|
saint_john
Mar 11, 2011, 11:16 PM
Post #251 of 509
(3827 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494
|
this thread is so yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 11, 2011, 11:17 PM
Post #252 of 509
(3827 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? The only one of those regions whose dietary pattern I'm familiar with is Okanawa, which was studied in the 1960s in the Seven Countries Study. The Okinawans had the longest lifespan in the study. Back then, at least, their diet was plant based and low in total and saturated fat. They were also physically active. So, yeah, I think their diet played a role in their longevity. In reply to: Are you familiar with The New England Centurian Study where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100 with your genome ,various genetic markers? The New England Centenarian Study. This is the first I've heard of it, actually. I looked up their paper that was published in Science, and you're right: they have a genetic model that they claim has 77% predictive power. However, their statistical methodology has received serious criticism. Jay
I read about that study when it came out. One of the most interesting things about it hasn't been mentioned here.
The people who have the markers they've identified not only live longer they also live better. IIRC, this was not what they were specifically looking for, it was an un-anticipated correlation.
Basically these people experienced old age the way most of us will experience middle age: yes there are problems, but they are not debilitating, and the body and mind basically work great. It's quite remarkable, actually.
If further study backs up their findings, I bet there will be a lot of interest in those few families lucky enough to contain those genes.
Just for example, imagine how much you could make as a sperm donor to a rich and powerful family...
GO
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Mar 11, 2011, 11:19 PM
Post #253 of 509
(3824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
saint_john wrote: this thread is so yesterday.
Well I'm glad you're keep current then.
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Mar 12, 2011, 12:22 AM
Post #254 of 509
(3804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
In reply to: I know. I just think that when someone says something they should have to stand by it and fess up to it when it was offensive or inappropriate.
I stand by what I said. Jay's reply didn't add anything to the conversation, wasn't informative or funny and did not pass my would I say it to a person that I want to be on good term with test.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 12:31 AM
Post #255 of 509
(3796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? The only one of those regions whose dietary pattern I'm familiar with is Okanawa, which was studied in the 1960s in the Seven Countries Study. The Okinawans had the longest lifespan in the study. Back then, at least, their diet was plant based and low in total and saturated fat. They were also physically active. So, yeah, I think their diet played a role in their longevity. In reply to: Are you familiar with The New England Centurian Study where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100 with your genome ,various genetic markers? The New England Centenarian Study. This is the first I've heard of it, actually. I looked up their paper that was published in Science, and you're right: they have a genetic model that they claim has 77% predictive power. However, their statistical methodology has received serious criticism. Jay I read about that study when it came out. One of the most interesting things about it hasn't been mentioned here. The people who have the markers they've identified not only live longer they also live better. IIRC, this was not what they were specifically looking for, it was an un-anticipated correlation. Basically these people experienced old age the way most of us will experience middle age: yes there are problems, but they are not debilitating, and the body and mind basically work great. It's quite remarkable, actually. If further study backs up their findings, I bet there will be a lot of interest in those few families lucky enough to contain those genes. Just for example, imagine how much you could make as a sperm donor to a rich and powerful family... GO
Good Point, and egg donors with those genetic markers will be particularly valuable.
There is already research in place where they through IVF can replace some cells.
I don't believe it has gotten to the stage where they can ethically and legally do it.
So perhaps the "survival of the fittest" has some correlation with the New England Study after all?
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 12, 2011, 12:35 AM
Post #256 of 509
(3793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
jomagam wrote: In reply to: I know. I just think that when someone says something they should have to stand by it and fess up to it when it was offensive or inappropriate. I stand by what I said. Jay's reply didn't add anything to the conversation, wasn't informative or funny and did not pass my would I say it to a person that I want to be on good term with test.
If everybody used that test the only entertainment you'd get out of the internet would be porn.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 12, 2011, 12:38 AM
Post #257 of 509
(3789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jomagam wrote: In reply to: I know. I just think that when someone says something they should have to stand by it and fess up to it when it was offensive or inappropriate. I stand by what I said. Jay's reply didn't add anything to the conversation, wasn't informative or funny and did not pass my would I say it to a person that I want to be on good term with test.
