matt "zinc and copper compete for the same receptors" scr wrote:
>
> Good that you saw some sense and got off the very
> high carbohydrate diet. My fat intake is about
> 35-40% of calories at the moment. About 10-12% is
> usually from protein; and then carbs for the rest
> (mostly vegetables and some fruit).



Don't be a wuss, man! Be a man! Eat ZERO carbs so you'll get ZERO sugar and assure yourself of very long, long life. Zero carbs is where's it's at!

I do not know why after saying all sorts of bad things about sugar these people STILL EAT sugar!

It's like a dog going back to its vomit!

but didn't the Okinawans ate 80% carbs and were centenarians?

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but didn't the Okinawans ate 80% carbs and were
> centenarians?


They also eat lots of fish, whole grains, tofu, and sweet potatoes, and practice calorie restriction. I really doubt the carbohydrate percentage is what extends their life as opposed to the low calories, low stress, and well-rounded nutrition.

ja ja

so what happened to the theory that carbohydrates age you VERY fast, remember? If they ate so many carbs every day they should have lived a very short time (carbs = poison) and wrinkle to death, specially considering all the alarms sent by the anti carbs theory police.

I'll enjoy reading the excuses and responses

"so what happened to the theory that carbohydrates age you VERY fast, remember? If they ate so many carbs every day they should have lived a very short time (carbs = poison) and wrinkle to death, specially considering all the alarms sent by the anti carbs theory police."

I don't see how that has anything to do with my response.

hey jtprindl, you are not the center of the universe.

can a self proclaimed anti carb expert explain the Okinawan paradox (80% carbs)?

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >SueZ
> >I have found out for myself that you sure have
> got that right.
> >Luckily I switched from a hclf raw vegan diet to
> a hflc raw vegan
> >diet a little over a year ago and not only am I
> starting to look
> >better I am also physically stronger with more
> >muscle mass
> >even though there has been no change in my
> exercise routine
> >over the past few years.
> >I average 67.7% of my diet in lipids each day.
> >My intake of carbs >averages 90.3 grams a day
> > - 22.3 grams of sugar.
>
> Good that you saw some sense and got off the very
> high carbohydrate diet. My fat intake is about
> 35-40% of calories at the moment. About 10-12% is
> usually from protein; and then carbs for the rest
> (mostly vegetables and some fruit).

I wish I could say I saw some sense on my own but it took my lab results to make me see the light. I had never in my life eaten much sugar. There were rarely desserts and never candy around when I was a kid even so although I'm old I didn't have experience with huge amounts of sugar and didn't realize that the good "bouncing off the walls" sugar high I always had on the hclf diet was reeking havoc with my system until the lab test results came in. I also had swallowed whole the online bs that the skin damage was temporary and would get better when my body adjusted.

Once the lab tests showed what was going on I bought a glucose monitoring system which told the tale and it was only then that I quit the diet immediately. Once I started looking into it I found that some of my meals had more sugar in them than labs use for glucose tolerance tests and I was eating several glucose tolerance tests full of sugar - day in day out for 11 months!

I read the books on the Okinawan's and have studied their longevity for a few years. They were practicing calorie restriction for about half their lives. Over the years there's been a steady increase in caloric intake from about 1539 k/cal in 1949 to 1927 k/cal by 1993. So, the longevity of the Okinawan's, even though impressive, probably would be more pronounced if they had stuck to their original diet.

IGF-1 seems to be an important factor in ageing, and the protein intake of the Okinawan's was quite low also, which might help explain their extremely low rates of cancer.

Their diets did evolve over time. You can see in the Okinawan Program, page 125 on the table. In 1949 their diet primarily consisted of Sweet potatoes, but over time it became more varied, but fruits still only was 86 grams per day vs vegetables 308 grams. Sweet potatoes in 1949 was 1174 grams vs 1993 15 grams.

Even more amazing is the Okinawan's live this long and they do have deficiencies. It's been reported that elderly Okinawan's have significant rates of vitamin D deficiency & B12.

Ogimi is really impressive! It's was the poorest village in Okinawa, but they have an insanely high number people in their 90s and 100s.


