Ron Put

LOL, I wouldn't call what seems to be effectively an invasive species "great" exactly. Deer also hate poisonous mushrooms.... 🙂

Pretty trees. I was curious enough to almost order it frozen online ( https://integrationacres.com/products/frozen-pawpaw-pulp-pawpaw-pleasures-p-44.html ) but they ship USPS only and the charges are just silly compared to my level of curiosity 🙂 The SKCC link (thanks, Gordo) casts doubt on their anti-cancer effectiveness (to keep it in perspective, bleach kills cancer cells in test tubes, too). But the side effects are rather notable: "DISCUSSION: "Pawpaw fruit contains a high concentration of annonacin, which is toxic to cortical neurons. Crude fruit extract also induced neurotoxicity, highlighting the need for additional studies to determine the potential risks of neurodegeneration associated with chronic exposure to pawpaw products." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130466 I guess I'll look for it and try it, if I ever see it somewhere.

The evidence is pretty consistent and it applies to all ethanol intake, not just wine. There are a bunch of studies which point that way, here is one: "In a model controlling only for overall average ethanol consumption, we found that, compared with moderate drinkers who consumed primarily wine, moderate drinkers who consumed primarily other alcoholic beverages had a substantially increased mortality risk. This difference is consistent with prior studies that have reported that wine, compared with other alcoholic beverages, is uniquely predictive of reduced total mortality (Grønbaek et al., 1995, 2000; Klatsky et al., 2003; Renaud et al., 1999; Streppel et al., 2009). However, these prior studies did not adequately control for potential confounding factors, leading to the concern that the apparent unique effects of wine might be explained by factors associated with both level of wine consumption and mortality (Barefoot et al., 2002; McCann et al., 2003; Paschall and Lipton, 2005). Consistent with this concern, we found strong evidence of confounding sociodemographic, behavioral, and health status factors associated with level of wine consumption among moderate drinkers. Moreover, among these moderate drinkers, all of these factors were significantly linked to increased mortality. More important, we found that these confounding factors played a pivotal role in assessing the apparent effect of wine consumption on mortality among moderate drinkers. When we controlled for sociodemographic, behavioral, and health status factors in addition to overall average ethanol consumption, the initial mortality difference associated with wine consumption among moderate drinkers was no longer significant. This finding is reinforced by the fact that moderate drinkers who consumed both high and low proportions of wine had a mortality advantage compared with abstainers and supports studies that have not found unique mortality effects for wine." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237714/ Here is one study trying to explain the mediating mechanisms for the beneficial effects of alchohol: "In this large prospective study, we observed a J-shaped relation between alcohol consumption and CVD and mortality among women. Furthermore, we estimated that 86.3% of the lower risk of CVD observed in moderate drinkers was explained by alcohol effects on lipids, glucose metabolism, inflammatory/hemostatic factors, and blood pressure. Nearly 20% of the reduced risk of either total or CVD mortality among moderate drinkers was accounted for by these intermediate factors." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745640/ I also ran across a rather interesting summary of why ethanol may be protective on Mercola.com, of all places. But it makes sense to me: " Why Ethanol May Protect You From Methanol An exciting paper that delves into this topic is food scientist Woody Monte’s “Methanol: A chemical Trojan horse as the root of the inscrutable U,” published in the March, 2010 issue of Medical Hypotheses. In it, he explains that: “Very low levels of ethanol in your bloodstream would substantively prevent all formaldehyde production from dietary methanol anywhere in the body. Protection from formaldehyde production may account for the yet unexplained dose region of apparent improvement in the U-shaped curve of alcohol consumption. Epidemiologic studies show moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with a reduced risk of myocardial infarction, dementia, lupus, and other diseases of civilization. Low doses of ethanol appear to provide a preventative measure against the causes of diseases of civilization. Recent studies of individuals who consumed at least one alcoholic drink per day show subjects had an additional 86 percent reduction in risk of myocardial infarction if they were genetically endowed with a genotype of ADH I that was 2.5 times slower to metabolize ethanol than the control. These findings were ‘‘consistent with the hypothesis that a slower rate of clearance of alcohol enhances the beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption on the risk of cardiovascular disease.”” It is important to understand that the primary treatment for methanol poisoning in the emergency room is to give them ethanol, for the reasons described above. The ethanol will preferentially be broken down before the methanol. The methanol then remains unmetabolized, and in its base form it is relatively nontoxic. It’s becomes a problem when your body breaks it down to formaldehyde. So while your body is breaking down the ethanol it has enough time to breathe out the methanol unchanged in your lungs and excrete it unchanged in your urine." https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/14/why-do-heavy-drinkers-outlive-nondrinkers.aspx I also recall that most of the protective effects of alcohol occur before the age of 55-60 and then subside significantly (kind of like the reverse of protein intake).

