...with not-fully-corrected genetic replication errors accumulating monotonically, bringing with it cancer (often) and senescence (always), and, inevitably, death. Some regeneration that is! If I could only impede this 'regeneration' and keep death further at bay...
Last edited:
By what mechanism? Certainly I hope you're not making a Lamarckian implication.
In any case, Google says: "Nearly 90% of all elderly deaths in Bulgaria have been caused by four classes of diseases: class VII (cardiovascular disease, 67%), class II (neoplasms/cancer, ..." (2006)
I guess all that white bread, high-salt-and-nitrates kielbasa, high-fat feta cheese and yogurt are paying dividends
Last edited:
It is called "Globalization". Welcome to the industrialized world! Here in California we adopt Bulgarian buttermilk. There in Bulgaria they adopt pasteurized and homogenized milk.
By what mechanism you learned to walk, to speak, to prepare, to choose food? I hope not by genetic programming.
I think there's more to it than "learning from them," but investigating to find out what they did right. Okinawa is (also) known for its long-lived residents - certainly if you "do what they do" you'll live longer, but I don't necessarily want to be a fisherman the rest of my life, if I can get the benefit of what they do to live longer while still maintaining my life where I live now, I'll certainly benefit.
But it's well-know that diet is the most major factor in longevity. Caloric restriction while eating "proper" foods is a most optimized diet:
CR Society Home
But yes, the US life expectancy has a lot to thank concerning medical science, and is in spite of the average US diet.
I'm reminded of somoene, a "scientist" on another forum, who wrote of doing meticulous, scientific listening tests on speaker cables. Unfortunately he didn't know how to measure resistance, capacitance or inductance, or what these things are, and wasn't interested in learning these things. He didn't seem to understand that if he did such experiments in his own field without such basic knowledge he'd be laughed out of the field.
Agreed. That's self-evident, common sense stuff. But who are the folks referred to? Aleuts? I find that to be a special case, not a general truth.
Huh??
Stone age references are admittedly few and far between, but applying some common sense tells me conclusively that that's baloney. Humans have been omnivorous since, well, since before they were humans.
Are you limiting "sugar" to just sucrose? If so, that would be mistaken. But I could agree with you, then.
And BTW, if you simply want to gain weight, eat lots of ice cream.
Fair to say baloney as we were not there in the stone-age nor at 99% of other things we don't question . Some things we just have to trust . Refined sugars are unlikely . Primitive tribes will risk life to get honey . Some still live the same life today . Processed fats also . The worst is Palm oil ( too complicated to say ) .
The best way to gain weight is eat plenty of food . It sounds simple . It requires enthusiasm and some control once the target is reached . Potatoes seem very good and can be eaten many ways . I was advised to eat plenty of meat to get back muscle . I have and it seems to have other advantages . I have very little spare money so buy whatever is a good price . This seems to rotate so not a bad diet . From my own experience being the fat side of OK is beneficial . As far as I can see stress kills people . French friends eat and drink to excess . Many smoke . Most reach 90 . Most French people are very curious and philosophical . Old ladies doubtless for other reasons engage me in conversions about my motorcycle , however when questioned they know a bit about them . The local news magazine details 2 and 3 stage water purification for the sewage and says why they choose 2 stage for cost . In England it doesn't happen . Being curious and keeping mentally fit is the key .
One piece of advice for gaining weight and general feeding . Spag Bol . 1lbs meat ( 500g , best you can afford ) . 3 peppers , 4 large onions . 2 tins tomatoes ( Italian if possible , cheap and good ) . 2 stock cubes . A little oil . 1/2 tube of tomato puree . One jar pasta sauce . Believe me it will all seem to be meat when cooked and very healthy for kids who wont touch vegetables . Note the very high tomato content . Any less and it tastes cheap . The cost is about $1.50 for a very well fed person . I am not keen on cheap mushrooms . However ideal for this recipe . It freezes well . Tabasco is useful and garlic . I add mixed herbs ( dry is OK ) . Add any salt at the end . I generally cook it in a slow cooker for 4 hours on low . Each ingredient quickly cooked on a high heat before slow cooking . To any Italian I apologies .
Great apologies also as we should determine if light speed is constant . Again it requires more data , we take it on trust .
The best way to gain weight is eat plenty of food . It sounds simple . It requires enthusiasm and some control once the target is reached . Potatoes seem very good and can be eaten many ways . I was advised to eat plenty of meat to get back muscle . I have and it seems to have other advantages . I have very little spare money so buy whatever is a good price . This seems to rotate so not a bad diet . From my own experience being the fat side of OK is beneficial . As far as I can see stress kills people . French friends eat and drink to excess . Many smoke . Most reach 90 . Most French people are very curious and philosophical . Old ladies doubtless for other reasons engage me in conversions about my motorcycle , however when questioned they know a bit about them . The local news magazine details 2 and 3 stage water purification for the sewage and says why they choose 2 stage for cost . In England it doesn't happen . Being curious and keeping mentally fit is the key .