I was actually picking more on the kind of diets that certain people promote: the all-you-can-eat fruit diet promoted by people like Durian.

Low calorie diet, regardless of macronutrient intake, activates certain nutrient sensing pathways or genes involved in things like DNA repair, antioxidant defenses, autophagy, immunity, among other things. These two are SIRT1 and AMPK, which act on another gene called FOXO, which regulates the expression of other genes involved in the processes I just mentioned. The problem is when you eat way too much, not just normal amount of calories, but excessive amount (especially sources high in sugar), you suppress the activation of these protective pathways. I'm not really here to promote CR though, I do that as an experiment and I know people don't find it an attractive idea, but I'm saying that there are consequences of overeating.

There are also effects that were mentioned earlier from a very high fruit diet - the consequence of AGEs. Dietary AGEs are detrimental to health and will undo lots of the benefits from a raw food diet. Just because people feel good in the short term on 30 bananas a day, doesn't mean that it's the most optimal way to live or that they are not doing themselves harm in the long run. You don't have to go to any extreme, you just need to be sensible.

The body can tolerate a lot, but only for so long.

And I don't need to go that low in carbs LoL. I have been doing calorie restriction for 10 years and also restrict my protein (which was found to be important to also lower IGF-1 in humans). And from genetic studies in my friends who also practice CR, it seems the genes involved in retarding ageing are markedly expressed in muscle tissue.

Calorie restriction in humans inhibits the PI3K/AKT pathway and induces a younger transcription profile.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] (The people on CR basically have gene expression profiles similar to the 30 year old control group than the age-matched 55 year old control group).


Okay, hope you're all having a great day! Peace.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 10:27PM by mattscr.

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> If you're interested in how sugar affects ageing
> and lifespan, you ought to look up a researcher
> called "Cynthia Kenyon" - she identified genes
> involved in ageing that affect ageing from tiny
> organisms like C.elegans, dogs, and even humans.


Very interesting - I'm watching her TED talk now. Thanks!




> You should take a look at David who is 55 in this
> video:
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> He's 57 now and still looks amazing for his age.
> He focuses more on vegetables and only eats some
> fruit, not a huge amount.

WOW - pretty darn impressive! I don't know if it's his or not but that's the first bona fide research level microscope I've seen in any self proclaimed raw health food expert ever. Tells me someone, at least, is truly serious.


> Also, I wrote a review of a couple studies not
> long ago - and it does pertain to this discussion
> as each study had different designs: one study was
> high sugar and the other very low.
> [www.crvitality.com]
> ion-in-rhesus-monkeys/


I certainly will read them. I've only just briefly scanned your beautiful site and intend to spend a lot of time there reading. Thanks again, and kudos to you, young man, I'm very happy to see you spending quality time in the area of our interests in such a devoted manner!

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >SueZ
> >I have found out for myself that you sure have
> got that right.
> >Luckily I switched from a hclf raw vegan diet to
> a hflc raw vegan
> >diet a little over a year ago and not only am I
> starting to look
> >better I am also physically stronger with more
> >muscle mass
> >even though there has been no change in my
> exercise routine
> >over the past few years.
> >I average 67.7% of my diet in lipids each day.
> >My intake of carbs >averages 90.3 grams a day
> > - 22.3 grams of sugar.
>
> Good that you saw some sense and got off the very
> high carbohydrate diet. My fat intake is about
> 35-40% of calories at the moment. About 10-12% is
> usually from protein; and then carbs for the rest
> (mostly vegetables and some fruit).
>
> If you're interested in how sugar affects ageing
> and lifespan, you ought to look up a researcher
> called "Cynthia Kenyon" - she identified genes
> involved in ageing that affect ageing from tiny
> organisms like C.elegans, dogs, and even humans.
>
> You should take a look at David who is 55 in this
> video:
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> He's 57 now and still looks amazing for his age.
> He focuses more on vegetables and only eats some
> fruit, not a huge amount.


I am liking your posts.

Does he have a youtube or website?

Low sugar, low calories...nice.averages 90.3 grams a day



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 02:18AM by The Sproutarian Man.