Fernando, if the above means that you are 18, then really don't even think of CR until you are about 10 years older. But it's good that you are cognizant of the choices we all make for long-term health and well-being. Tray to eat a healthy diet, but sufficient to cover your nutrient requirements. Get Cronometer, it really helps evaluating and adjusting nutrients for optimum health. And definitely start exercising. Start slow, do as much as you can, even a single push-up and a squat, and even a 10 seconds plank. Get a pair of weights, not too heavy and start pumping, slowly. Keep form over repetitions, so you don't hurt yourself, which is the mistake many make. Jog, jump or dance in place, if you don't feel like going out, start with even 5 minutes a day. Do it 5 days a week and within a few weeks, you'll start seeing results. Within a few months to a year, you'll see your body change significantly and the muscle will replace much of the fat. Just do it! as Nike says 🙂 You'll feel good, I promise you. And come back to CR in a decade, after you are fully mature. Or, they might just have a pill by then 🙂

If asymptomatic, your doctor is likely right. Avoid thinking about it 🙂 Or think how lucky you are you don't have high blood pressure....

Hah, I just looked and it was the settings! I don't recall changing any of the default settings, mine were set at "Macro Ratios" (P-25%; C-40%and F-35%) and I would guess that my high intake of carbohydrates was bumping Protein requirements up, trying to keep up with the allotted 25%. I changed it "Fixed Values" and it set P to 56g. Thanks!

Here is something I just ran across, which might of interest. It would appear that being too cold or too hot negatively affects REM sleep. Scientists Determined Why Room Temperature Is So Important for Sleep "Schmidt hypothesized that there are mechanisms in the brain that regulate the amount of REM sleep you get depending on the room temperature, like increasing REM sleep when the room is comfortable and sacrificing REM sleep when it's too hot or cold." https://curiosity.com/topics/scientists-determined-why-room-temperature-is-so-important-for-sleep-curiosity?utm_campaign=daily-digest&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email

mccoy, I hope your back pain is already forgotten. While looking at your Cronometer data, I was reminded of something which has been puzzling me for a while: the wildly varying protein "requirements" Cronometer lists. In your post from Friday, your Cronometer chart shows total protein daily requirement of 56g. You are about the same overall weight as me - I am usually 64-67kg. You can see my Withings Body Cardio measurement here: You are much more muscular than me, but I do some yoga and cardio virtually every day and have defined muscles (lean, but still pretty defined) 🙂 I am also 186.5cm. But the fact is, you probably work out more than I do. Now, look at what Cronometer has as my daily protein requirement: 156g! This is 100g more than you! I am virtually never able to keep my protein intake to the suggested minimum of 0.8g per 1kg of body weight, usually ending up with about 1.12g per kg. I am practically vegan (eat cheese or eggs very occasionally), so I don't know how people manage 0.8g or 1g per kg. Anyway, does anyone have any rationale for the large discrepancy in protein requirements suggested by Cronometer?