Interesting, you and I had the same question about the meaning of "77% accuracy." Your reaction was to post about how the authors were deliberately or negligently vague about a term they used in an abstract that is officially limited to 125 words, even though they clearly explained the term in the publicly available paper and on-line supplementary materials. My reaction was to look at the paper and see what they meant by it. As an added irony, the authors used the term correctly, according to the technical definition in their field, so you had nothing to complain about in the first place; you were just ignorant of the vocabulary of the field.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Mar 12, 2011, 1:18 AM
Post #258 of 509
(3770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
jt512 wrote: jomagam wrote: In reply to: I know. I just think that when someone says something they should have to stand by it and fess up to it when it was offensive or inappropriate. I stand by what I said. Jay's reply didn't add anything to the conversation, wasn't informative or funny and did not pass my would I say it to a person that I want to be on good term with test. Interesting, you and I had the same question about the meaning of "77% accuracy." Your reaction was to post about how the authors were deliberately or negligently vague about a term they used in an abstract that is officially limited to 125 words, even though they clearly explained the term in the publicly available paper and on-line supplementary materials. My reaction was to look at the paper and see what they meant by it. As an added irony, the authors used the term correctly, according to the technical definition in their field, so you had nothing to complain about in the first place; you were just ignorant of the vocabulary of the field. Jay
Yeah, I'm ignorant to the vocab of statistics, though I did learn a few things today. That's why in my 5-minute break I did a fun exercise and thought of different things that "77%" could mean instead of diving into an academic paper. Sue me. And thanks for reading it.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Mar 12, 2011, 1:31 AM
Post #259 of 509
(3765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
jomagam wrote: In reply to: I know. I just think that when someone says something they should have to stand by it and fess up to it when it was offensive or inappropriate. I stand by what I said. Jay's reply didn't add anything to the conversation, wasn't informative or funny and did not pass my would I say it to a person that I want to be on good term with test.
You have an anonymous internet profile, you stand by nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 1:46 AM
Post #260 of 509
(3753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
Interestingly enough there is a gene for resilience the ability to adapt to lifes events.
So for people who experience Japan Tsunami and survive if they have that specific gene have a better chance at weathering the event.
Included within the New England Study.
Accordingly 1/4 of the subjects whom were at least 100. Research by Thomas Perls MD, and Margery Silver M.D.
There is also a article in Scientific America this month which explains the resilience gene in regard to the brain. Examples such as Katrina and the World Trade Center are noted.
Obviously there are other genetic markers, that would impact longevity that are included within the New England Study.
(This post was edited by enigma on Mar 12, 2011, 2:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Mar 12, 2011, 6:30 AM
Post #261 of 509
(3708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
jt512 wrote: She has a point. I quoted the personal attack as well, which kind of necessitates that the moderator delete our posts, too.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 1:36 PM
Post #262 of 509
(3688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
macherry wrote: enigma wrote: As climbers we need to be healthy and fit . If you get cancer or heart disease its unlikely you would be able to continue with this sport. ( I can't imagine how awful it must be for someone to be on a list of being recruited by Genetech because they have malignant tumors ) Hoping that their new drug will eradicate their illness. I appreciate your opinion.[/quote/ Cancer or heart disease is not a death sentence. i believe there are many cancer survivors or people living with cancer and heart disease still participating in athletic activities You are right look at Lance Armstrong after having testicular cancer he did the tour de france. I know a women who had cancer that tried to run a marathon , I think she mostly walked but it was good for her recovery. However the point I was trying to make was wouldn't it be better to change your diet and lifestyle so you would have less of a chance of getting these diseases. I know people who have had heart problems and cancer,and its very scary and the treatment is very rough on your system. Radiation or Chemotherapy weakens your system. Some cancer patients are not so lucky they have malignant tumors. and their options is try to be recruited by Biotech and R&D companies and hope to get to be part of their experimental drug trials. I was looking at a prevention of those diseases. Obviously there is also genetic. Someone with a family history of heart disease is more likely to get it. Do you live in Quebec City? My Mom's Family are from Montreal and she grew up there, She told me she skiied there. What Mountains do you climb at? I might visit later this summer.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 1:55 PM
Post #264 of 509
(3680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
macherry wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: wonderwoman wrote: I am doing my best to not participate in industrial agriculture. It's not sustainable & it makes us sick. What is "industrial"? Do you only buy from Amish farmers? Does driving to the farm make it not sustainable? Is there a yield per acer needed to be sustainable? And for the record, eat more snails - the real first domesticated animal. Yes - I know (but have yet to understand why) you are in favor of industrial agriculture. I do not want to eat animals that have been fed growth hormones & antibiotics, all the while covered in their own shit that overflows into the nearest watershed. I would rather support local organic farmers whose produce lasts a lot longer in my fridge rather than gnaw on some limp, colorless carrot that's been shipped halfway across the world & is covered in pesticide. Fresher produce retains nutrients longer & tastes better. I guess it's a personal preference, though. did Toast actually say he was in favour of industrial farming? i get the point he's making, about industrial farming. what defines industrial farming. Maybe factory farming is a more apt description. i also have issues with the word "organic". there are no real regulations with regards to what makes something organic.
