[www.naturalnews.com]
Standing increases longevity and builds telomeres

"Standing up is good for your health. People who stand live longer and have longer telomeres, an indicator of good health and longevity. Sitting is tied to disease and aging. Research has now shown that standing instead of sitting can prevent telomere shortening. Circuit training is also recommended, but actually the time you spend on your feet may be more important that time spent exercising, as far as telomere length protection is concerned. Researchers conclude that sitting down is a "new health hazard of our time," and that exercise and standing up prevents telomere shortening."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 05:26AM by jtprindl.

So they counted someones telomeres all their life, by cutting out their brain open, and compared the little guys, what they looked like, when the person was sitting and to standing.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 07:15AM by coconutcream.

ref is here
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

low-fat plant based diets also lengthen telomeres
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"low-fat plant based diets also lengthen telomeres"

Until you can provide anything that suggests the low-fat aspect of the diet is directly responsible for longer telomeres - this assertion is meaningless.

Saturated fat shortens telomeres (coconut oil)

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

If you read the paper you see that they weighed each factor and diet had the heaviest weight; mediation/support and exercise are not null but not nearly as important.

"diet had the heaviest weight"

Right, but still not directly related to the low-fat aspect of the diet.

Greger explains why it has to be diet as the most effective component here, with a video and links to transcript with list of refs.
[nutritionfacts.org]

"Greger explains why it has to be diet as the most effective component here, with a video and links to transcript with list of refs."

Right, but still not directly related to the low-fat aspect of the diet.

There is a major FLAW in the Telomere Theory of Aging and I have NOT seen one person, other than myself, even mention it. Of course, I have not read everything written on the subject, so I'm sure that I'm not the only one and the ones who have figured it out are usually not the ones writing about it anyway.

Let's see if anyone here is clever enough to figure it out!

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a major FLAW in the Telomere Theory of
> Aging and I have NOT seen one person, other than
> myself, even mention it. Of course, I have not
> read everything written on the subject, so I'm
> sure that I'm not the only one and the ones who
> have figured it out are usually not the ones
> writing about it anyway.
>
> Let's see if anyone here is clever enough to
> figure it out!


I don't think any one aspect, such as telomere length, is ever going to be a definitive indicator of the rate at which one is aging. There are hundreds of different variables that come into play with aging. It's not about the exact amount of carbs you eat, it's not about how long your telomeres are, it's not about your BMI, etc... it's a combination of a bunch of different factors, many of which we have absolutely no clue about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 09:30PM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.naturalnews.com]
> ty_telomeres.html
> Standing increases longevity and builds telomeres
>
> "Standing up is good for your health. People who
> stand live longer and have longer telomeres, an
> indicator of good health and longevity. Sitting is
> tied to disease and aging. Research has now shown
> that standing instead of sitting can prevent
> telomere shortening. Circuit training is also
> recommended, but actually the time you spend on
> your feet may be more important that time spent
> exercising, as far as telomere length protection
> is concerned. Researchers conclude that sitting
> down is a "new health hazard of our time," and
> that exercise and standing up prevents telomere
> shortening."

All animals sit down and none of them have a problem with telomere shortening - only humans do. Think about it. The only creature that is subject to telomere shortening is the only one that cooks it's food ...

It probably is the food.

Exercise + weight loss: no significant change in telomere length.

(free paper)
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Ornish's group lost the same amount of weight as these women, exercised less than these women, and unlike these women, had significant telomere protection.

"It probably is the food."

Food is definitely a significant part when it comes to aging and disease, but there's no evidence that low-fat diets are directly responsible for extended lifespans. Whatever diet being studied may lengthen telomeres, but that in no way means it's caused by being low-fat as opposed to many other dietary factors, such as a wide range of phytochemicals and nutrients.

Is there even any evidence that telomere length is directly associated with lifespan?

This is about the best evidence there is:

[www.pnas.org]

Pretty strong correlation. That is not to say
that this and only this is causal. Nobody can say
such a thing. But it's another measure or predictor
of lifespan.

Despite all the lifestyle tweaks, it still helps a
lot to pick the right parents. But we have a tendency
to get excited about the tweaks because we can't pick
our parents.

You are more likely to make it to 100 if both of
your parents were in their early 20s. If your
parents were not stressed when you were conceived
you will have even better telomeres.

"You are more likely to make it to 100 if both of
your parents were in their early 20s."

Where did you hear this? Mine were...25-26 and 21-22.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:38AM by jtprindl.

I didn't hear it. I read it in a paper by the Gavrilovs.

>but there's no evidence that low-fat diets are directly responsible for extended lifespans.

Actually there is. All of the centenarian studied populations had low fat diet. Also, the number one killer, heart disease, is reversed on a low fat diet.

If you were really interested in health and not paleo broscience/nonsense that only tells people what they want to hear, you would consider this.

Your phytochemicals will not save you from your coconut oil.

There is no reason to think that your coconut oil will protect you in any way.

If you want to push it on fat, the better choices would be avocado, olive, and various high O3 nuts/seed maybe, but even these in excess are probably not the best choices.

