> The lists' bandwiths are all us Paul.
> After this I'm going to consider retiring or making some BIG "snip"s.
> How do I treat carpel tunnel syndrome?
> > From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
> > To: extropians <extropians@extropy.com>; crsoc
<crsociety@lists.sni.net>;
> transhumans <transhuman@logrus.org>
> > Subject: Re: Free-Rads, Parenteral Dieting, Nutrient Deficiency, High
> Altitudes, Red Cell Count, Oxy Saturation(Re: CR and Exercise or No?)
> > Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 3:03 AM
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:09:37 -0500, "Mike Coward" wrote:
> > >> From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
> > >> To: extropians@extropy.com
> > >> Cc: crsoc <crsociety@lists.sni.net>; transhumans
> <transhuman@logrus.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: CR and Exercise or No?
> > >> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 4:31 AM
> > >> Overall, it seems that the best way of living longer is CR combined
> > >> with a suitable level of exercise. The body can handle free radicals
> > >> quite well, and the small increase due to the exercise is offset by
> > >> the improvements in health.
> > >Many have said exercise is good
> > >but never has it been explained to me in a convincing manner.
> > >1-What are the health benifits besides strong hearts, lungs, and ankles
> > >(weak ankles cause many falls which lead to complications due to
> > >osteoporosis)?
> > Enhance immunity, enhanced intelligence and mental energy,
> >increased GH, etc
> I have been trying to weigh to benifits of intelligence vs. free-rad
> production.
These are almost orthogonal. They don't trade-off.
> I suppose being stupid would kill me sooner.
It certainly could.
> Someday I'll ask someone to convince me exercise is good
> and they will not only list what it does
> they will say how it does it,
> Aw who am I kidding.
I think the mechanism of most of the benefits is reasonably well known,
but I would take anywhere from a short mongraph to a long textbook to
explain depending on how much you know to start with.
> > (just about every life enhancing factor you can think of - except
> production
> > of free radicals and some waste products, both of which are not a
> problem,
> > ie more than made up for by compensating enhancements, if the exercise
is
> > not too extreme)
> > > 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.
> > 2-Did they die of nutritional deficiency?
> > Medically, "Nutritional deficiency" has a very technical meaning. For
> each
> > nutrient which is deemed essential, there is a specific deficency
disease
> > which happens when all others are adequate and only it is deficient.
> > It is necessary that there be such a disease in order for a nutrient to
> be
> > called essential. The RDA is the amount which is necessary to prevent
> this
> > disease in most people.
> > Thus, it is likely that no one on parenteral feeding "technically" dies
> of
> > nutrient deficiency since the diet ensures that they get all of the
known
> > essential nutrients. The problem is that first there are likely still
> some
> > unknown important nutrients
> We have STMs and unknown nutrients.
> What are they... piconutrients?
> Maybe we need foods electromagnetic aura to sustain us.
No, you miss the point. The number of possible chemicals (with very
different properties) is higher than astromomical. Not all the chemicals
in natural foods have even been isolated and even for many which have,
their value or lack of it is not known. This is partly because not all
the chemicals that our body uses and makes have been discovered yet.
And certainly not all the biochemical pathways.
I always maintain that one of the fundamental mistakes that extropians,
transhumanists, nanotechnologists, uploaders, AI people, etc make is
grossly underestimating human and brain complexity.
> >and the term essential as defined above is not
> > necessarily sufficient to keep one alive for very long.
> > >While I'm speaking of them,
> > >3-Have any tests been done to estimate the average length of life
> > >after specific nutrients are removed from the diet?
> > For the technically essential nutrients, yes, these things are
generally
> > known.
> I searched and gave up after an hour or so.
I don't know what you searched, but contrary to "net-hype" everything
is not available on the Internet (yet).
> > >I wonder how long it takes to die from each nutrient deficiency.
> > >4-What phrases could I use for a medline search?
> > You might be better to begin with an advanced nutrition text such as
> > _Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism_ Groff, Gropper and Hunt
> > Krause's _Food, Diet, and Nutrition Therapy_
> > >High red cell count also means high nutrient distribution,
> > >provided there is enough fluid in the bloodstream to fill the
> capillaries.