Fernando, how old are you? You seem too young to be doing CR. I am really not sure that restricting calories before full maturity (in males, maybe about 27) is beneficial. I can't see sharply protruding ribs, so it's hard to tell what fat mass. But you do look very young, so while it's good to eat healthy food at any age, make sure you eat enough to ensure growth and optimum health later on. Don't get fat, of course, but do some push ups, planks, pull ups, get a couple of weights and do a bit of cardio, too. Regularly. If you can, invest in the top of the line Whitings scale, it will give you benchmarks for fat mass, bone mass, muscle mass, and if you are in Europe, it also shows pulse wave velocity, in addition to weight and BMI.

Thanks, Clinton. After this and reading a bit more, I'll stick with my black coffee. Yes, it requires "action" by the liver, byt the liver is in action the whole time, munching up stuff. Adding a bit of black coffee, which according to the study above promotes autophagy, would likely induce increased autophagy, rather than suppress it. Which is the ultimate goal of the fast, right?

Actually, she has said this a few times. I just did a search and found someone with the same question pointing to a video where she claims that not only coffee, but herbal tea breaks a fast. Methinks she is shooting from the hip, but this I wanted to ask the question, in case I am missing something. I thought that the primary reason one fasts (for health reasons) is to induce autophagy.... Which the polyphenols in coffee (and presumably, tea) apparently induce, according to a few studies I have found (one I posted above). See her statements around the 2:35 minute point of this long video, which I have not actually watched.

Thanks for those, Gordo. Your blood pressure is enviable :) But note this sentence in the second study I posted above: "This is attributable to cold-induced increases in wave reflection and stiffness of the arterial system and suggests that the magnitude of the hemodynamic response to cold exposure cannot be determined with traditional brachial cuff measurements."

My response to Gordo immediately above was a bit convoluted (I just reread it, since I was reading something else, which brought me back to this topic). To summarize my argument: Cold exposure appears to have beneficial health effects, mainly as a result of thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue. But when looking at the whole picture, the negatives of CE practiced for hours per day, even in healthy persons, may outweigh or at least negate such benefits. Here are two studies which help explain what I see as fundamentally different effects exercise and cold exposure have on one's cardiovascular system, which I tried to summarize for Gordo above. EXERCISE (in healthy subjects and smokers): "Conduit arteries react with a flow-mediated dilation in response to whole-body exercise. The impairment of this vasodilation observed in smokers was strongly related to a decrease of endothelium-dependent dilation induced by forearm ischemia, indicating that endothelial dysfunction represents the underlying mechanism." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109701015753 COLD EXPOSURE (in healthy subjects): In summary, we have demonstrated that AI, a measure of wave reflection and indicator of systemic arterial stiffness, was significantly elevated after acute cold exposure. Brachial and central systolic pressures increased with cold exposure; however, the magnitude of the cold-induced change in central systolic pressure was greater than the change in brachial systolic pressure. This is attributable to cold-induced increases in wave reflection and stiffness of the arterial system and suggests that the magnitude of the hemodynamic response to cold exposure cannot be determined with traditional brachial cuff measurements. Cold exposure may increase myocardial oxygen demand through an increase in central systolic pressure secondary to increased arterial stiffness and wave reflection." https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.01154.2005

mccoy, I wonder if it would be worth it for you to get something like the Wthings Body+ scale, which measures water, fat mass, muscle mass and bone mass in addition to weight and BMI. While their accuracy may be debatable (I actually think it's pretty good), it will at least give you a baseline for each measurement and then you can track changes.

OK, I heard Rhonda Patrick (from FoundMyFitness fame) state that one should not drink black coffee during the fasting period when practicing time-restricted feeding. At the same time, there are studies like the one I cited above, which suggest that coffee induces autophagy. After a brief search, I have not found anything to support Rhonda Patrick's position. It may be my confirmation bias, but I am ignoring her claim (I am also a fast metabolizer according to 23andme and NebulaGenomics) Is anyone here aware of the reason behind Patrick's claim that coffee reduces the benefits of the fast?