One piece of advice for gaining weight and general feeding . Spag Bol . 1lbs meat ( 500g , best you can afford ) . 3 peppers , 4 large onions . 2 tins tomatoes ( Italian if possible , cheap and good ) . 2 stock cubes . A little oil . 1/2 tube of tomato puree . One jar pasta sauce . Believe me it will all seem to be meat when cooked and very healthy for kids who wont touch vegetables . Note the very high tomato content . Any less and it tastes cheap . The cost is about $1.50 for a very well fed person . I am not keen on cheap mushrooms . However ideal for this recipe . It freezes well . Tabasco is useful and garlic . I add mixed herbs ( dry is OK ) . Add any salt at the end . I generally cook it in a slow cooker for 4 hours on low . Each ingredient quickly cooked on a high heat before slow cooking . To any Italian I apologies .
Great apologies also as we should determine if light speed is constant . Again it requires more data , we take it on trust .
When I can get it, chewing on a piece of raw comb is a pleasurable evil. People are different and what may be excess for one isn't for another. Know thyself, stay mentally and physically active. To correctly gain weight, one needs some regular anaerobic activity ("no pain, no gain") and a high protein diet. Can't build it if you don't have the parts!
I don't keep up with this stuff like I did in my younger years. This is very interesting and topical.
That would make a big bang.
I don't keep up with this stuff like I did in my younger years. This is very interesting and topical.
Nonsense, it is one of the most verified observations in all physics. Seriously, is it that nutty of a notion to get some actual background before saying stuff like this?
One strange fact is that cooking might be the factor in the development of humans . The assumption that raw is best might be flawed . Certainly there are risks involved in eating raw food .
Fact or Fiction: Raw veggies are healthier than cooked ones: Scientific American
Cooked tomatoes better than raw is now thought to be true . Useful as it is cost effective to buy them that way .
Lightly cooked cabbage a great food to those like me who like it .
I didn't take any great exercise on my diet . My muscles did come back . I did eat a lot of various proteins . Eggs especailly . We are now told that they have good cholesterol . The body makes it even if we don't eat it . How many know that ? It is vital as a blood clotting agent , Saturated fats also are not as bad as some say . Not great if burnt during cooking . Trans-fats and Aspartame are not in nature . I can not say if the link is true . It might be . I still drink it if I like the drink . However not out of choice .
ASPARTAME MAKES YOU FATTER!
What of dogs . By joining with man they have the same advantages of cooked food . It is thought dogs befriended man . As I say I wasn't there .
Fish is important . Alas not for much longer . Canada lost it's Cod , it never returned I believe ?
Fact or Fiction: Raw veggies are healthier than cooked ones: Scientific American
Cooked tomatoes better than raw is now thought to be true . Useful as it is cost effective to buy them that way .
Lightly cooked cabbage a great food to those like me who like it .
I didn't take any great exercise on my diet . My muscles did come back . I did eat a lot of various proteins . Eggs especailly . We are now told that they have good cholesterol . The body makes it even if we don't eat it . How many know that ? It is vital as a blood clotting agent , Saturated fats also are not as bad as some say . Not great if burnt during cooking . Trans-fats and Aspartame are not in nature . I can not say if the link is true . It might be . I still drink it if I like the drink . However not out of choice .
ASPARTAME MAKES YOU FATTER!
What of dogs . By joining with man they have the same advantages of cooked food . It is thought dogs befriended man . As I say I wasn't there .
Fish is important . Alas not for much longer . Canada lost it's Cod , it never returned I believe ?
Yes and the Earth is very flat . We can be wrong . As I say I was not there about certain things . I was not around 10 billion years ago to measure light speed . Was it always this speed ? With the greatest of respect no one has a clue .
I bet Fred Hoyle was just as sure about the Steady State Universe ? I for one do not dismiss that . Fred Hoyle was not 200 years ago .
It has only been possible to hazard good guesses over the last 200 years about anything like this . More recently with accuracy .
Columbus was nuts . I wouldn't have done what he did . ( Not now even , not in that ship ) .
"The speed of light is constant" can mean two different things:
1. all light moves at the same speed.
2. that speed is the same now as it has ever been.
There is ample evidence that 1 is true, and no serious scientist doubts it.
It is generally believed that 2 is true. Some doubt it, but the evidence against it is weak and disputed. There is a school of thought that 2 is by definition true, as c is simply a conversion factor between our human measurement units of time and length - I feel this is simply assuming what you are asserting, as the reason we believe we can use c to define units is because we believe it to be constant. We initially believed it to be constant because measurements appeared to show that it doesn't change, and we generally believe things to be constant unless we have some reason to expect them to change. It is quite a big step to then assert that it must be constant, and then to define units so in future any change would not be visible. For that to be valid we would have to know in absolute certainty that there is not some other fundamental speed which could play a role; that would require proving a negative. My own position on this is that c is probably constant, but I find it conceivable that it might not be (over cosmological time periods).