Sounds like you watch what you eat , the difference in being organic is using not pesticides, and the soil has to believe with no chemicals or animals products.
How long have you been vegan? How do you feel? Do you ever have eggs, dairy or fish?
|
|
|
|
|
saint_john
Mar 12, 2011, 2:23 PM
Post #265 of 509
(3669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494
|
enigma wrote: saint_john wrote: It all boils down to personal choice. the bottom line is that is possible to be veagn and be a world class athlete. just ask Mac Danzig or Steph Davis. Do you eat fish? I didn;t eat it for about a month but then I started riding my bike outside and climbing and I craved it. So I recently had wild salmon with no preservatives from Alaska. As you know its a transition. 
I stopped eating meat almost a year ago. I run, ride a bike, climb, and lifts weights and don,t miss meat. I had been eating fish but am currently transitioning to a vegan diet. I feel great so far. my body fat has dropped from about 12 to 10 and I feel stronger than ever. I've also cut waaaaaaay back on alcohol.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 2:49 PM
Post #266 of 509
(3661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: enigma wrote: So Climbers who eat meat vs vegetarian who has more endurance and climbs better? Or it doesn't matter?Nutrition and diet is only one of the many contributors to athletic performance. I don't think there has been any climbing-specific studies (although I could be wrong), but nutrition and it's impact on performance has been studied for quite some time. As far as your question goes, I eat meat. My wife is vegan. We both climb pretty well. I do climb harder but I am pretty sure it's not because of our diet. Josh
Well now we have other information such as blue zones where people live to 100. With a diet based mostly on plants and low fat . and perhaps some quality wild fish.
Especially when you consider the correlation of red meat and heart disease and cancer.
In addition there is the New England Study of Centurian and there diet to consider.
As well as your genetic markers that can with 77% accuracy give you the likehood of living to 100.
It would be helpful for you and your wife to read those studies for yourselves.
So isn't it difficult when you prepare a meal and you are cooking meat and your wife is cooking tofu dosen't the smell bother her? Or watching you eat meat ?
Do you have separate pans. I wouldn't eat off a pan that someone cooked a hamburger on and now I want to make a veggie pattie.
Do you sometimes just have veggies with her and not have the meat or chicken. I will say raw chicken or meat is very unappetizing for me to look at or smell. It must be hard for you to prepare these dinner foods together at least for her.
When I was living with my boyfriend he usually would buy hamburgers to go to avoid the above situation.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 3:04 PM
Post #267 of 509
(3654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
jcosgrove wrote: enigma wrote: So Climbers who eat meat vs vegetarian who has more endurance and climbs better? Or it doesn't matter?Everybody is different. Experiment, keep daily food/exercise/"how you feel" logs, and find what works for you.
Thanks , I haven't had meat or chicken,lamb. ham etc for 9 years . I pretty much know its unhealthy due to the antibotics, high fat, hormones and on top of that I have found scientic research that bears this out.
The Study of the Blue Zones Coast Areas in Costa Rica , Okinara, Greece Isolated Island, Sardina, off the Nicoya Pennisula that bears out the correlation of people who live to 100 have a mostly plant based diet and perhaps some healthy wild fish,
Additionally the Recent Study from the New England Study of living to be 100 finds the genetic markers with a 77% rate of a persons genome or genetic markers . It also supports what these people are eating similiarily.
Hope you are climbing well and feeling great and if you get some time check up on these articles .
