I don't know why all these men are getting on Arugula's case for protecting her skin. Everyone knows society judges women by their looks. Even though Christie Brinkley aged well, still her husband couldn't resist dating a teenager. If Arugula can hire male gardeners and farmers to do the work, it works out better, because women won't judge the male farmers for their aged skin. When men have aged skin, they are considered "rugged", but when women have aged skin, there are terrible names for them. I have a lot of friends that have transcended those attachments, but still society hasn't.

Even for all her of talent and money, Stevie is insecure about her looks and age.
[www.huffingtonpost.com]

In an interview with Rolling Stone, the 66-year-old singer/songwriter opened up about her love life ... or lack thereof.

"What if I fall in love with somebody and they die?" she said, adding that guys her age "want to go out with somebody that's 25."

"That has been going on since the Bible, and I haven't even read the Bible, but I know that. So what am I gonna do, compete with that? I'm not a competitor. So I don't even wanna be in that situation ... I've narrowed it down to nobody."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 11:41PM by Tai.

>Observation as in observing the habits of those who are aging gracefully such as Peter Ragnar, Lou Corona, and David Wolfe. None of those individuals, by the way, are into low-fat - just saying.

- there are plenty of "low fat" people who are aging gracefully.

- i am curious - how do you think humans thrived over the millenia? where are the fatty foods? did they all eat/require meat and coconuts?

"- there are plenty of "low fat" people who are aging gracefully."

Never said there weren't, but most of them seem to be women. Where are the low-fat men who are aging gracefully?


"- i am curious - how do you think humans thrived over the millenia? where are the fatty foods? did they all eat/require meat and coconuts?"

Who said humans were ever thriving as opposed to simply surviving and reproducing? And who said what we did in the past is indicative of what's optimal heading into the future? I think humans survived off plenty of different foods; fruits, greens, nuts, seeds, coconut, animal products, insects, etc.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "- there are plenty of "low fat" people who are
> aging gracefully."
>
> Never said there weren't, but most of them seem to
> be women. Where are the low-fat men who are aging
> gracefully?
>

i could name many. then you would critique my selections. no thanks.
find them objectively yourself and don't be so biased because you don't agree with their dietary choices.

>
> "- i am curious - how do you think humans thrived
> over the millenia? where are the fatty foods? did
> they all eat/require meat and coconuts?"
>
> Who said humans were ever thriving as opposed to
> simply surviving and reproducing? And who said
> what we did in the past is indicative of what's
> optimal heading into the future? I think humans
> survived off plenty of different foods; fruits,
> greens, nuts, seeds, coconut, animal products,
> insects, etc.

ok. so do you think that "higher" fat is necessary to be healthful
even though there are virtually no high fat foods in sufficient quantities in nature over millions of years?

- you would need to say that meat is necessary since
- avos are cultivated for high fat and are not fatty in the past
- coconut is not widely available
- nuts - small quantities avail

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "- there are plenty of "low fat" people who are
> aging gracefully."
>
> Never said there weren't, but most of them seem to
> be women. Where are the low-fat men who are aging
> gracefully?

Matt takes care of his skin but he is still very young.
He'll be one to watch.

Also look at the ones with built-in SPF and PPD 30.
They tend to look decades younger than their actual
ages without trying.

Also South Korean guys tend to take their skin care
very seriously. I'll bet some of them will look great
at 60 and beyond, raw or not.

I think Dr. Neal Barnard is also youthful for his age,
which I am guessing is near 60 now. He's less exposed
than John MacDougall or John Robbins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 01:21AM by arugula.

"i could name many. then you would critique my selections. no thanks."

Now you're just being confrontational. Where are the low-fat men who are aging gracefully?

"find them objectively yourself and don't be so biased because you don't agree with their dietary choices."

I think I've stated enough times that I do not have a simplistic "one diet fits all" mentality.

"ok. so do you think that "higher" fat is necessary to be healthful"

Depends on the person.

"even though there are virtually no high fat foods in sufficient quantities in nature over millions of years?"

There are plenty - coconuts, olives, avocados, durian, nuts, seeds, etc. And even if this were true, in no way does it indicate that low-fat is optimal. Even greens such as spinach, romaine lettuce, and kale contain ~20-30% protein and ~15% fat by calorie, a considerable difference from 80/10/10.

