Re: Free-Rads, Parenteral Dieting, Nutrient Deficiency, High Altitudes, Red Cell Count, Oxy Saturati

Paul Wakfer ()
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:03:37 -0500

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:09:37 -0500, "Mike Coward" wrote:

>> From: Anders Sandberg <>
>> To:
>> Cc: crsoc <>; transhumans <>
>> 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

Enhance immunity, enhanced intelligence and mental energy, increased GH, etc
(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 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

>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_

>> But doesn't the lung capacity and red blood cell count increase,
>> leading to a similar oxygen saturation?

> Possibly, but there is generally less O at higher altitudes.
>I imagine the red cell count balances the lack of O.

I spoke to this on my other post.

>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. 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)

>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. 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

> 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?

>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. Off hand other than be a tranfusion of red cells (dangerous to play with)
I can't think of any way to do it (many taking testosterone injections - also
dangerous to play with).

-- Paul --