I recently created a cronometer account just for fun and entered in foods that I typically eat and found that I had 100% or far above for nearly all nutrients at 1600 calories and the one's that were low aren't low anymore once you add in AFA, hydrilla, sprouts, and wheatgrass.

60% carbs, 30% lipids, 10% protein

too much sugar. ;-)

you should write a book.

you could call it 60/30/10

....david who is 55

right, because you need a microscope to figure out what to eat. geez.

surprised he wasn't thinner as a CR.

cynthia kenyon

For those who doubt the relevance to humans, Kenyon points to studies showing that people who live to be 100 are more likely to have mutations in the daf-2 gene. There are also variants in the FOXO gene that are more frequent among people who live to be 100.

[www.theguardian.com]

Your research deals mainly with the round worm. Do you plan experiments with mammals?
The advantage of the round worm is its simple structure: the animal consists of
1 000 cells. In comparison, the human organism consists of billions of cells. So far we have identified about 100 genes, which influence the aging process. We know already that these genes function similar with mammals and mice.

How did your scientific research influence your life style?
In our experiments we have found out, that some aging genes are connected to the function of hormones, one being the insulin, which is responsible for the decomposition of carbohydrate. Round worms with a constantly high insulin level age faster. Therefore I have changed my diet and do without any nutrition high on carbohydrates like potatoes, rice, bread or noodles. I don’t even buy any sweets any more and instead I eat vegetables.



------
my issue with this kind of thing, and sugar and fruit fears is that nobody tries to quantify the insulin response. there is just this knee jerk reaction to cut out sweet things.

here's the interesting kicker...

Unlike glucose, fructose is not an insulin secretagogue, and can in fact lower circulating insulin.[5] In addition to liver, fructose is metabolized in intestine, testis, kidney, skeletal muscle, fat tissue and brain,[6][7] but it is not transported into cells via insulin-sensitive pathways (insulin regulated transporters GLUT1 and GLUT4). Instead fructose is taken in by GLUT5.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....david who is 55
>
> right, because you need a microscope to figure out
> what to eat. geez.
>
> surprised he wasn't thinner as a CR.


The microscope was at the research facility.

@Fresh

Well, fruit has plenty of glucose, especially bananas. In fact, there is equal amounts of fructose and glucose in fruit. 5.0 g and 4.9 g per 100 g Banana (there's also a small amount of sucrose).

Figs have 22.9 of fructose and 24.8 of glucose per 100g

Sweet potatoes only contain 1g and 2.5 per 100g

Fruit DOES produce an insulin response. Now imagine the response from jugging down 10 bananas in one go; or 30! :p

Big spikes in glucose will cause glycation end products which will become apparent later on; they take a while to build up to a pathological level where the cells cannot perform their functions properly. But fructose causes more glycation by itself.

Exercise does cause translocation of GLUT4 receptor to the cell surface where it can increase the uptake of glucose by the cell. But this effect is only 'acute' - it disappears a couple days after you stop exercising. So if you're not exercising a lot, a high fruit diet is even worse for you.


Long-Term Fructose Consumption Accelerates Glycation and Several Age-Related Variables in Male Rats
[jn.nutrition.org]

Role of fructose in glycation and cross-linking of proteins.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

If you have an hour to spare, take a look at the lecture on advanced glycation end products by Dr William Bains at Cambridge University

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 02:37PM by mattscr.

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Fresh
>
> Well, fruit has plenty of glucose, especially
> bananas. In fact, there is equal amounts of
> fructose and glucose in fruit. 5.0 g and 4.9 g per
> 100 g Banana (there's also a small amount of
> sucrose).
>

I never denied that and it is true.


> Figs have 22.9 of fructose and 24.8 of glucose per
> 100g
>
> Sweet potatoes only contain 1g and 2.5 per 100g
>


So?

> Fruit DOES produce an insulin response. Now
> imagine the response from jugging down 10 bananas
> in one go; or 30! :p
>


I don't need to imagine it.
I need YOU to produce some evidence that it presents a problem, or that
it creates a CONSTANTLY ELEVATED insulin response, which was the problem indicated by the research.