The low fat component is part of the most protective diets we know of. There
aren't any that are high in fat. I wish there were because I love fat.

"Actually there is. All of the centenarian studied populations had low fat diet. Also, the number one killer, heart disease, is reversed on a low fat diet."

There's zero evidence that suggests their longevity is the result of being low-fat nor is there any evidence that suggests that high-fat diets directly cause heart disease simply due to their fat content. A raw, plant-based high-fat diet that includes a broad spectrum of phytochemicals (including from fruits and vegetables) and maintains an optimal O3:O6 ratio is vastly different than a cooked, animal product diet with an excessive amount of omega-6's.

Also, low-fat diets reversing heart disease does not equate to high-fat diets causing heart disease. And then of course you have all of the other possible variables involved with those low-fat diets (such as more plant foods, more phytochemicals, reduced intake of toxic foods, etc.)

"Your phytochemicals will not save you from your coconut oil."

I don't even consume a lot of coconut oil, back when I said I consumed 4-5 TBS a week, that was even a bit of an exaggeration. It's more like 1-3 but lately has been almost none. Bringing up coconut oil is irrelevant anyways as I have never recommended a diet rich in coconut oil.

"If you want to push it on fat, the better choices would be avocado, olive, and various high O3 nuts/seed maybe, but even these in excess are probably not the best choices."

Define "excess" and define "high-fat". You use the term "high-fat" but there isn't even a definition, it's vague at best and useless at worse.

More of the "low fat almost raw vegan is king of all diets" crap as usual. There is no evidence that a low fat vegan diet is better than a high fat FULLY RAW vegan diet in regards to telomere lengthening. Let's try to keep that in mind instead of making things up.

The standard high-fat diet in America revolves around things like eggs, bacon, burgers, oxidized/rancid vegetable oils, butter, processed foods, etc. Lots of people wake up and go to McDonald's for breakfast. Virtually every meal most people eat involves cooked animal products on top of other unhealthy ingredients. Not really a surprise to see heart health improvements when they stop eating garbage and start nourishing their body.

Jprindtl, you are always asking for evidence as to why your choices are worse than what little we know to be best. But when you are confronted with what we know is best, you act as if it does not apply for one reason or another.

There aren't any groups of people known for their longevity who indulged. Zero.

Sue, removing heat does not cure all problems with the diet and it does not make excess calories with very low nutrient density magically protective. The people who are known for their longevity don't indulge in excess calories. They are short, slender, and don't use anything that their bodies don't need.

Show me the requirement for saturated fat in the diet. Also show me that it extends lifespan.

If you can't do these things, then consider the motivation behind the people who have convinced you that you are better off with them than without them. That the rise of coconut oil's popularity coincided with the fall of trans fats is not an accident. The food industry wanted another product to take its place and they started paying off scientists to try to make it look good.

At some point you will see this for the simple truth that it is. If you love fat, use a little coconut meat now and then. But the oil isn't doing anything for you.

"Jprindtl, you are always asking for evidence as to why your choices are worse than what little we know to be best. But when you are confronted with what we know is best, you act as if it does not apply for one reason or another."

Why do you keep insinuating that because I defend and acknowledge the major differences and distinctions within various high-fat diets, that I only eat fatty foods and oils? If I was on a F+V 80/10/10 diet, I would say the same things. You acknowledge that these studies reveal very little but still continue to make assertions about fat being unhealthy without considering many other variables. There's no reason to take seriously studies done on people eating lots of cooked animal products with no consideration of O3:O6 ratios and trying to apply the findings to a raw vegan diet. They have no merit.

Extra-virgin coconut oil by no means is necessary, but that also doesn't mean it causes heart disease.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> There aren't any groups of people known for their
> longevity who indulged. Zero.

Different fats processed differently.
>
> Sue, removing heat does not cure all problems with
> the diet and it does not make excess calories with
> very low nutrient density magically protective.

This is not something you know. You are guessing. I doubt you have any experience of being on a high fat diet. I have.

> The people who are known for their longevity don't
> indulge in excess calories. They are short,
> slender, and don't use anything that their bodies
> don't need.

Short people and short dogs seem to have an edge. You are guessing when you talk about what bodies don't need. Your studies don't paint the whole picture. There are plenty of unknowns and plenty of "knowns" which are reversed all the time.

> Show me the requirement for saturated fat in the
> diet.

I have talked about this a lot in many threads. The coconut oil has been proven to be of benefit to stroke victims. You should be able to find this info. It's not obscure.

Also show me that it extends lifespan.

Show me that it doesn't.


>
> If you can't do these things, then consider the
> motivation behind the people who have convinced
> you that you are better off with them than without
> them.

Your motivation is clear, biased, and who knows if you even have had any personal experience whatsoever on a high fat RAW vegan diet. I don't like your attitude. It's meant to discourage. Your words can't discourage me. I am living on this diet and my health and lab work have improved.


That the rise of coconut oil's popularity
> coincided with the fall of trans fats is not an
> accident. The food industry wanted another product
> to take its place and they started paying off
> scientists to try to make it look good.

