I got to 'Z', but it took  me a couple of hours to read through the paragraph on every herb, in turn, for ~28 pages~ to get through the letter H in Dr. Page's book. Also, I want to be cautious since it is copyrighted. 🙂   It's a wonderful book, and I highly recommend it!  You can not only learn about which herbs may be therapeutic for your particular problem(s), but how to use them, how to combine, etc.  The book also contains combinations for common ailments/diseases.

[Mary Ann:] "Another factor impacting my attitude is the fact that our body _makes_ most of our cholesterol, and would make it whether or not we consumed any."

[Bill]   "Yes, but the more saturated fat you consume (and all fat contains some saturated fatty acids), the more cholesterol your liver will produce, which is why lowering dietary fat to 10% of total calories can drop your serum cholesterol  dramatically.  Exogenous cholesterol (cholesterol obtained from food rather than produced endogenously), however, does raise your serum cholesterol (specifically, your LDL), even if not as dramatically as the total amount of saturated fat that you consume."

The following is paraphrased from _Prescription for Nutritional Healing_ Second Edition.  Balch, M.D., James F. and Balch, C.N.C., Phyllis A.  Avery Publishing Group, 1977.  ISBN 0-89529-727-2

It may help some who are following this thread who might need to understand the subject a little more.

Cholesterol  (hereinafter, "Ch.") is a crystalline substance that is classified both as a steriod and as a lipid (because it's fat soluble).  Approx. 80% of total body Ch. is manufactured in the liver. It's used by cells in the building of membranes, is used to produce sex hormones, used in digestion, and is found in the brain, nerves, liver, blood, and bile of vertebrate animals as well as humans.  Its means of travel through the blood is via ~lipoproteins~ :  Low density (LDLs) and High density (HDLs).  LDLs transport Ch. FROM the liver to the cells.  HDLs circulate in the blood and collect excess Ch. For transport back TO the liver.  The problem arises when there aren't enough HDLs to do the pick-up work timely enough; that's when plaque _can_ be formed by the uncollected Ch., which _may_ eventually cause heart disease.  Sugar, alcohol, and stress raise the level of _natural_ Ch. (Ch. produced in the liver); therefore, prevention of heart disease includes exerting the same amount of control over these factors, too.

This point raised by the authors bears meditating upon:  "The precise ways in which lipoproteins perform their functions are not known, nor is it known whether or how they work with other elements in the body." I was infected with the Ch. "bugaboo" until I learned about its absolute necessity for various bodily processes.  I have a hard time viewing any important elements of my physical processes and health as an enemy within.

How much of the clogged American arteries are from American stress and sweet tooth as much or more as than from American consumption of animal products?  You'd have a heart attack just _seeing_ what I grew up eating -- and it wasn't because I was American, it was because I'm Italian-American.  You ain't _seen_ balogna until you've seen mortadella -- basically, a balogna-type of lunch meat with 6 or 7 dime-size blotches of pure white animal fat in each slice!  I could go on, but I'll spare you all..... 🙂  You all know what Italian food is, anyway (including pure, healthy olive oil).  Am I making you hungry yet?  😜

[Mary Ann:] "Far worse than cholesterol, IMO, and something I _do_ worry _quite_ a lot about, is peroxidized (rancid) oils and hydrogenated fats."

[Bill]   "Yes, the rancid oils can cause cancer and contribute to the oxidation of serum cholesterol, and the trans fatty acids from hydrogenated fat significantly raise LDL cholesterol, the bad kind, while lowering HDL, the good kind.

Not to mention the surge of free radicals you get from them, and I don't mean the ones in New Zealand 🙂

[Mary Ann:] "Also, the kinds of oils you eat is enormously important!  Palm oil and cottonseed oil, especially hydrogenated forms, are to be avoided like the plague, to coin a phrase :-)"

[Bill]  "Right; palm and cottonseed oil are heavily saturated, "

I forgot to put coconut oil, another highly saturated fat, on the bad-guy list.

[Bill]   "I agree that some fats are better than others, and it appears that the Omega 3's are essential for good nutrition.  But you can them from a serving of fish once a week."

I disagree, or perhaps I should say, Dr. Page does.  I construe this because she states that 1) "flaxseed is the world's richest source of omega-3 fatty acid; and 2) "one tablespoon of flaxseed oil A DAY is an excellent way to SUPPLEMENT essential fatty acids into one's diet" [emphasis mine].  Putting 2+2 together, there's no way that a serving of fish weekly would be a sufficient source of essential fatty acids, unless there's at least 7 tablespoons of fish oil in that serving.

Essential fatty acids (EFAs) are comprised, I believe, of more than Omega 3s, but I'd have to look.  I do recall there are Omega 6s, but I don't know if they are "interchangeable," as a practical dietary matter.  I suspect or vaguely recall that there are others, and perhaps EFAs we haven't isolated yet.  This is another reason why I don't monkey with my fat intake, other than to limit or omit bad fats, and why I indulge to my heart's content in the healthy ones, as my body "requests."  To the extent possible, I choose antibiotic- and hormone-free animal products from natural producers.  Fortunately, my access to these products is very convenient in the markets, but _not_ when eating out.