> > Sorry, but you need to learn more physiology.
> Whoops...plasma.
That was the *least* important mistake.
> >The red blood cells have
> > nothing to do with nutrient distribution. In fact, more red blood cells
> > might tend to make it worse, there is only so much blood volume
> available.
> > See Guyton's _A Textbook of Medical Physiology_ (a good book on the
body
> > changes due to exercise also)
> How rapidly could I change red/white cell counts?
> If it is controlable enough I could:
> A)increase plasma during feeding.
> B)increase red cell during exercise.
> C)increase white cell during cleansing.
a) For plasma volume increase give electrolytes plus colloid.
There are standard medical plasma expanders available.
b) For increase red blood cells take testosterone (a slow method)
or get a direct transfusion of compatible red cells
or drain you own blood and add plasma expander, this will lower
hematocrit and cause spleen to empty its red cell reservoir and
to manufacture more, then transfuse own blood back.
Walla! super high hematocrit!
c) I can think of no way to do this at present except by infecting
yourself with many things which you have previously been vacinnated
against.
The real question is why would you want to do any of these things?
> > >If there are increased amounts of fluid in the bloodstream
> > >(5- input technical term here: hyperfluidity?)
> > >there are also increases in efficiency of temperature distribution,
> > >preventing hyper/hypothermia, thus leading to decreased free-radical
> > >production from sweating/shivering.
> > Again you need to learn more physiology. The body is not warmed and
> cooled
> > as if some central heating system with the blood vessels taking the
place
> > of water or air condiuts.
> :-)
> As my pride is wounded from my apparent lack of physiological knowledge,
> I will defend myself with my grasp of physics
> which extends beyond my body into the hot, dry air
> which fills my lungs at the center of my being,
> warming my soul by reaching through it's bloody tendrils
> (rather much like a central heating system).:-)
> I am sorry.
> Alas, I could not resist.
> >The temperature regulation is done directly by
> > each cell in response to thyroid hormones and others information
> transmitters
> > all the blood does is even out the temperature from one spot to the
> other.
> > So you are correct that more blood volume could aid in preventing "hot
> spots"
> > where additional free radical damage might be increased by the higher
> > temperature.
> In case you missed my point I will try to explain.
> Heat is not soley within the cells.
But by far the larger part is generated there.
> It can be created in them
> though I was meerly pointing out that dehydrated toes get froze.
Thats because you are wiggleing them :)
> As water being rapidly pumped through the system
> disperses warm blood amongst cold blood
> the mean temperature is more easily kept regular(regulated).
> I feel better now.
True enough as far as I understand you. But it the blood flow is
so fast and the blood volume so large (all 5 liters of your blood
cycled through your body every minute) and the capillaries so close
to every cell, that the body temperature will not vary much from
one point to another as long as you maintain good circulation.
> > > 6-Do people host more bacteria( which do not like high levels of O)
> > some do some don't
> > >at high altitudes when they have a lack of white cells to fight them?
> > Why should people at high altitudes lack white blood cells?
> My memory is not what it used to be.
> I must try exercising my power of recall.
> Maybe I was getting high and low pressure confused?
I wasn't saying they didn't. But that I have never heard of it and can't
think of any reason why it might be so.
> > >I've been wanting to know how low I can get my heart rate
> > >if I increase my red cells and my O saturation.
> > My morning pulse is 44. My hematocrit (% of red blood cells) is not
that
> > high though). I have heard of young med students as low as 30. Using a
> pulse
> > oximeter which measures % of hemoglobin saturation, I can hold my
breath
> > without blacking out until my "SAT" goes down to about 85% (normally
98%
> for
> > every healthy person). No one else I know can go below 90%.
> > >7-Any predictions?
> > >8-Hmm...any risk?
> > I can't tell you what the risk is until you tell me how you plan to
> accomplish
> > this.
> Well, I don't plan to use a hyperbaric chamber
> but I'm interested in learning about it.
> > Off hand other than be a tranfusion of red cells (dangerous to play
with)
> That's what I want.