Living to 100 being healthy , with less illnes like heart disease is a good thing. No one wants to be sick in the hospital . Especially when they can be climbing and feeling good. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 12, 2011, 3:24 PM
Post #268 of 509
(3646 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
enigma wrote: So isn't it difficult when you prepare a meal and you are cooking meat and your wife is cooking tofu dosen't the smell bother her? Or watching you eat meat ? Do you have separate pans. I wouldn't eat off a pan that someone cooked a hamburger on and now I want to make a veggie pattie. Do you sometimes just have veggies with her and not have the meat or chicken. I will say raw chicken or meat is very unappetizing for me to look at or smell. It must be hard for you to prepare these dinner foods together at least for her. When I was living with my boyfriend he usually would buy hamburgers to go to avoid the above situation.
I was married to a pescatarian (is that the right word?). She didn't like the smell of cooking beef, chicken, or lamb either, but she encouraged me to cook it at home as long as I cleaned those pots, pans, or dishes afterward, which I would have done anyway.
Simply put, it was her choice, not mine, to not eat meat other than fish. She always said it would have been selfish to make me adhere to her choices over food (cookies and sweets aside because she couldn't stay away from those if they were in the house ). I personally couldn't live with someone who would constantly put pressure on me to adhere to those choices, so I'm glad she was fair and flexible.
Out of curiosity, and separately from this discussion, anyone know how much better olive oil is over butter? I haven't cooked with butter in maybe 15 years, and I've always considered olive oil to be a much better alternative. Just curious if that is a major reason for why some people are healthier than others (broadly speaking).
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 3:27 PM
Post #269 of 509
(3642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: LostinMaine wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: The diet and cleanliness are independent factors. The recent regulations were more of an impact to smaller operations than larger ones. It is the larger companies that can afford to find out if there is a pathogen, smaller operations only hope they don't have a problem and have no traceability. While this may be true (that larger companies can afford testing), unfortunately that has not worked so well in the past, whether speaking of meat or veggies. If you have a small-scale operation in which the chances of contamination are orders of magnitude lower, the need for testing is reduced dramatically. Essentially, if you have shit in the food (veiled nicely as E. Coli or coliform), you need to find it. If your operation is meticulous enough to keep it out of the food, what exactly would one be testing for? If one must irradiate the food to make it safe, one must test that equipment. Why not instead clean machines after each animal or vegetable run? That is the fundamental problem with industrial farming. When throughput takes a higher priority than food quality and safety, we have issues. Most of this, of course, would go away if public viewing of the processing facilities was permissible and seed companies (or seed company?) were not true monopolies that trade CEOs with the USDA. The risk for larger companies is in a larger impact. I have seen no studies on size and the relationship to cleanliness of butchery. I've seen small back room butchers that were far sloppier with sanitation than some mega producers. The difference is that now we can track the bug back with it's DNA footprint. A small operation doesn't have enough people get sick to be able to trace the bugs back to them. It doesn't mean they have a lower percent get sick, just fewer people. The same profit margin pressure that tempts big companies exists for smaller ones as well, profits vs safety vs quality isn't exclusive to food or big ag.
Usually the butchers aren't clean and their meat has hormones, antibiotics, and fat that clogs your arteries . Cause more heart disease and cancer.
I have included the recent New England Study of people who live to 100. and their genetic markers.
As well as the blue zone in Costa Rica , Okinara, Sardina, Ikaria, and the isolated Nicoya Pennisula as additional evidence showing the diets of these people are largely plant based. They don't get cancer, stroke or heart disease.
It will be pretty hard to climb if you get a heart attack, stroke, cancer and various other health illness that are closely correlated to what your diet and lifestyle is. However to each their own.
I don't feel like being part of some recruiting for Genetech when I have malignant tumors and desperately trying that their new drug will help me .
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 3:41 PM
Post #270 of 509
(3630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: enigma wrote: So isn't it difficult when you prepare a meal and you are cooking meat and your wife is cooking tofu dosen't the smell bother her? Or watching you eat meat ? Do you have separate pans. I wouldn't eat off a pan that someone cooked a hamburger on and now I want to make a veggie pattie. Do you sometimes just have veggies with her and not have the meat or chicken. I will say raw chicken or meat is very unappetizing for me to look at or smell. It must be hard for you to prepare these dinner foods together at least for her. When I was living with my boyfriend he usually would buy hamburgers to go to avoid the above situation. I was married to a pescatarian (is that the right word?). She didn't like the smell of cooking beef, chicken, or lamb either, but she encouraged me to cook it at home as long as I cleaned those pots, pans, or dishes afterward, which I would have done anyway. Simply put, it was her choice, not mine, to not eat meat other than fish. She always said it would have been selfish to make me adhere to her choices over food (cookies and sweets aside because she couldn't stay away from those if they were in the house ). I personally couldn't live with someone who would constantly put pressure on me to adhere to those choices, so I'm glad she was fair and flexible. Out of curiosity, and separately from this discussion, anyone know how much better olive oil is over butter? I haven't cooked with butter in maybe 15 years, and I've always considered olive oil to be a much better alternative. Just curious if that is a major reason for why some people are healthier than others (broadly speaking).
