From: Paul Wakfer (70023.3041@compuserve.com)
Date: Thu Oct 30 1997 - 01:04:24 MST
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:51:19, Mike Coward wrote:
>I recognize that "I'll tear your arguement apart piece by piece" approach.
> :-)
I hope it didn't appear *that* violent.
>It's nice talking to you again.
Same here.
> From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
>> Most foods and vitamins/nutrients, etc. must go throught the
>> digestive system and the liver to be assimulated properly.
>1)What nutrients need what parts?
Too detailed to go into here, but clearly proteins must be broken
apart into amino acids or short peptides, many vitamins and nutrients
have active transport mechanisms form the intestines, the liver does
essential modification of many vitamins and nutrients eg changing EFA's
into triglycerides.
Read the nutrition and metabolism book which I suggested in my other
message.
>>You
>> cannot get a complete enough diet by parenteral feeding.
>2)The intestines perform a function.
>If that function can be quantified and reproduced externally that is what I
>want.
I see where you are coming from (and trying to get to). I like the idea.
The problem is that the body is far too complicated physiologically and
biochemically, and our understanding is far too limited, for anything like
what you want to be possible for decades to come.
>I prefer feeding to take as little time as possible.
I agree. That's why I now do most of my feeding by drinking blended food
"slurries". The blender 'chewing' the food saves me time and effort.
Occassionally, I still chew because I like chewing and its good for my teeth
and gums which I don't want to atrophy (just yet :).
>I would rather everything be predigested
>so I don't have to walk around waiting for my cells to be fed.
The predigested part is not so easy. I believe there are healthy and
nutritional benefits of passing food throught the digestive system which
cannot easily be gained any other way.
>>It is
>> a dangerous and impossible long term practice and would be
>> extremely foolish to initiate voluntarily.
> I think about LONGevity.
Me too. All the time.
>I am trying to avoid using as many body parts as I can.
Then there are easier ones to avoid using than the whole digestive
system.
How about having your arms and legs amputated? (Maybe leave your
right arm so you can type - or maybe not with good voice recognition)
There is evidence that shorter people live longer. It might be true
the a happy arm/leg amputee who gets his exercise by rolling around
and squirming on the floor might live longer too. :)
>That way when I have to start replacing parts I can save $. :-)
>If food was processed( broken into componant parts and sterilized)
>before eaten many parts of the digestive system become unnessasary,
>such as the teeth, tongue, saliva, esophagus, stomach, stomach acids
>which serve only to make bits of food smaller and more pure.
Not just smaller, other imporant functions. Anyway some of the parts
you have listed do not wear our early or are not terminal if they do.
I don't believe that anyone has ever died from a wornout tongue or had
a tongue transplant for that matter. :)
Also tongues can be very useful for lots of fun things.
I wouldn't want to be without one. :)
>>>Keep high oxygen saturation to reduce work by heart and diaphram.
>>
>> Your oxygen saturation is already as high as you can possibly use.
>> On the contrary, if anything you may want to *reduce* the amount
>> of oxygen intake (as long as all areas of the tissues are equally
>> supplied) and the subsequent amount of free radicals generated.
> I once thought that too.
>Then I started reseaching oxygen therapy.
>Many sources said otherwise.
Yes, but it is only for certain specialized *diseased* things and even
then still mostly unproven.
>High O means low pulse/respiration, which means those parts last longer.
I you breathed up to a 50% oxygen mixture, the amount of oxygen in the
blood would only increase a little (the disolved %) since most of it is
in the "hypersaturated" (actively bound) hemoglobin. Your pluse rate
would change very little. It is true that your would need to breathe less
than half as frequently or deeply, however. But the cumulative long-term
damage on the lung tissue of the extra oxygen would probably negate any
benefit.
The big point here, Mike, is that "good old Mother Nature" has pretty
well optimised us already.
>> >Do not die from muscle degeneration( heart, diaphram).
>> A laudable goal, but how do you implement it without exercise?
>Replace those muscles with machines.
>This is already being done with today's technology.