>There are plenty - coconuts, olives, avocados, durian, nuts, seeds, etc. And even if this were true, in no way does it indicate that low-fat is optimal. Even greens such as spinach, romaine lettuce, and kale contain ~20-30% protein and ~15% fat by calorie, a considerable difference from 80/10/10.


i am talking about foods widely available for large groups of people during our evolution such that these higher fat items would seem to be required/necessary for thriving.

cocos are not widely available. same with olives. avos had no fat long ago. durian rare. nuts, rare, hard to eat in suff qty, seeds same.

what is available is low fat fruit and other plant parts such as leaves,etc.
certainly leaves have higher fat per cal but cannot be eaten for caloric needs except by hind gut fermenters such as gorilla. that leaves fruit predominant, with other low fat plant parts secondary. it's going to be relatively low fat with the amount varying.

even so , if you feel for some reason that ingesting cups of hemp or flax is needed to thrive, that's fine, but it does not approach natural behavior nor does not appear to be necessary when we survey what hominids actually did over time.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "- there are plenty of "low fat" people who are
> > aging gracefully."
> >
> > Never said there weren't, but most of them seem
> to
> > be women. Where are the low-fat men who are
> aging
> > gracefully?
>
> Matt takes care of his skin but he is still very
> young.
> He'll be one to watch.
>
> Also look at the ones with built-in SPF and PPD
> 30.
> They tend to look decades younger than their
> actual
> ages without trying.
>
> Also South Korean guys tend to take their skin
> care
> very seriously. I'll bet some of them will look
> great
> at 60 and beyond, raw or not.
>
> I think Dr. Neal Barnard is also youthful for his
> age,
> which I am guessing is near 60 now. He's less
> exposed
> than John MacDougall or John Robbins.


I'm more concerned with how great I look on the inside. At 100, I'll take skin that looks 100 if I have a heart, liver, kidney, immune system, etc. with a biological age that's decades younger as opposed to vice versa.

Katherine Milton's papers on wild primate diets are interesting. The wild howler monkeys she studied eat mostly fig-type fruits. They will also eat tender baby leaves and to a lesser extent, a variety of plant parts and animals, mostly insects. If fruit is hard to find they will eat more leaves, but they prefer fruit. But high fat sources aside from insect brains were pretty hard to come by.

Also consider the most recent 150,000 years of hominid developments. For the first 90% (135,000 years), the diet was high in fruit, fiber, and plant diversity, and low in meat, animal fat, and dairy. Also, these human-like ancestors were highly active. No author has suggested that their diets were moderate or high in plant fat.

Migration into SE Asia, the land of coconut and durian, did not take place until 63,000 years ago.

But we are not yet in a place where we can say that eating such rich foods with wild abandon is optimal.

Our best guesses epidemiologically are the 90% carbohydrate Okinawan centenarians.

For clinical trials, the Ornish/Esselystyn trials are most impressive.

When Ornish gets the same results with lots of coconut and avocado, I will reconsider. Lately he is saying whole plants are what matters, so we will see. There may be some interesting developments in the future.

Until that time, I think it's going out on a limb. Also considering our history, it's extrapolating.

jtprindl Wrote:

> I'm more concerned with how great I look on the
> inside. At 100, I'll take skin that looks 100 if I
> have a heart, liver, kidney, immune system, etc.
> with a biological age that's decades younger as
> opposed to vice versa.

This is easy to say when you are 20ish or 30ish. At
that age you are invincible.

By age 35 or so, people start to diverge based on
their lifestyles.

By 50 or so the differences become glaringly obvious.
They accelerate with the passing decades.

I think you will be a better spokesperson for whatever
diet you are promoting if you are not electing to
undergo optional sun damage. The damage is cumulative.

For sure you should have a beautiful life, full of fun,
joy, and outdoor activities, but don't be afraid of using
sunscreens on your high exposure days. The better formulations
use molecules that are too large to penetrate the skin.

You do not want to look like a fossil when you are 60. Trust
me!