LOL, glad to meet an AI with a sense of humor :D Free (enough) testosterone from bondage, because without freedom for T, we shall all be bound: A 2005 study of 565 World War II veterans found that higher testosterone levels in midlife were linked to better preservation of brain tissue in some, but not all, regions of the brain in late life. A 2004 study of 400 men age 40 to 80 found that higher testosterone levels were associated with better cognitive performance in older men. No link was observed in younger individuals. A 2004 report from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging evaluated 574 men over a 19-year period. Low free testosterone levels predicted an increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, even after other dementia risk factors were taken into account. A 2002 study of 310 men with an average age of 73 found that higher levels of bioavailable testosterone were associated with better scores on three tests of cognitive function. A 2002 study of 407 men between the ages of 51 and 91 found that men with higher free testosterone levels achieved higher scores on four cognitive function tests, including visual and verbal memory. A 1999 study of 547 men between the ages of 59 and 89 found that high testosterone levels in older men were associated with better performance on several cognitive function tests. https://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/testosterone-and-memory Based on the majority of the evidence I see, CR without malnutrition appears to boost relative testosterone levels. Malnutrition does appear to cause a drop in testosterone levels, which in turn can cause a host of issues: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/androgen-deficiency

Gordo, we are discussing healthy people without CVD here, right? The redistribution of blood flow during exercise does result in vasoconstriction affecting non-exercising organs like your your gut, sexual organs or kidneys (normally those receive about 10-20% blood flow, but during strenuous exercise can drop as low as 1%), but it dilates your systemic vasculature (including arteries) to maintain mean arterial pressure and the vastly increased blood flow to your skeletal muscles (which goes from as low of 10% blood flow at rest to as high as 85% during exercise). But this constriction (non-exercising organs)/dilation (systemic vasculature) balance is very different than than the arterial constriction and stiffening during cold exposure. Which is why believe in the long-term health or longevity benefits of (moderate) exercise, but am not convinced of the long term health or longevity benefits of CE.

Saul, I believe that you quoted me erroneously and meant to refer to Dean's numbers -- I have not posted my testosterone levels in this thread. For what it's worth, your 1% free T is still great for an 80 year old. The normal free T is usually about 2% of total testosterone (the rest is bound to SHBG and albumin). As one ages, there is usually a process of increasing bondage, which can result in insufficient free T for muscle development and other functions. But I'd guess since your total T is close to 800ng/dL, even 1% is sufficient to do its job.

Really, Dean...?!! No, I don't think that the "study" you are citing is good evidence. It's a very small, self-selected group, with no baseline. And it contradicts other studies, which find elevated testosterone levels in populations consuming fewer calories than baseline (with no malnutrition), as well as the well-established correlation between lean mass and testosterone levels. I don't particularly care about your opinion, or your personal testosterone level. But please refrain from throwing insults just because you disagree with my arguments.

Apologies, I typed "CE" by mistake above. I meant to type "CR" as in caloric restriction. I'll correct it now.

Gordo, I don't have to guess, I am well aware that during exercise the force of your heart's contractions increases in order to increase the supply of oxygen and your blood pressure elevates. But I am also well aware that during exercise, your blood vessels dilate significantly (and more so in healthy people). Cold exposure does exactly the opposite, it constricts and stiffens your blood vessels, while at the same time increasing blood pressure, the flow of lipids and inflammatory agents. Add to this the generally greater length of cold exposure by CE aficionados, and you'll see why I am not convinced that CE offers long term health or longevity benefits in humans, despite the otherwise beneficial impact of thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue. "Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is considered the primary cause of death in the developed world. Large scale epidemiological studies indicate that prevalence of hypertension along with adverse cardiovascular events peak during the winter months. Moreover, during the winter months outdoor activities and physical stressors such as exercise have been associated with higher cardiovascular mortality when compared to other periods of the year. Although low environmental temperatures have been implicated as the triggering factor for cardiovascular complications, the mechanisms on how cold exposure increase cardiovascular morbidity and mortality remain to be elucidated. However, new research suggests that cold exposure may induce increases in cardiac sympathetic activity, endothelial damage and increased arterial stiffness of central arteries." https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01462591

