Re: just getting started

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 01:10:13 MDT

  • Next message: Alex Ramonsky: "Re: just getting started"

    On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Kevin Freels wrote:

    > Two things I have never been able to get past were smoking and diet. For
    > some reason, I have always thought that technology would keep me alive
    > regardless of how I treated my body.

    Unless you have concrete knowledge with regard to the genetics of your
    variants with respect to DNA repair and toxic substance disposal genes
    this is *not* a good strategy [i.e. assuming that technology will save
    you] (at least with respect to smoking). I strongly suspect genetic knowledge
    is also essential for dealing with diet -- just this week they reported that
    people who tended to be overweight produced less of one of the hormonal signals
    in the intestine that indicated that one was "full". So both damage caused
    by smoking and obesity management have very strong genetic components.
    Best strategy is to assume you have a bad set of genes. Otherwise, its
    like Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) said "Well, do you feel lucky?" -- best to
    assume one is not.

    > Do any of you have any suggestions for
    > reading material on either of these two items?

    I would say that the Walford diet books, the Pritikin books and the Atkins
    books might all be of interest. The question is whether or not you are
    at your "ideal" weight (assuming that "ideal" is what one typically weighed
    around the end of high school). [Though that may not be true if one is
    really young and a victim of our current food trends in society.] The
    CDC recognizes obesity as an epidemic in the current U.S. society and
    other societies are trending that way -- McDonald's (and others) are
    "global" companies. Greg Burch reported several months ago that he
    was having good success with the Atkin's Diet in reducing weight but the
    Walford and Pritikin strategies are reasonable alternatives.

    > My first assumption has been to quit
    > drinking milk entirely since the ability to digest it is a mutation that
    > only affects a minority of us. I've always had trouble with it, so I can
    > only assume that it's not right for me. But where else do I go from
    > there?

    The ability to digest lactose (in cow's milk) is genetic. One might try
    switching to soy milk to see if that makes a difference. One doesn't have
    to consume milk in ones diet -- one could substitute a variety of other
    protein sources -- everything from eggs to turkey patties to salmon or tuna.
    Salmon and tuna are helpful because they tend to be high in omega-3 fatty
    acids as well as protein.

    If one wants to go strict vegetarian its a little more difficult --
    I believe one could get a relatively complete protein complex on
    corn + beans (as in a Mexican diet). In that case one might want
    to supplement on omega-3 fatty acids.

    > What about quitting smoking? Patches, gum, orange juice, water?

    Frozen lemonade mix with lots of ice in the glass. Or in Seattle its
    clearly coffee/expresso in various combinations. I got through the
    Univ. of Wash. for several years on double-tall non-fat lattes.
    I've also found things like diet coke or pepsi flavored with Italian
    syrups (cinnamon, hazlenut, etc.) helpful. The trick is to try and
    keep the tastebuds entertained while keeping the calorie content low
    (esp. with lots of ice).

    In the winter hot apple cider mix where you really throw on the
    spices (cinnamon, nutmeg, etc.) might be helpful.

    But by all means go with patches or gum if necessary. With respect to
    smoking it is all of the other things (and there are many of them)
    that are produced by smoking and that one exposes lung, oral and
    liver tissue to rather than the nicotine itself that are probably
    most harmful. (I could give a long lecture on the detoxification of
    substances in smoke but that would probably be overly technical.)

    There are two aspects of smoking -- the "ritual" and the "addiction"
    you can treat them as separate entities and perhaps make the behavioral
    modification process easier. One can substitute "rituals" and step
    down the "addiction" (so ones brain has time to adapt). It probably
    takes the brain at least several days to modify neurotransmitter levels
    influenced in various addictions. So IMO, one should stage
    withdrawal processes. Anders or Rafal should feel free to correct
    this if they feel otherwise -- I'm making these comments based on how
    long I believe it takes gene regulatory feedback processes to "kick in"
    in neurons on a large scale basis.

    Good luck,
    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 01:19:33 MDT