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Katherine Milton's papers on wild primate diets
> are interesting. The wild howler monkeys she
> studied eat mostly fig-type fruits. They will also
> eat tender baby leaves and to a lesser extent, a
> variety of plant parts and animals, mostly
> insects. If fruit is hard to find they will eat
> more leaves, but they prefer fruit. But high fat
> sources aside from insect brains were pretty hard
> to come by.
>
> Also consider the most recent 150,000 years of
> hominid developments. For the first 90% (135,000
> years), the diet was high in fruit, fiber, and
> plant diversity, and low in meat, animal fat, and
> dairy. Also, these human-like ancestors were
> highly active. No author has suggested that their
> diets were moderate or high in plant fat.
>
> Migration into SE Asia, the land of coconut and
> durian, did not take place until 63,000 years ago.
>
>
> But we are not yet in a place where we can say
> that eating such rich foods with wild abandon is
> optimal.
>
> Our best guesses epidemiologically are the 90%
> carbohydrate Okinawan centenarians.
>
> For clinical trials, the Ornish/Esselystyn trials
> are most impressive.
>
> When Ornish gets the same results with lots of
> coconut and avocado, I will reconsider. Lately he
> is saying whole plants are what matters, so we
> will see. There may be some interesting
> developments in the future.
>
> Until that time, I think it's going out on a limb.
> Also considering our history, it's extrapolating.

yes i think that is what i am saying.

I've read milton. hers are certainly more logical than wrangham's research conclusions.

"Also consider the most recent 150,000 years of hominid developments. For the first 90% (135,000 years), the diet was high in fruit, fiber, and plant diversity, and low in meat, animal fat, and dairy. Also, these human-like ancestors were highly active. No author has suggested that their diets were moderate or high in plant fat."

That doesn't mean there's a certain fat percentage that one must avoid.

"Our best guesses epidemiologically are the 90% carbohydrate Okinawan centenarians."

Only if you're under the assumption that the percentage of carbs they eat is the reason for their longevity.

"When Ornish gets the same results with lots of coconut and avocado, I will reconsider."

Nobody is saying to only eat fatty foods. You could theoretically eat 50% fat and still eat lots of fruits and greens.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Nobody is saying to only eat fatty foods. You
> could theoretically eat 50% fat and still eat lots
> of fruits and greens.

This is where Milton comes in. She makes a big issue
of how far the primate vitamin and mineral intakes
exceed ours.

It's something to think about.

If you devote those calories to fat instead, you may
be missing out on something important.

"If you devote those calories to fat instead, you may
be missing out on something important."

It's possible in the same sense that it's possible to be low-fat, high-fruit and miss out on something important (such as long-chain omega-3's).

Probably not if your intake and ratio exceed requirements. If you are concerned about this get a blood test.

If I meet my requirements I am more concerned with getting the vitamin, mineral, and phytochemical load that my primate ancestors received.

I want to be a monkey. Like Andrew Perlot.

"If I meet my requirements I am more concerned with getting the vitamin, mineral, and phytochemical load that my primate ancestors received."

Is there any evidence that suggests your primate ancestors lived a very long time? But yes, like I've said in the past, vitamins and minerals are easy to get, I want to load up on highly potent and protective phytochemicals. That being said, it's important to get enough EPA and DHA and to maintain optimal hormonal health which is where fat comes into the equation. As you know, ALA conversion rates are very low, especially for men.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 03:41AM by jtprindl.

aruglua wrote:
"I want to be a monkey."

News flash, monkeys live OUTSIDE.

Let me break it down for you, without Sun/Light, Life wouldn't exist..
Without Air, in 6 minutes or so you won't exist...
Without Water, in 3 days or so you won't exist...
Without Earth/Food, insome 30 days or longer, you won't exist...

Where is your loyalty, on things that matter or things that don't?

@arugla

The sunscreen I use on an off contains Titanium dioxide & Zinc oxide, which do fairly well protecting against UVA and UVB.

Harsh studio lights and extra makeup could do that. She is famous in her own country for looking young, so even by Asian standards, she's doing well. She's always posting every day on her blog so you can check her out any time.

Here's a couple videos of her

[youtu.be]

[www.youtube.com]


>But to some extent it's easier for women because they
>can do fillers and lifts without as much social
>stigma.

Yup! I don't think she's gone that route yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually did.

>I think a lot of Asians can tolerate lower BMIs
>than Westerners with no adverse effect.

Not just that, they also have less stigma for being thin. Many Japanese people are thin and no one really gives them a hard time over it. Our perception of what is "normal" has changed over time. So higher weight now seems like it's normal, and the thin people - even though some are not technically underweight - are seen as too skinny.

There are good and bad, I know because not all of them are on TV. xD Most people that got into CR started at middle age. If someone wants to maintain their youth, early action is important. Losing weight means less fat on the face, more pronounced lines because the skin doesn't always tighten up enough for everyone. If you maintain a relatively low-normal weight form an early age, while protecting your skin, you'll see results.

