Suitable is good.
I think suitable is probably less than you think.
>The body can handle free radicals
> >quite well,
Not well enough for me.:-)
and the small increase due to the exercise is offset by
> >the improvements in health.
Yet again someone says exercise is good and fails to convince.
>
> That was the essense of my arguement.
>
> >>Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com> writes:
>
> >> Most foods and vitamins/nutrients, etc. must go throught the
> >> digestive system and the liver to be assimulated properly. You
> >> cannot get a complete enough diet by parenteral feeding. It is
> >> a dangerous and impossible long term practice and would be
> >> extremely foolish to initiate voluntarily.
>
> >That an ordinary healthy human should not try a parenteral diet is
> >fairly obvious (what is the point, really?), but as far I know there
> >are a few people who have survived on a parenteral diet for years
> >after massive intestinal failure.
>
> This is true, but I make two observations:
>
> 1) This is not for a major portion of a life time (and certainly not for
> an extended life-span). It is only done to extend what is clearly the
> terminal portion of their life.
One thing I have noticed about the medical establishment
is their obsession with keeping the terminally ill on 24-hour emergency
while failing to improve the "healthy" people
who are not willing to pay up the ying-yang
for drugs which treat symptoms
and gismos that blink and beep.
If your doctor EVER says "Nothing is wrong with you"
get another doctor.
> 2) In line with 1), these people continue to deteriorate at a rate higher
> than others of their age.
They most likely are host to MANY other threats if they have this
procedure.
Have you EVER heard of it being done to a person in great health?
Hmmm?
Well?
Have you? :-)
>
> >> >Keep high oxygen saturation to reduce work by heart and diaphram.
> >>
> >> Your oxygen saturation is already as high as you can possibly use.
> >> On the contrary, if anything you may want to *reduce* the amount
> >> of oxygen intake (as long as all areas of the tissues are equally
> >> supplied) and the subsequent amount of free radicals generated.
> >> I have often wondered if people who live their lives at moderately
> >> high altitudes may have increase longevity.
>
> >But doesn't the lung capacity and red blood cell count increase,
> >leading to a similar oxygen saturation?
>
> Yes, it does, at least at high altitudes
...altitudes or environmental pressure?
Hyperbaric chambers increase oxygen saturation
by sqeezing out other gases.
I did a web search on oxygen therapy and found many interseting claims.
>(Red cell count always,
> lung capacity only if born at high altitudes, I believe.)
Makes sense.
People could also do streching exercises,
I do.
>However,
> these things may well not increase proportionately to the amount of
> oxygen deprivation. Thus, the cells may also learn to live with less
> oxygen and as a consequence have less free radical damage. I simply
> don't know if this is true or not.
>
> One person on the CRSociety list is proposing water restriction instead
> of food calorie restriction. If the above idea is true maybe if we all
> practiced a little bit of oxygen restriction by breathing less, we might
> train our cells to need less oxygen, and consequently produce less
harmful
> free radicals and make us live longer.
>
> Though it's an interesting thought, I am the first one to agree that it
> make be quite wrong and impractical.
Capillaries recieve less nutrients, blood thickens,
heart/lungs pump more (free-rads),
but if it extends my brain's lifespan it may be worth it.