So what. I'm obviously not interested in the popularity of foods or diets. I'm on my own trip.



> At some point you will see this for the simple
> truth that it is.

Lol, such hubris. The simple truth is you don't know any more about the simple truth than anyone else does. There simply are no studies yet.

If you love fat, use a little
> coconut meat now and then. But the oil isn't doing
> anything for you.

Lol, and here you go again making things up and pretending you know what's best.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 03:38AM by SueZ.

Suez wrote:
This is not something you know. You are guessing. I doubt you have any experience of being on a high fat diet. I have.

Tai:
All the raw vegans I know started out with a fully raw high fat diet. As an example, all the raw vegan restaurants around me in California (that are open and have closed) have been high fat. It is the easiest and most accessible raw vegan diet around. SueZ, there is an all raw vegan restaurant within biking distance to me, but I rarely eat there because it's like eating at a greasy spoon...so much oil in main dishes. I personally have eaten like that for a while, but I could not continue. I know many others who could not continue after experiencing sluggish digestion. Still these same people, myself included, want to have a sustainable raw diet and keep searching for answers. With so much feedback from so many people who tried a high fat raw vegan diet who were unhappy with the results, I don't think Arugula needs to try the diet for a long time, to be able to comment.

SueZ wrote:
Your motivation is clear, biased, and who knows if you even have had any personal experience whatsoever on a high fat RAW vegan diet. I don't like your attitude. It's meant to discourage. Your words can't discourage me. I am living on this diet and my health and lab work have improved.

Tai:
SueZ, I write this not to argue or create bad feelings, but to say that I think Arugula's motivation is to help. By reading the studies she has shared, I have gotten a clearer perspective and it has helped me refine my diet. I am eating a higher percentage of raw now because of her advice--only because it has enhanced my health and not to just be raw for raw's sake--and I am feeling results that I was unable to get on a higher fat raw diet. This is not to take away from your results. Again fixing the health problems you had, like a loose tooth, speak volumes for your program. It's not like I didn't know the power of raw veganism through fresh juices, smoothies salads and fruit (and I have always used them for helping people). It's just after being around so many high fat raw vegans and hearing opposing views for too many years, I slipped into the higher fat category, because I was able to make really delicious meals with high fat.

Going back to high fat raw veganism...Lou Corona has a novel approach to make yogurt to make the fat more digestable. It works for many. I know you don't want to eat fermented foods and thinks it feeds parasites. Maybe, but this is how some people are able to stay 100% raw, because otherwise, they were unable to digest raw nuts and seeds. Lou helped men who were too skinny on raw veganism and who were unable to eat raw nuts to be able finally digest them and gain weight. This speaks volumes for Lou's program. I myself helped a young man who worked at a high fat 100% raw vegan restaurant who became so sluggish and tired that he had to quit college. I helped him with a liver and gallbladder problem, but I had to put him on a low fat diet. Being on a high fat (albeit all raw) diet was exacerbating his problem. After taking herbal teas and being low fat high carb for some time, he was able to transfer to a 4 year college and he has been high carb low fat, ever since. Everyone is unique and some don't need enzymes or probiotics to digest high fat. But some do. And some just need low fat.

Anyway, after being around raw veganism actively for 14 years and trying to sift through so many claims and approaches from raw vegan teachers, it is refreshing to read Aurugula's studies and perspectives...only because I have seen so many failures with attempts to be 100% raw for long periods.

I think if everyone on this board listens to each other with an open mind, we can learn a lot from each other. I have learned so much from SueZ, just hearing her story, her problems with high fruit AND her success with her teeth. If everyone can freely share, we can learn so much. I was just sharing with a forum member who lives in a very cold area of Europe, and fruits and vegetables are cost prohibitive in the winter--and this member doesn't have the space to grow plants indoors. People need to be more understanding of each other's limitations, in terms of digestion, climate and money. I see Arugula as being very understanding about digestion and money.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...various things about higher fat diets and personal experience.


I understand your response to the post by arugula.

the thing is, there is no objective reference point for your statements about your diet and your health, as health means different things to different people.

i can determine that certain people are healthy from their appearance and/or what they do as far as activity, etc. and i can determine my own health based on various factors.

to me it means healthy skin, high energy, good endurance and strength, good digestion, clear nasal, good elimination, etc ,etc

to you it may mean something else. all i can see is that you had lab tests that improved.

I cannot put too much stock in someone else's results unless something is described or shown. diet is properly tested by activity and or sport, imo, and gives certain results with respect to body composition, energy, etc.

until you discuss those things, there is not much to go on for me to say, hey there's some validity to this relatively high fat thing.

I agree with Tai, mostly but I can see the points in everyone's comments here...yeah, reality is kind of all about perspective.

I might add that it's likely that a common thread with diet failures, whether high fat or high fruit is just overeating.

Also, Fresh alot of people tend to go exploring and reach the peak and are like what next and they choose to explore another diet and it is their free will..doesnt mean their diets didnt work..but whatever the "new thing" is, they see that as the only truth, after all, who doesnt want to find it? But its perspective, thats all.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2015 09:57PM by coconutcream.