My friend Paul (I may invite him here since he's a vegetarian) is 45 years old but looks around 25. One of the youngest guys I've ever seen, ever. He also protects his skin of course...

Haha neither do I! I'm not that strict. But I do pay attention to science and make minor tweaks to my diet based on it. I'm mostly on autopilot these days.

I'm over 30 now and get mistaken all the time (more than I can count) for being a student at college or uni. So I'll keep doing what I do xD

-------------------------------------------
My blog: [www.crvitality.com]

@nunativs
> Not being able to handle the Sun/Light is a sign of weakness and ill health.

That's simply not true. The reasons should be fairly obvious.....

> Tai:
> Could anyone explain for me what this means, since
> I have never studied CR? Does it mean that
> increasing exercise increases cell turnover and
> metabolism and since cell replication is finite,
> aging is increased? Does using the rebounder (mini
> trampoline) increase metabolism, when it is used
> more as a lymphatic and not an aerobic exercise?

No, the net benefit for most people will be increased lifespan due to lower risk of disease, more muscle mass, and just being less frail overall. In the context of CR, no, it adds nothing extra. Exercise is good.

@Arugula

>So it's probably worthwhile to be more active and take in
>more calories. It also helps to fight sarcopenia and lessen
>bone loss.

You would think, right? Bone loss is definitely an issue, and should be protected against by weight-bearing exercises, yoga or whatever. The quality of the bone of people on CR is higher than those eating a standard diet, so the the fracture risk could actually be less. Inflammation tends to weaken bones, and the average person has much of that throughout their life. Mostly low level chronic inflammation over a life time.

Calorie restriction is well known to protect against Sarcopenia.
[aging.wisc.edu]


C = Control
R = Restricted

See: Mechanisms by which Caloric Restriction Better Preserves Skeletal Muscle Mass & Function with Aging
[www.youtube.com]


>Yes, I believe exercise helps. Chewing one's food and
>including crunchy vegetables and nuts/seeds rather
>than drinking juices and smoothies might be important.

Yes, this! So important... Facial muscles also need to be worked. We lose muscle everywhere with age.

-------------------------------------------
My blog: [www.crvitality.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 06:08AM by mattscr.

Tai:
> Could anyone explain for me what this means, since
> I have never studied CR? Does it mean that
> increasing exercise increases cell turnover and
> metabolism and since cell replication is finite,
> aging is increased? Does using the rebounder (mini
> trampoline) increase metabolism, when it is used
> more as a lymphatic and not an aerobic exercise?

Mattscr wrote:
No, the net benefit for most people will be increased lifespan due to lower risk of disease, more muscle mass, and just being less frail overall. In the context of CR, no, it adds nothing extra. Exercise is good.

Tai:
Actually, this doctor said finite cell replication plays a role in aging. This is your channel video, Matt. Please start watching at 7 minutes
[www.youtube.com]

Exercise, training and red blood cell turnover.
(Endurance training can lead to what has been termed 'sports anaemia'. Although under normal conditions, red blood cells (RBCs) have a lifespan of about 120 days, the rate of aging may increase during intensive training....)
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

I think I am hooked on this calorie restriction. THe more unneeded food you give your digestive system, the more it has to work and the more the organs will age. This ties in with Lou Corona's point (quoting Dr. Howell) that enzyme production is finite and taking digestive enzymes will spare the body's enzymes. There is logic to juicing vegetables and greens: to spare your body's digestion. One needs enough fiber daily and one needs to chew, but one may also spare one's organs by making fresh green juice (for the minerals, protein and vitamins) and not forcing one's body to separate the fiber all the time.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do people obsess over looks like it's the
> definitive factor of how slow or fast one is
> aging? For example, if you're 100 years old and
> completely healthy, other than vanity and
> self-indulgence, what other reason would provoke
> you to care about every minute detail of your
> appearance? Sunlight provides many more benefits
> outside of vitamin D production. I truly cannot
> believe people let science experiments rule their
> lives. Science can be very useful, no doubt, but
> it has its fair share of flaws and limitations. I
> happen to think intuition and observation are very
> important as well. Observation as in observing the
> habits of those who are aging gracefully such as
> Peter Ragnar, Lou Corona, and David Wolfe. None of
> those individuals, by the way, are into low-fat -
> just saying.