> A machine that replentishes the blood supply.
> Out with the old, in with the new.
> No eating, no drinking, no breathing, no muss, no fuss,
> that's the life for me.
But red blood cells don't have anything to do with food. They only
carry oxygen and transfused one will likely even be difficient of that
You will have to breath even more to reoxygenate them.
You body is already a very efficient and quite optimal life support
system for your brain. Don't you realize that's what its real
purpose is?
> > From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
> > Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 3:04 AM
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:51:19, Mike Coward wrote:
> > > From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
> > >> Most foods and vitamins/nutrients, etc. must go throught the
> > >> digestive system and the liver to be assimulated properly.
> > >1)What nutrients need what parts?
> > Too detailed to go into here, but clearly proteins must be broken
> > apart into amino acids or short peptides,
> I prefer to eat aminos in place of protiens,
> and I would if I could afford it financially.
> > many vitamins and nutrients
> > have active transport mechanisms form the intestines,
> I wish I knew more about that.
> Anyone see a geni around here?
Read the books that I mentioned before. There is no "royal road" to
learning. It takes time and hard work.
> >the liver does
> > essential modification of many vitamins and nutrients eg changing EFA's
> > into triglycerides.
> > Read the nutrition and metabolism book which I suggested in my other
> > message.
> > >>You
> > >> cannot get a complete enough diet by parenteral feeding.
> > >2)The intestines perform a function.
> > >If that function can be quantified and reproduced externally that is
> what I
> > >want.
> > I see where you are coming from (and trying to get to). I like the
idea.
> > The problem is that the body is far too complicated physiologically and
> > biochemically, and our understanding is far too limited, for anything
> like
> > what you want to be possible for decades to come.
> ERROR.
> GIVEN DATA UNACCEPTABLE.
Sorry, reality must always be acceptable else you are not all "here".
> > >I prefer feeding to take as little time as possible.
> > I agree. That's why I now do most of my feeding by drinking blended
food
> > "slurries". The blender 'chewing' the food saves me time and effort.
> > Occassionally, I still chew because I like chewing and its good for my
> teeth
> > and gums which I don't want to atrophy (just yet :).
> I once made a salad slurrie.
> I did not realize I could fit an entire head of lettuce in one glass!
Its much better if you combine many vegetables with low fat tofu or
cottage cheese.
> The amount of calories I would have saved from blending.
> were spent setting up and cleaning the blender.
Naw! You slop around a little water in the bottom to rinse and drink that
so less than a teaspoon is wasted, then you rinse immediately (before it dries)
under a running tap. Usually this is sufficient and takes less than a minute.
If still not clean enough, then simply "blend" some water and then rinse again.
> It's only worth it if done in mass quantities or if I have no teeth.
I started it as a necessity when I got a full set of braces on. But now I plan
to continue. However, a full blender is two meals worth and from cooked stuff
I usually do two at a time.
> > >I would rather everything be predigested
> > >so I don't have to walk around waiting for my cells to be fed.
> > The predigested part is not so easy. I believe there are healthy and
> > nutritional benefits of passing food throught the digestive system
which
> > cannot easily be gained any other way.
> Like fiber soaking up toxins?
No, because fiber will not draw anything from *you*, only from the food.
I am thinking of beneficial gut bacteria effects, but I don't have anything
very specific in mind. I would need to do some research.
> > >I am trying to avoid using as many body parts as I can.
> > Then there are easier ones to avoid using than the whole digestive
> > system.
> > How about having your arms and legs amputated?
> I've thought about it.
> >(Maybe leave your
> > right arm so you can type - or maybe not with good voice recognition)
> > There is evidence that shorter people live longer.
> What should I search for?
> Nearly anything with "longevity" I've seen.
Are you searching medline or the Internet? For all searching it is
necessary to be very creative about the terms and names. You need to
think of all possible ways the subject might be expressed.
> Do you have a hypothesis?
Probably to do with Body-mass-index (BMI) and the mass/surface
area effect (the reason why elephants have such thick legs)
CR gives lower BMI too.