> Big spikes in glucose will cause glycation end
> products which will become apparent later on; they
> take a while to build up to a pathological level
> where the cells cannot perform their functions
> properly. But fructose causes more glycation by
> itself.
>

Define big and SHOW that it creates a problem.
Show that a persons ingestion of bananas causes glycation (there are many things that cause glycation) and that it presents a problem. What we have is flawed science misapplied to eating fruit.




> Exercise does cause translocation of GLUT4
> receptor to the cell surface where it can increase
> the uptake of glucose by the cell. But this effect
> is only 'acute' - it disappears a couple days
> after you stop exercising. So if you're not
> exercising a lot, a high fruit diet is even worse
> for you.
>

If you're not exercising, your intake adjusts downward accordingly.

matt, enough with the fructose studies.
humans eat fruit - you cannot separate it out in a powdered fructose study and draw any conclusions. and a "fruit" intake study better be really good to draw any conclusions.

>
> Long-Term Fructose Consumption Accelerates
> Glycation and Several Age-Related Variables in
> Male Rats
> [jn.nutrition.org]
>
> Role of fructose in glycation and cross-linking of
> proteins.
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
>
> If you have an hour to spare, take a look at the
> lecture on advanced glycation end products by Dr
> William Bains at Cambridge University
>
> [www.youtube.com]

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Fresh
>
> Well, fruit has plenty of glucose, especially
> bananas. In fact, there is equal amounts of
> fructose and glucose in fruit. 5.0 g and 4.9 g per
> 100 g Banana (there's also a small amount of
> sucrose).
>
> Figs have 22.9 of fructose and 24.8 of glucose per
> 100g
>
> Sweet potatoes only contain 1g and 2.5 per 100g
>
> Fruit DOES produce an insulin response. Now
> imagine the response from jugging down 10 bananas
> in one go; or 30! :p
>
> Big spikes in glucose will cause glycation end
> products which will become apparent later on; they
> take a while to build up to a pathological level
> where the cells cannot perform their functions
> properly. But fructose causes more glycation by
> itself.
>
> Exercise does cause translocation of GLUT4
> receptor to the cell surface where it can increase
> the uptake of glucose by the cell. But this effect
> is only 'acute' - it disappears a couple days
> after you stop exercising. So if you're not
> exercising a lot, a high fruit diet is even worse
> for you.
>
>
> Long-Term Fructose Consumption Accelerates
> Glycation and Several Age-Related Variables in
> Male Rats
> [jn.nutrition.org]
>
> Role of fructose in glycation and cross-linking of
> proteins.
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
>
> If you have an hour to spare, take a look at the
> lecture on advanced glycation end products by Dr
> William Bains at Cambridge University
>
> [www.youtube.com]


Great info! THANKS!

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have an hour to spare, take a look at the
> lecture on advanced glycation end products by Dr
> William Bains at Cambridge University
>
> [www.youtube.com]


The ignorable time wasting jock thug dg water boys won't watch it but I did. It's fabulous.

[www.drdavidwilliams.com] bains....

The above references bains

when matt posts a vid and does not suggest any conclusions he thinks can be drawn, and sue also says nothing, of what use is it on a discussion board?

1. Low protein raw diet reduces age. Check
2. Read the above regarding fruit.

So exactly what about this research implicates fruit, which is apparently the goal here?

anyone quantifying too much? Nope.

just vague pronouncements about Big spikes in insulin unrelated to any facts.

and vague references to fruit trying to implicate it in age .

So what has been provided here in relation to fruit based diets?

I am still waiting

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ignorable time wasting jock thug dg water
> boys won't watch it but I did. It's fabulous.

Check your diet. The largest source of AGEs is fat. If your siet is high fat, you are kidding yourself.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recently created a cronometer account just for
> fun and entered in foods that I typically eat and
> found that I had 100% or far above for nearly all
> nutrients at 1600 calories and the one's that were
> low aren't low anymore once you add in AFA,
> hydrilla, sprouts, and wheatgrass.
>
> 60% carbs, 30% lipids, 10% protein

check this out. it contradicts all your mental spaguetty

[www.nia.nih.gov]

"August 29, 2012

nianews3@mail.nih.gov

Scientists have found that calorie restriction—a diet comprised of approximately 30 percent fewer calories but with the same nutrients of a standard diet—does not extend years of life or reduce age-related deaths in a 23-year study of rhesus monkeys. However, calorie restriction did extend certain aspects of health. The research, conducted by scientists at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) at the National Institutes of Health, is reported in the August 29, 2012 online issue of Nature.