It doesn't have to rule one's life. After a while it just becomes routine. I don't think anyone is suggesting to hide away constantly, but just to take precautions. Like, if I forget sunscreen, I don't panic :p I just say, "oh I forgot it today" and get on with my day... Perhaps I'm wrong (please correct me if I am), a lot of raw foodists tend to love the sun and spend a lot of time in it with no protection?

A lot of people do care about appearance. And if you want to maximize the number of people that come into raw food, take care of your outside as well as inside. Annette Larkins looks amazing because she has dark skin and is a raw foodist. She can tolerate more sun... But even she would benefit with sunscreen. Vitamin D3 is easy buy... it is exactly the same, and it just bypasses one part of the conversation into it's active form.

I only know David Wolfe, not sure who the others are xD

mattscr wrote:
"@nunativs
> Not being able to handle the Sun/Light is a sign of weakness and ill health.

That's simply not true. The reasons should be fairly obvious..... "

OK, well you've basically said nothing. EVERY primitve tribe has lived OUTSIDE for the most part and endured nature in all it's extremes without skin cancer, in fact they lived longer and more robust lives than modern humans and health nuts can imagine.

Don't believe me, download the eBook "Primitive Man" available for FREE at the Soil and Health Library amd weep at our lost heritage...

(Adapting to the Elements is far more important then food...)

NuNativs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mattscr wrote:
> "@nunativs
> > Not being able to handle the Sun/Light is a sign
> of weakness and ill health.
>
> That's simply not true. The reasons should be
> fairly obvious..... "
>
> OK, well you've basically said nothing. EVERY
> primitve tribe has lived OUTSIDE for the most part
> and endured nature in all it's extremes without
> skin cancer, in fact they lived longer and more
> robust lives than modern humans and health nuts
> can imagine.
>


i think you may be talking about two different things.
cancer and skin damage.

> Don't believe me, download the eBook "Primitive
> Man" available for FREE at the Soil and Health
> Library amd weep at our lost heritage...
>
> (Adapting to the Elements is far more important
> then food...)

jtprindl wrote:
>That being said, it's important to get enough EPA and DHA and to maintain optimal >hormonal health which is where fat comes into the equation. As you know, ALA >conversion rates are very low, especially for men.

I don't want to post a link to another forum here (not sure if that is allowed?); but please look this up on google: DHA-Accelerated Aging Hypothesis Validated





Basically, DHA is incorporated into the inner mitochondrial membrane and there is an increase in lipid peroxidation. So, this could actually be another reason why raw food will work well. The consumption of ALA is not as efficiently converted into DHA compared to when you just eat fish or take a supplement. Given the fact that raw foodists are extremely unlikely to die from cardiovascular related diseases, you cannot further reduce your risk by taking DHA anyway... But by taking DHA in the context of a raw food diet or a CR diet, you could be actually doing more harm.

I wouldn't suggest lard like they used in this study. Monounsaturated fats are very resistant to oxidation. EVOO would be a far better option (or avocados).

Anyway, please take a look, it's very interesting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 07:41AM by mattscr.

fresh wrote:
"i think you may be talking about two different things.
cancer and skin damage. "

Since you won't take the time, some quotes as WE all have such short term memory as regards natural health...

The least number they had in a canoe was three, the greatest ten, some swimming and others hanging on—altogether, four hundred natives almost white, and of very graceful shape, well-formed, robust, good legs and feet, hands with long fingers, good eyes, mouth and teeth, and the same with the other features. Their skin was clear, showing them to be a strong and healthy race, and indeed robust.

They all came naked, without any part covered; their faces and bodies in patterns of a blue color, painted with fish and other patterns. Their hair was like that of women, very long and loose, some of it twisted, and they themselves gave it turns. Many of them were ruddy. They had beautiful youths who, for a people barbaric and naked, it was certainly pleasant to see; and they had much cause to praise their Creator."

"They displayed powerful chests, with ribs well covered with flesh and muscle. With their dark yellow skins they were not unlike beautiful bronze torsi.

"The men are almost all tall, robust and well made.

In the Gulf states, particularly Florida, longevity reached its maximum, with early Spanish accounts telling of Indian fathers in the latter state seeing their fifth generation before passing away. De Ribault from France in 1542 found that these Indians "live long and in great health and strength, so the old men go without stays, and are able to walk a run like the youngest. and are only known by the wrinkles in the face, and decay of sight."
(Despite being in the EvIl SuNLiGht?!?