> >It might be true
> > the a happy arm/leg amputee who gets his exercise by rolling around
> > and squirming on the floor might live longer too. :)
> I want documentation!
> Doctors will gladly give amputees bionic limbs,
They are not very good yet though. I certainly wouldn't want to give up
my natural leg for one.
> but I doubt many would take me seriously if I told them to chop me up
> even if I agreed to pay them an arm and a leg.:- )
Somehow I think you are right here. :)
> > >That way when I have to start replacing parts I can save $. :-)
> > >If food was processed( broken into componant parts and sterilized)
> > >before eaten many parts of the digestive system become unnessasary,
> > >such as the teeth, tongue, saliva, esophagus, stomach, stomach acids
> > >which serve only to make bits of food smaller and more pure.
> > Not just smaller, other imporant functions. Anyway some of the parts
> > you have listed do not wear our early or are not terminal if they do.
> > I don't believe that anyone has ever died from a wornout tongue or had
> > a tongue transplant for that matter. :)
> I bet you $10 Amer. someone has had a tongue transplant. :-)
Sorry, I never bet on principle.
> > Also tongues can be very useful for lots of fun things.
> > I wouldn't want to be without one. :)
> I would rather not have to worry about any more cells the I have to.
> I just another mouth to feed.:-)
But the cells of one part seldom produce free radicals which affect another.
> > >High O means low pulse/respiration, which means those parts last longer.
> > I you breathed up to a 50% oxygen mixture, the amount of oxygen in the
> > blood would only increase a little (the disolved %) since most of it is
> > in the "hypersaturated" (actively bound) hemoglobin. Your pluse rate
> > would change very little. It is true that your would need to breathe less
> > than half as frequently or deeply, however. But the cumulative long-term
> > damage on the lung tissue of the extra oxygen would probably negate any
> > benefit.
> I need to research this more.
Now your talking!
> > The big point here, Mike, is that "good old Mother Nature" has pretty
> > well optimised us already.
> "Extropians look at the human body and say,
> Isn't this a marvel of nature, but I think we can do a little bit
better."
And we will eventually. But not just yet for at least a few decades.
> Mommy has poor distribution of resources.
> We are made of C, H, and O because they are so abundant and flexible,
> but now our mother is telling us how to build bones out of titanium
> and brains from diamond.
> I am still dying, my centuries are numbered, so I am far from optimal.
But you were born too early for what you long to do.
> > >> >Do not die from muscle degeneration( heart, diaphram).
> > >> A laudable goal, but how do you implement it without exercise?
> > >Replace those muscles with machines.
> > >This is already being done with today's technology.
> > Eventually, I agree. But we are nowhere near the "bionic man" yet.
> > Easier to try the amputee route mentioned above.
> Have you done much research into cybernetics?
> Few know what lurks in yonder top secret military installations.;-)
Knowing the general incompetence of governments including the military,
I am not one who believes that they have any special high tech things
that surpass public science and engineering and no one knows about.
This idea is just so much nonsense.
> > >> >Movement means free-radicals.
> > >> So does eating,
> > >I am trying to make eating easier.
> > >Solid foods tax the jaw and stomach muscles.
> > Use slurries as described above. (They also make taking >100 nutrient
> > pills per day a breeze!) I expect they also make it easier on the
> > stomach although the acid requirements will not be changed.
> > >>breathing
> > >More O = low respiration rate.
> > >Or I could get better lungs( transplants, biotech implants, bionics).
> > Not for a long time yet. Our natural ones a pretty damned good.
> Emergency life support systems work pretty well.
> They last as long as your insurance.
You are mixed up on what these do and what is essential. When young
healthy firemen get burned lungs, they *cannot* be saved. They die!
> > >>and being alive. Free-radicals are both
> > >> harmful and necessary for life at the same time.
> > >I do not belive they will ALWAYS be necessary.
> > Sorry, they will be. They are generated by the mitochondrial production
> > of ATP in every cell (including your precious brain). All that we can
> > do is *control* them, not eliminate them.
> Hmm...
Turn the "Hmm..." into some intensive learning about how you work!