1. all light moves at the same speed.
2. that speed is the same now as it has ever been.
There is ample evidence that 1 is true, and no serious scientist doubts it.
It is generally believed that 2 is true. Some doubt it, but the evidence against it is weak and disputed. There is a school of thought that 2 is by definition true, as c is simply a conversion factor between our human measurement units of time and length - I feel this is simply assuming what you are asserting, as the reason we believe we can use c to define units is because we believe it to be constant. We initially believed it to be constant because measurements appeared to show that it doesn't change, and we generally believe things to be constant unless we have some reason to expect them to change. It is quite a big step to then assert that it must be constant, and then to define units so in future any change would not be visible. For that to be valid we would have to know in absolute certainty that there is not some other fundamental speed which could play a role; that would require proving a negative. My own position on this is that c is probably constant, but I find it conceivable that it might not be (over cosmological time periods).
I too believe it to be true in both cases . I wasn't very serious about the other statement . More about feeling guilty about food talk .
One thing I did think its we must look very carefully at the measurements . As 10 to 13.7 billion years is a long time a slight shift of light speed would take a humans eternity to spot . I think it is logical to think an expanding universe might affect light speed . Some even think light traveled considerably faster 2000 years ago . Now if that is true I am sure we would notice changes over 50 years . That would be easy to disprove . I think always using the same measurement system important . It is very important to keep an open mind . Equally things that work should be respected . The Earth for most of us is very flat even knowing it is round . Until I go into space I will have to say appears as I never saw it for myself .
DF I very much respect " probably " . We almost need a word that says so probable it is most likely fact . " Respected " is close to that word .
I am proud to have light switched on again .
This is what some say ( not me ) . I feel my 50 year observation would be the proof against this ( if proof is required ) . The gentlemen here should know of the work of Lord Kelvin . Even he came to more than 6000 years using what new knew .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpoL3-Kp2Qw
One thing I did think its we must look very carefully at the measurements . As 10 to 13.7 billion years is a long time a slight shift of light speed would take a humans eternity to spot . I think it is logical to think an expanding universe might affect light speed . Some even think light traveled considerably faster 2000 years ago . Now if that is true I am sure we would notice changes over 50 years . That would be easy to disprove . I think always using the same measurement system important . It is very important to keep an open mind . Equally things that work should be respected . The Earth for most of us is very flat even knowing it is round . Until I go into space I will have to say appears as I never saw it for myself .
DF I very much respect " probably " . We almost need a word that says so probable it is most likely fact . " Respected " is close to that word .
I am proud to have light switched on again .
This is what some say ( not me ) . I feel my 50 year observation would be the proof against this ( if proof is required ) . The gentlemen here should know of the work of Lord Kelvin . Even he came to more than 6000 years using what new knew .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpoL3-Kp2Qw
Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end
An abstract from above .
Mass and length are also interchangeable, with the conversion factor depending on both a varying gravitational “constant” and a varying speed of light (G/c2). Basically, as the universe expands, time is converted into space, and mass is converted into length. As the universe contracts, the opposite occurs.
Read more at: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end
Sorry link is repeated .
An abstract from above .
Mass and length are also interchangeable, with the conversion factor depending on both a varying gravitational “constant” and a varying speed of light (G/c2). Basically, as the universe expands, time is converted into space, and mass is converted into length. As the universe contracts, the opposite occurs.
Read more at: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end
Sorry link is repeated .
Last edited:
What bubble ( Hubble perhaps ) is it that I live in or friends who say nothing . Forgive me world I didn't know . This man found his experiences too much it is said .
Neil Armstrong Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com
Neil Armstrong Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com
Well there is some truth to that.
First off, let's talk about sucrose, fructose and glucose.
In essence, sucrose is one fructose and one glucose molecule stuck together, and once eaten stomach enzymes break down glucose into sucrose and fructose anyway. So there isn't that much difference.
However, refined sugar was very rare. Things like honey come to mind of course, but other than that, finding food with only high sugar content was rare.
The thing is, nature almost always pairs sugar with fiber. An orange is very high in glucose and fructose, but also high in fiber. If you eat an orange, you will also get a lot of fiber. The potential downside of too much sugar intake is negated by also providing lots of fiber and vitamins and minerals.
Things like sugar cane have lots of sucrose, but it's very difficult to get at it, you basically have to chew them and suck out the sugar. Also contains lots of iron and other minerals.
So, I do think that refined, easy to get sugars without any additional dietary benefits are way WAY too prevalent these days.
Conversely, fats were generally paired with protein and/or fiber too.
Fresh article about genetics: "New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans "
New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans: Scientific American
New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans: Scientific American
- Status
- Not open for further replies.