Calorie restriction is well known to protect against Sarcopenia.

I know how I look when I go to the gym regularly vs when I do not. I don't think that not going is healthier. Part of my body goes to jello if I do that. I benefit from taking in extra calories so that I can maintain my bone and muscle mass. Maybe guys can tolerate the "not much exercise" thing better than women because they have more testosterone.

Quality of calories is important, too. See Cai et al, AJP June 2007, Vol. 170, No. 6. Reduced Oxidant Stress and Extended Lifespan in Mice Exposed to a Low Glycotoxin Diet

Ad lib mice on low AGE diets lived longer than CRd mice on high AGE diets. Combine this with lower protein intakes (at least until age 65) and you get to eat more and still reap benefits. Conversely I believe that those CRd people who are doing high protein and high fat are starving themselves unnecessarily.

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @arugla
>
> The sunscreen I use on an off contains Titanium
> dioxide & Zinc oxide, which do fairly well
> protecting against UVA and UVB.

Not really, these are PPD 8-ish if you apply enough.
They are weak in UVA.

Also since most people apply only 1/5 to 1/3 of the
amt. required to achieve the protection on the label,
actual use protection is typically much less than that.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


Also see

Seite S, Colige A, Piquemal- Vivenot P, Monstastier C, Fourtanier A, Lapiere C, and Nsugens B, A full- UV spectrum absorbing daily use cream protects human skin against biological changes occuring in photoaging, Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2000: 16 147- 155

Fourtanier A, Labat- Robert J, Kern P, Berrebi C, Gracia AM, Boyer B., In vivo evaluation of photoprotection against chronic ultraviolet - A irradiation by a new sunscreen Mexoryl SX., Photochem Photobiol. 1992 Apr;55 (4):549- 60,

These are the only types that protect lupus patients as well.

The ones with targeted UVA protection
are more effective. Bioderma Photoderm Max and La
Roche Posay Anthelios have PPD 30+. They will do
a lot more to protect your skin from UVA. There is
a very big difference when you consider the damage
that accrues over decades.

Tai Wrote:

> I think I am hooked on this calorie restriction.
> THe more unneeded food you give your digestive
> system, the more it has to work and the more the
> organs will age. This ties in with Lou Corona's
> point (quoting Dr. Howell) that enzyme production
> is finite and taking digestive enzymes will spare
> the body's enzymes. There is logic to juicing
> vegetables and greens: to spare your body's
> digestion.

I don't think this is because the digestive system has
to do more work. As we age our stomach's production of
HCL declines so we are less able to extract nutrients
from food. This is why when we get to about 65 or so
it may be time to increase B12 and protein intakes so
as to compensate for decreased HCL production.

What Lou is calling "the body's enzymes" refers to HCL
(hydrochloric acid). And I see no reason why one should
have to purchase and take his supplements to do well.

There is nothing suggesting that it is important to
spare the body's digestion by juicing. Fiber has
many benefits. Bacteria in the hindgut convert the
soluble fibers into short chain fatty acids that keep
us healthy. We don't need to take probiotics but we do
need to keep our fiber intakes high to make our friendly
bacteria happy and productive.

The only good I see in juicing is that it can be a way
to incorporate more nutrition from green leaves. But the
benefits might be diminished if one is not also getting
the fiber.

Hi, arugula

I'm really happy with what I use, and have no problem using it. I've always had issues trying to find a good skincare regimen, but skinceuticals products seem to love my skin, and I love skinceuticals!! lol

I use "PHYSICAL FUSION UV DEFENSE SPF 50" - but mostly in the summer since I rarely get any significant sun in the winter months as I am working all day or being a night owl.

I also use Skinceuticals CE+ferulic acid. The combination in studies show that this alone reduces sunburn cell formation up to 96% in UV irradiated skin.

Thank you for the suggestions though. I have them written down and going to do some research later


Ferulic Acid Stabilizes a Solution of Vitamins C and E and Doubles its Photoprotection of Skin
[www.nature.com]

Differential Effects of Topical Vitamin E and C E Ferulic Treatments on Ultraviolet Light B-Induced Cutaneous Tumor Development in Skh-1 Mice
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Matt, I no longer use topical antioxidants.

There is no need if your sunscreen is providing the highest protection from UVA and your diet is good.

The people who get the most benefit from topical antioxidants are those whose diets are poorest in them.

Aside: you can make your own topical antioxidants for pennies. The prices those companies charge are outrageous.