Olive oil is better, however you are still having the worst fat in meat.
Meat will cause clogged heart vessels which could lead to heart attack do to the plague building up. in addition cancer from meat
The studys from the New England Medical for living to 100. show various genetic markers and lifestyle choices.
In addition there is another study in reference to the blue zones in the coasts of Costa Rica, Okinara, Sardina, and Ikaria as well the Nicoyla Pennisula that has similiar findings of what these people over 100 eat, its largely vegetables, no saturated fat, fruit, no meat and perhaps some wild fish so there is a strong correlation between diet, health, disease and living long and well
Thereby being able to climb and be fit and not sick with tumors waiting to be recruited to try out some drug to save you.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 12, 2011, 3:48 PM
Post #271 of 509
(3626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
enigma wrote: Well now we have other information such as blue zones where people live to 100. With a diet based mostly on plants and low fat . and perhaps some quality wild fish. Especially when you consider the correlation of red meat and heart disease and cancer.
I had never heard of these blue zones until you brought them up. These zones that you talk about are not just about eating healthy, but about living an overall healthy and productive life. Eating right, daily exercise, managing stress, having healthy human relationships, belonging to something worthwhile, etc. are all important components of these cultures. I'm an elementary phys ed/health teacher and this exactly what I teach my children....that comprehensive health is important. All aspects of health need to be taken care of. Now, the oldest student I teach is 12 years old, so we never get into very complicated health topics, but even children can understand how to live a healthy life. But, it must be encouraged in the home.
In reply to: In addition there is the New England Study of Centurian and there diet to consider. As well as your genetic markers that can with 77% accuracy give you the likehood of living to 100.
In reply to: So isn't it difficult when you prepare a meal and you are cooking meat and your wife is cooking tofu dosen't the smell bother her? Or watching you eat meat ? Do you have separate pans. I wouldn't eat off a pan that someone cooked a hamburger on and now I want to make a veggie pattie. Do you sometimes just have veggies with her and not have the meat or chicken. I will say raw chicken or meat is very unappetizing for me to look at or smell. It must be hard for you to prepare these dinner foods together at least for her.
I generally only eat meat when we go out. Sometimes I will buy some meat at a farmer's market and prepare it for just myself and my daughter. That's usually if my wife is at class or will not be home for some other reason. Most of the time however, Tiff cooks and I eat vegetarian. When I cook, most often it is either pasta or something else easy, like quesadillas or burritos.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 3:54 PM
Post #272 of 509
(3621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
wonderwoman wrote: kaizen wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I eat a lot of fish, which is one of the healthiest things one can eat.  While I agree that fish is really healthy and tasty, be careful not to eat tuna, swordfish, and other large fish species with great regularity. Courtesy of bioaccumulation, they can contain a ton of mercury, which can really fuck you up. Jeremy Piven is a good example. Not to mention that farm raised fish have higher levels of dioxins & other toxicants due to their 'feed'. They really only warn pregnant women / women of childbearing age & children about the Hg levels in predator fish due to potentially harming brain development. But you're right. Mercury isn't really good for anybody.
Yes it is very difficult on the west coast to get wild fish thats not farm raised. There is so much better fish in the east coast and its fresh. I won't eat farmed either.
I do occasionally get salmon and once and a wild I find dover sole from the east coast but it isn't fish. The sell alot of fish from Vietnam , Mexico, and alot of times they say they don't know where its from.
I stopped eating eggs due to that 6 in 10 eggs have salmonella in them.
I was trying to eat more tofu, but I heard its been associated with breast cancer as well.