Wow! Better than the average Okinawan :) These are levels which would be perfect for a 20 year old. For what it's worth, there is data which suggests that in healthy adults testosterone levels do not necessarily decline significantly until after the age of 75 or so. Just like blood pressure or cholesterol levels should not necessarily increase with age. I keep seeing the claims that CR (without malnutrition) "initially lowers testosterone," but I have seen no real evidence that this is in fact the case. I am not saying it's an incorrect statement, but since it doesn't necessarily make sense to me, since testosterone levels correlate with lean mass, I'd love to see some real evidence.

I am fully aware of many of the non-human, as well as human studies involving cold exposure. I am also aware that BAT is new and exciting shiny object, which draws all the attention in lab results. What I am suggesting is that for me at least, the shine of these short term results is not quite enough to silence all the other questions about cold exposure and general health, and longevity in particular. There are some clear negative consequences of cold exposure, including vasoconstriction and the resulting increase in blood pressure. One may be healthy, but there is still a question of the wisdom of regularly causing arterial constriction, increasing blood pressure and circulating lipid particles and some proinflammatory cytokines, for hours at a time. Yes, some of it may be offset by corresponding beneficial processes involved in thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue, but to me, it's a really mixed bag and it is far from clear that cold exposure benefits longevity in humans. This is why I keep bringing up the fact that population studies do not support increases in longevity in human populations in colder climates (arguably the opposite is seen). Such studies show clear evidence for CE benefits in certain other species, like mollusks, but not in humans. We can see longevity benefits in population studies for caloric restriction, plant-based low protein diets, smoking abstinence, moderate alcohol use, etc.. But generally, we see evidence that people die when it gets cold, at significantly higher rates than when it gets hot. The reason I keep bringing this up is not to convert you, or Dean, into abandoning your cold vests, but because I am under the impression that this is a place for discussion and learning. I have learned from posts and studies I found here and adopted a number of behavioral changes in the few months I have lurked here, as I am certain others have. Perhaps others can benefit from an open discussion on this topic, too. Because while it was a quip about the longevity of Siberian construction workers, it is nevertheless valid, since in this case I compared it to a corresponding population (construction workers) in the warmer parts of Russia (some of which are poorer than Siberia). Funny enough, I am familiar with both Russia and Australia. Believe me, Sydney is overall much warmer than Siberia, even though I am sure you can find the occasional day when the opposite is true. But this, or the economic and political woes of Russia, are hardly the point of this discussion. See above for what I consider to be the point. Cheers.

LOL. To me it looks like the better access you have to advanced medicine, the longer you live. I don't know if you've been to Australia, but it's kind of like California, just a little bit hotter in the summer in most places. I always thought Russia and Finland were colder.... But what do I know :)

Dean, I am not ignoring it. I just don't find it convincing and I have repeatedly explained why. Which is the point you are ignoring. As to what you've endorsed, you know better than me. You've already identified one :) My guess is, there are more, as I seem to have that impression (the Mediterranean Study which is basically a population study, with all of its problems, comes to mind for some reason). But that's only part of the point. The main point is, population studies consistently show trends in the impact of stuff which is harder to verify, like CR, or dietary and lifestyle habits. For cold exposure, which is easy to verify based on recorded temperatures, the ONLY consistent trend is that more people die when it's cold. Do you get it? And speaking of ignoring, you have completely ignored the two studies I posted above, which clearly contribute to the discussion by providing an explanation for the correlation of cold and increased human deaths. Instead, you are challenging me to search through you past comments. Peace.