Eventually, I agree. But we are nowhere near the "bionic man" yet.
Easier to try the amputee route mentioned above.
>> >Movement means free-radicals.
>>
>> So does eating,
>I am trying to make eating easier.
>Solid foods tax the jaw and stomach muscles.
Use slurries as described above. (They also make taking >100 nutrient
pills per day a breeze!) I expect they also make it easier on the
stomach although the acid requirements will not be changed.
>>breathing
>More O = low respiration rate.
answered before
>Or I could get better lungs( transplants, biotech implants, bionics).
Not for a long time yet. Our natural ones a pretty damned good.
>>and being alive. Free-radicals are both
>> harmful and necessary for life at the same time.
>I do not belive they will ALWAYS be necessary.
Sorry, they will be. They are generated by the mitochondrial production
of ATP in every cell (including your precious brain). All that we can
do is *control* them, not eliminate them.
>>It's where they
>> are formed and how they are dealt with that is important.
>Absolutely!
>Unfortunately, I have had trouble finding ways to protect my my brain,
>which is the only organ I REALLY care about right now.
>My body is life support for my brain.
So you aiming for "Donovan's Brain" (an old sci-fi flick).
You can best proctect your brain by first all the same things as will
protect the rest of your body - your brain is *fundamentally* similar
cells after all. Then you go after a lot of the "smart drugs" things
which are especially brain protective.
>> >Free-radicals can kill, they are bad, do not cause excess free radicals.
>
>> In the right places and at the right times, they are part of the
>> metabolic processes of life.
>3)Would you mind pointing out those places and times
>so I can begin thinking about how to make them better?
Done a bit above. Read a good biochemistry book.
>I would rather live without uncontrolled atoms smashing through my DNA.
The area to concentrate on most, IMO is the mitochondria, where there are
very few repair mechanisms for DNA damage caused by erratic free radicals.
Our bodies can live with this only because we have multiple mitos in each
cell and because they can divide and multipy within the cell (except
sometimes damaged ones mulitply faster than the good ones and destroy the
cell).
>>>Causing excess free-radicals is self detructive, do not kill yourself.
>
>> A much too simplistic view.
>It was only one sentence among many.
>Don't make too much of it, ok?
>Notice I did say EXCESS.
Sorry, you're right.
>> >This could lower calorie intake and body temperature dramatically.
>
>> Maybe. But it is also going to kill you quite quickly for other reasons.
>Some have suggested( maybe on this list) that the low temp
>may lead to life extension.
No question of it IMO. I am very pleased that my morning body temp is only
95.7'F and it only rises to 97.2'F during the day. (and I am *not* hypothyroid)
>This could become a seperate thread: Low Body Temp.- Good/Bad?
I think its definitely good, but CR, melatonin, (and genes) are the only
harmless ways to lower it that I know of.
>> >Tell me if anyone knows how this view could be bad,
>
>> For the reasons stated above (and many others),
>Please don't hold out on me.:-)
>When my thoughts are wrong I what all of them changed.
>Don't leave my plans in a void.
As we go along and as my time permits.
>>its very bad
>> excluding the negatives below (and many others).
>
>> >excluding the arguments of
>> >1) Willpower requirements.
>>>2) Missed opportunities due to confinment to reclining wheelchair and IV.
>
>>How were you intending to do the basic exercise functions (walking, and
>> breathing 'fully') you listed if you are confined to a wheelchair.
>Geez, I won't chain myself too it or anything.:-)
>I'll get up when I have too.
>Intense breathing exercises can build heart and diaphram muscles.
Doesn't do much for the heart I don't believe.
>Let's not forget isometric exercises, working muscles against each other
>like the bicept/tricept "show me your muscle" pose.
I don't think isometrices will fulfill the function of either aerobics
(heart, lung, arteries, veins, immune system, happy endorphins, etc( or
weight work (prevent osteoporosis).
>Sorry, I don't often give references for my beliefs,
>I'm too busy preparing for the possiblities.
But you *do* need to take time to read and understand the science
behind those possibilties!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:04 MST