Calorie restriction research has a long history. The first finding came in the 1930s, when investigators observed laboratory rats and mice lived up to 40 percent longer when fed a calorie-restricted diet. Subsequent research has cited calorie restriction as extending lifespan of yeast, worms, flies and some strains of mice. But other studies have not shown a longevity benefit. For example, in studies of certain strains of mice, calorie restriction on average had no effect on lifespan. Some of these mice actually had a shorter lifespan when given a calorie-restricted diet. To date, research does not provide evidence that calorie restriction is an appropriate age regulator in humans, the NIA investigators point out. Currently, limited human studies are under way to test the effectiveness and safety of calorie restriction in people.

The survival results in the study reported today by NIA researchers differ from those published in 2009 by NIA-supported investigators at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Wisconsin study followed two groups of rhesus monkeys for 20 years and found that monkeys on a calorie-restricted diet lived longer than those on a standard diet.

Beyond longevity, the parallel NIA and Wisconsin studies have reported similar beneficial health effects of calorie-restriction. Both studies found that certain age-related diseases—including diabetes, arthritis, diverticulosis and cardiovascular problems—occurred at an earlier age in monkeys on the standard diet compared to those on calorie restriction. However, this observation was not statistically significant in the NIA study. NIA researchers did find that monkeys started on calorie restriction at an early age had a statistically significant reduction in cancer incidence.

NIA researchers also found that while calorie restriction had a beneficial effect on several measures of metabolic health and function in monkeys who were started on the special diet regimen during old age (at 16 to 23 years), it did not have the same positive outcome for monkeys started on calorie restriction at a young age (less than 14 years). In the Wisconsin study, all the monkeys were 7 to 14 years when started on calorie restriction.

“These results suggest the complexity of how calorie restriction may work in the body,” said NIA Director Richard J. Hodes, M.D. “Calorie restriction’s effects likely depend on a variety of factors, including environment, nutritional components and genetics.”

Differences in the monkeys’ meal and other nutritional factors were cited as possible explanations for NIA’s and Wisconsin’s different outcomes. Both studies used a similar percentage of calorie restriction with their intervention groups; however, the Wisconsin monkeys in both the calorie restricted and control groups were eating more and weighed more than the matched NIA monkeys.

NIA’s food had a natural ingredient base, while Wisconsin opted for a purified diet. Purified diets generally lack trace dietary chemicals and minerals that could affect an animal’s health. Each ingredient of a purified diet provides a specific nutrient and minerals or vitamins must be added separately. Natural-ingredient diets have risk of variation between batches, but are considered by some to be more complete than purified diets. NIA and Wisconsin also used different sources for proteins, fat and carbohydrates, as well as different approaches to vitamin and mineral supplementation.

“There is no right or wrong nutritional approach to calorie restriction, but the differences should be considered as we try to understand the dissimilar effects of calorie restriction between the two studies,” said first author Julie A. Mattison, Ph.D., facility head of NIA’s Nonhuman Primate Studies Unit, part of the Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology.

NIA researchers cited genetics as another possible reason for their differing results. NIA monkeys had a greater genetic diversity, originating from China and India. Wisconsin’s monkeys came only from an Indian colony.

“We’ve learned more by having two concurrent and independent studies of calorie restriction in monkeys than would have been possible by just the NIA or Wisconsin study alone. While the two studies share many of the same findings, the differences will be particularly important for helping us better understand this aging intervention,” said Felipe Sierra, Ph.D., director of NIA’s Division of Aging Biology.