> > >>It's where they
> > >> are formed and how they are dealt with that is important.
> > >Absolutely!
> > >Unfortunately, I have had trouble finding ways to protect my my brain,
> > You can best proctect your brain by first all the same things as will
> > protect the rest of your body - your brain is *fundamentally* similar
> > cells after all. Then you go after a lot of the "smart drugs" things
> > which are especially brain protective.
> > >> >Free-radicals can kill, they are bad, do not cause excess free
> radicals.
> > >> In the right places and at the right times, they are part of the
> > >> metabolic processes of life.
> > >3)Would you mind pointing out those places and times
> > >so I can begin thinking about how to make them better?
> > Done a bit above. Read a good biochemistry book.
> Good books are hard to find.
Start with _Harper's Biochemistry_ 24th edition.
> White cells use them to help fight germs too( rads not books).
Quite correct. You're not as dumb as you look! :)
> I wonder if they get out of control.
A bit. No "search and destroy" operation is going to be totally efficient.
> > >I would rather live without uncontrolled atoms smashing through my DNA.
> > The area to concentrate on most, IMO is the mitochondria, where there are
> > very few repair mechanisms for DNA damage caused by erratic free radicals.
> > Our bodies can live with this only because we have multiple mitos in each
> > cell and because they can divide and multipy within the cell (except
> > sometimes damaged ones mulitply faster than the good ones and destroy the
> > cell).
> I have lists of the leading causes of human death,
> but what are the leading causes of cell death?
> I looked but could not find anything.
> A body count would be helpful.
This too big a topic to get into here. Read a book on cell biology.
> > >>>Causing excess free-radicals is self detructive, do not kill
yourself.
> > >> A much too simplistic view.
> > >It was only one sentence among many.
> > >Don't make too much of it, ok?
> > >Notice I did say EXCESS.
> > Sorry, you're right.
> Hey, thanks.
> That's a pleasant and uncommon response.
> I admit,
> there is quite a difference between causing excess free radicals and
> suicide.
> > >> >This could lower calorie intake and body temperature dramatically.
> > >> Maybe. But it is also going to kill you quite quickly for other
> reasons.
> > >Some have suggested( maybe on this list) that the low temp
> > >may lead to life extension.
> > No question of it IMO. I am very pleased that my morning body temp is
> only
> > 95.7'F and it only rises to 97.2'F during the day. (and I am *not*
> hypothyroid)
> > >This could become a seperate thread: Low Body Temp.- Good/Bad?
> > I think its definitely good, but CR, melatonin, (and genes) are the only
> > harmless ways to lower it that I know of.
> Less body work = less heat.
Its more the free rads damage per cell that you must work on not the total
free rads.
> Molecular agitation is another reason I do not want to use many body
parts.
> Is thermal noise a threat to health?
No. Since its endemic, you can bet mother nature has taken advantage
of it for many biochemical reactions and other body mechanisms.
> > >>How were you intending to do the basic exercise functions (walking, and
> > >> breathing 'fully') you listed if you are confined to a wheelchair.
> > >Geez, I won't chain myself too it or anything.:-)
> > >I'll get up when I have too.
> > >Intense breathing exercises can build heart and diaphram muscles.
> > Doesn't do much for the heart I don't believe.
> > >Let's not forget isometric exercises, working muscles against each other
> > >like the bicept/tricept "show me your muscle" pose.
> > I don't think isometrices will fulfill the function of either aerobics
> > (heart, lung, arteries, veins, immune system, happy endorphins, etc( or
> > weight work (prevent osteoporosis).
> Clinch every muscle in your body for a few minutes
> and see if you heart is not racing.
> It won't build alot of strength
> and won't put alot of strain on most bones,
> you are right.
> About endorphins,
> have you ever heard of anyone being able to release them at will?
> > >Sorry, I don't often give references for my beliefs,
> > >I'm too busy preparing for the possiblities.
> > But you *do* need to take time to read and understand the science
> > behind those possibilties!
> I can not prepare for things I do not understand. ;-)
Now your getting it!
-- Paul --