By the way, there's a very long list of _fish_ that's "medicine food" for Type Os.

Bill wrote:  "It is no exaggeration to say that EVERYONE develops atherosclerosis on the standard American diet.  There are absolutely no exceptions.  You have it right now, and so does everyone else on this list to the extent that they've followed such a diet from infancy. ........the longer you stay on the American diet, the worse it gets."

I dunno.......  look at the stats Roger gave.  What about genetic differences, both on the individual level and on the wider ethnic level?  Then consider other personal habits besides diet, and add the variations in exercise levels, and the presense or absense of supplements.....    There are too many factors -- controllable --- outside of diet that I cannot accept this as a carte blanche statement.

Bill]   "Young men in their late teens and early twenties who were casualties of the Vietnam war were autopsied and discovered to have as much as 25% closure of their coronary arteries even at that young an age."

I have heard this, but what I don't know (and you don't say) is whether they autopsied ~every single dead young soldier~ because, if they did not, the value of the results and the ability to generalize from them is, IMO, compromised.

They _could_ attempt to extrapolate and say, for example, "we autopsied 100 soldiers and found up to 25% closure; therefore, if we had autopsied all 60,000 (?) soldiers killed they would all have had up to 25% closure."  I'm not saying that's what was done, but it does leave open the question of how valuable this finding really is.

I can't remember where I read this, do you?

[Bill]   "But nobody does that unless you're a Tarahumaran Indian of Northern Mexico, a highlander of Papua, New Guinea, or a member of a similar primitive and largely vegetarian culture."

Are you making an assumption (probably a logical one) about vegetarian culture vis. lack of cholesterol problems or atherosclerosis (deposits of fatty substances, as opposed to arteriosclerosis, deposits of calcium), or do you know it to be a fact that no one in these cultures gets clogged arteries anyway (i.e., from some other source)?

[Mary Ann:] "Happy eating to you all :-)"

[Bill]   "Likewise, and let me add that the Pritikin diet can be very tasty, if you know what to eat!"

I'm going to pull a "Dan" on you and ask, "Like what?"  😜   [Sorry, Dan! heh heh] Best, Mary-Ann

From: "William Dwyer Life Extension Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:50:18 -0700 Alex Matthew wrote, "P.S. Does anyone have any weight-gain strategies I could use?"

You're not serious!  If you want to extend your lifespan, then why in the world would you want to gain weight?  What I've been saying on this forum all along is that caloric restriction without malnutrition is the best way to maximize lifespan.  Improve your nutrition, yes, but don't increase your calories, unless they're already so low that you can't get adequate nutrients from your diet (which is unlikely).  That doesn't mean that you must get all your nutrients from food, however.  Indeed, people on a serious calorie-restricted diet should probably take the recommended range of supplements.  Walford's books are especially good in this regard.

Btw, Bruce Ames, the Berkeley professor of Biochemistry who gained notoriety for pointing out the natural pesticides that plants produce in order to protect themselves from predators (for those obsessed with organic, pesticide-free food!) is recommending acetyl-l-carnitine along with alpha-lipoic acid for life-extension purposes.  These products can be obtained from the Life-Extension Foundation, and related distributors.  Just do a search for "life extension."

On the other hand, Alex, you may not ~want~ to extend your lifespan, in which case, by all means, bulk up! :-

It is true that women, on average, aren't attracted to guys who are rail thin.  I'm certainly not attracted to women who are!  So there's that to deal with -- as if life weren't complicated enough!  Weight training may, therefore, be helpful, but heavy exercise ain't the best road to a maximum lifespan. Moderate exercise, both aerobic and anaerobic, does seem to help, however.  If you do exercise with weights, use a weight that you can do at least ten repetitions with, however, in order to avoid generating too many free radicals.  Also, before working out, take 400 IU's of vitamin E, which (at least for older subjects) was shown to combat the free radicals generated by the exercise.  GAMMA-tocopherol, which you can get from the Life Extension Foundation, is now reputed to be better than ALPHA.

Moderate AEROBIC exercise has actually been shown to improve the body's natural anti-oxidant enzyme system.  By "moderate," I mean no more than 2 miles a day of jogging; anything more, and the results are counter-productive.  Dr. Kenneth Cooper of "Aerobics" fame notes that ultra-exercises (marathoners and the like) showed an increased risk of cancer.

It is worth noting in this regard that the longest lived test animals were those that were both underfed AND sedentary.  But the exercise the other animals received may have been excessive.  In any case, if you are going to exercise vigorously, take vitamin E! Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who died first, Mary Ann or Bill?

Edited by william.scherk
Names, shmames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! ;-)

I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. 

Dennis

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dennis Edwall said:

William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! 😉

I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. 

Dennis

 

That’s great to hear. If you talk to him, say hi for me.

I always enjoyed our debates and loved his exposition. He’s an honest discussant and he addresses the points you make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis Edwall said:

William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! 😉

I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. 

Dennis

 

Happy holidays to Bill and Mary Ann. I wish they would post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now