As scientists measure the possible outcomes of calorie restriction, research is also focusing on finding the mechanisms and pathways by which calorie restriction may influence longevity and the risk of age-associated disease. “My laboratory and other researchers are looking at calorie restriction’s effects on cell metabolism, gene expression, insulin signaling pathways and other basic biological processes to pinpoint how reducing calorie intake may attenuate the negative consequences of aging. We are looking at whether compounds can mimic the effects of calorie restriction via these mechanisms,” said senior author, Rafael de Cabo, Ph.D., chief of the Mechanisms and Interventions of Aging section of NIA’s Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology.

The NIA leads the federal government effort conducting and supporting research on aging and the health and well-being of older people. The Institute’s broad scientific program seeks to understand the nature of aging and to extend the healthy, active years of life. For more information on research, aging, and health, go to www.nia.nih.gov."

What the cooked food scientists dont understand is that giving the monkeys less junk will help with health and longevity. Its not the lower intake, its the lower amount of junk.

Unless there is a raw food study with different caloric intake....

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The ignorable time wasting jock thug dg water
> > boys won't watch it but I did. It's fabulous.
>
> Check your diet. The largest source of AGEs is
> fat. If your siet is high fat, you are kidding
> yourself.


Lol, why don't one of you dg bots around here tell his female followers they don't have to continue to have 12 year old boy butts if they would take enough Omega 3's. Start with Kristinafullyraw.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 06:57PM by SueZ.

A lot of people, like SueZ Shill, are what's known as Skinny Fats. They may appear to have a "healthy weight" but they're nothing but Bones and Fat with NO Muscle. My guess is that SueZ probably has over 30% Body Fat. When she lost and gained back her BUTT, it wasn’t Muscle - it was FAT!!!

Actually it's a bit misleading as I had already explained in review of the two studies (Wisconsin & NIA). The NIA control group monkeys were calorie restricted by 10% (Okinawan's ate 11% fewer calories fwiw). The difference between the calorie intake of the groups dwindled down to almost nothing during the study. They had major issues with the study...

4 of the CR monkeys lived passed 40 years (equivalent of 120) vs only 1 control monkey (so far). Also, zero monkeys in the young-onset CR group developed cancer so far. The monkeys also lived to 35, which is record for rhesus monkeys since they normally only live until 27 years. The NIA diet differed from the Wisconsin. In the Wisconsin study they were fed higher sugar diet; in the NIA they were fed a low sugar diet. The NIA monkeys were exceptionally long lived. Unfortunately, in both monkey studies, they did not exhibit the typical CR response that both rodents and HUMANS do. The studies are still going on and they are working together to see why this is...


There was another study at Wisconsin that ran parallel to the NIA study.


Monkey caloric restriction study shows big benefit; contradicts earlier study April 2014.


"The latest results from a 25-year study of diet and aging in monkeys shows a significant reduction in mortality and in age-associated diseases among those with calorie-restricted diets. The study, begun at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1989, is one of two ongoing, long-term U.S. efforts to examine the effects of a reduced-calorie diet on nonhuman primates.

The study of 76 rhesus monkeys, reported Monday in Nature Communications, was performed at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center in Madison. When they were 7 to 14 years of age, the monkeys began eating a diet reduced in calories by 30 percent. The comparison monkeys, which ate as much as they wanted, had an increased risk of disease 2.9 times that of the calorie-restricted group, and a threefold increased risk of death.

[www.news.wisc.edu]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 08:41PM by mattscr.

I spent quite a bit of time to write a review of the data on humans and rhesus monkeys. If you read it, you'll see it's not straight forward and there are lots of things to work out still.

But the fact is this: humans exhibit the same 'phenotype' on the diet as rodents and other animals that have their maximum lifespan extended - monkeys do not, for some reason... possibly the way the studies were designed.

I try to explain here:

Calorie Restriction in Rhesus Monkeys and Humans: A short review of the effects on health and lifespan.
[www.crvitality.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 08:42PM by mattscr.

Great info, matt.

Panchito, it's funny how you always mention the Okinawan's and their longevity (which includes caloric restriction) but are now trying to claim is doesn't extend longevity despite large amounts of evidence it does. You don't actually believe their percentage of carbs is what causes longevity, do you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2014 08:59PM by jtprindl.