So what do you eat? How do you get your protein?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 12, 2011, 3:59 PM
Post #273 of 509
(3617 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
enigma wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: enigma wrote: So isn't it difficult when you prepare a meal and you are cooking meat and your wife is cooking tofu dosen't the smell bother her? Or watching you eat meat ? Do you have separate pans. I wouldn't eat off a pan that someone cooked a hamburger on and now I want to make a veggie pattie. Do you sometimes just have veggies with her and not have the meat or chicken. I will say raw chicken or meat is very unappetizing for me to look at or smell. It must be hard for you to prepare these dinner foods together at least for her. When I was living with my boyfriend he usually would buy hamburgers to go to avoid the above situation. I was married to a pescatarian (is that the right word?). She didn't like the smell of cooking beef, chicken, or lamb either, but she encouraged me to cook it at home as long as I cleaned those pots, pans, or dishes afterward, which I would have done anyway. Simply put, it was her choice, not mine, to not eat meat other than fish. She always said it would have been selfish to make me adhere to her choices over food (cookies and sweets aside because she couldn't stay away from those if they were in the house ). I personally couldn't live with someone who would constantly put pressure on me to adhere to those choices, so I'm glad she was fair and flexible. Out of curiosity, and separately from this discussion, anyone know how much better olive oil is over butter? I haven't cooked with butter in maybe 15 years, and I've always considered olive oil to be a much better alternative. Just curious if that is a major reason for why some people are healthier than others (broadly speaking). Olive oil is better, however you are still having the worst fat in meat. Meat will cause clogged heart vessels which could lead to heart attack do to the plague building up. in addition cancer from meat The studys from the New England Medical for living to 100. show various genetic markers and lifestyle choices. In addition there is another study in reference to the blue zones in the coasts of Costa Rica, Okinara, Sardina, and Ikaria as well the Nicoyla Pennisula that has similiar findings of what these people over 100 eat, its largely vegetables, no saturated fat, fruit, no meat and perhaps some wild fish so there is a strong correlation between diet, health, disease and living long and well Thereby being able to climb and be fit and not sick with tumors waiting to be recruited to try out some drug to save you.
OH MY GOD!!!! I'M GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!
I'm fine.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 4:04 PM
Post #274 of 509
(3616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
jcosgrove wrote: enigma wrote: So Climbers who eat meat vs vegetarian who has more endurance and climbs better? Or it doesn't matter?Everybody is different. Experiment, keep daily food/exercise/"how you feel" logs, and find what works for you.
That is so true, I eat vegetarian no eggs or milk but wild fish on occasion. I like a little cheese. Honestly though I was vegan for a month and everything I ate digested easier.
Then I started biking again in addition to climbing and felt I craved fish so I have had salmon this week
I found some studies by the New England Journal of Medicine of people who live to 100 and they can determine someone likehood from their genetic markers in additon to their diet and lifestyle.
There is also another study where it called the blue zones, island off costa rica, sardinia , okinara and those people also live past 100 with a diet rich in vegetables fruits and fiber.
Obviously no one wants a heart attack, stroke or cancer and the correlation betwen meat and saturated fat is a factor to consider. The information is on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 12, 2011, 4:26 PM
Post #275 of 509
(3812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
robx wrote: I don't really want to read this whole thread, but my personal thoughts are... I feel like as a society we've moved past the point where killing animals is necessary in keeping us healthy and alive. If you feel that your happiness is more important than animals' lives then that's fine, but it's not for me. I really really REALLY don't care about how much healthier someone that eats meat is going to be than me, because for me it's completely a moral issue. I haven't consumed animal products in 5 years, and I'm doing fine. Is there a chance I'm less healthy than someone who is very aware of their diet? probably. But compared to most fast-food eating americans, I think I'm doing just fine.
Very True and Very Moral. In fact later on the thread I have studies from the blue zone areas such as Costa Rica, Okinara, Ikaria, Sardina. and the Nicola Pennisula and they consume a largely vegen diet. The life over 100
More Recently The New England Journal of Medicine published a study with centurians where 77% of the people would live to 100 based on their genome , genetic markers. Included are genes for resilence, as well as diet plays a part.
Both of these research studies are on line google living in blue zones. and New England Journal of Medicine living centurians and you can read the research for yourself.
The most important part is you will unlikely suffer from a heart attack from meat or cancer from saturated fat and poor diet. Stay healthy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
