• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Six Items Rated for Health, Beauty, and Longevity


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 20 June 2008 - 09:29 PM


Wow! What an unearthing. Delighted to have found this.
This is an excerpt from my hyper-extreme dietary guidelines circa 1996-1998:


I will start by rating six elements often mentioned where health and beauty are concerned. The ratings will give you a general idea of the diet's basic principles:


SIX ITEMS RATED:
1. Fresh air
2. Sunshine
3. Diet
4. Sleep
5. Exercise
6. Water


1. Fresh air: OVERRATED: in fact, the pursuit of fresh air usually leads one outdoors into the sun's skin-withering brilliance. At night, a stroll through the park is refreshing and invigorating, but not necessary.
A good substitute for fresh air: if you feel that the room you are in is a bit stale or stifling, then gulp on some cool water.

2. Sunshine: This is actually on some doctor's healthy essentials lists. There is no need for a ray of sunshine in your entire life. Thank modern science's discovery of Vitamin D for that- vegetarians, especially, must be thankful, for they would have had a tough time as sun-shirkers prior to the development of vitamin D fortified soymilk and vitamin D supplements.

3. Diet: Can never be too highly rated. It is absolutely essential to have a perfect diet in order to achieve indefinite youth, beauty and slenderness

4. Sleep: OVERRATED as long as you get 6-7 hours per night. More than 9 hours per night actually accelerates aging.

[More on Sleep: Try to sleep between 6 and 9 hours per night- no more, no less; in addition,try to lounge around for an additional 1-3 hours. Too much sleep has been shown to increase body temperature, which means a faster metabolism and thus, more rapid aging- BUT, lounging around is PERFECT- it rests and heals you and it will not speed up your metabolism
Contrary to almost everything you hear these days, speeding up your metabolism from its natural rate is NOT a good thing. IF YOU WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT, YOU HAVE TO EAT LESS. EXERCISE, AS NOTED BELOW, IS NOT THE ANSWER]

5. Exercise: HIGHLY OVERRATED: in fact, exercise speeds up aging and wears out your body if your daily exercise amounts to more than a refreshing daily walk.
MUCH MORE ON WHY WE SHOULD NOT EXERCISE LATER

6. Water: Can never be too highly rated. It is very important to have between 32 and 64 ounces of water per day. 48 is the target you should aim for. KEY: More than 64 ounces of water per day overtaxes your system; less than 32 ounces prevents your beauty from reaching its highest expression.

KEY PRINCIPLE: It is important to strike that balance between getting enough of all that you need to maximize your youth and beauty and not getting any more than that, because, if you get any more than you need, you tax your system unnecessarily.



Although I have moderated and evolved on the details listed above, and additionally find the diction and euphemisms awfully distasteful, many of the core elements I still wear proudly on my bosom. The list is qualitative and heavily geared toward obtaining pale, youthful skin and slenderness, which is often, though not always, inveterately convolved with life extension.

A few additional findings:

THE SWOLLEN BELLY

Your belly should be swollen from a gluttonous stuffing once per day...no more and, as a result, your skin will flush for about an hour per day...no more. The rest of the time your skin should be still, immobile, pristine and eternal, and your belly should be empty. Your belly and bladder will have to become slightly large for the rest of your parts and features to turn smaller and more blissful.

A BENEFIT OF THE HYPER-FAT AND WATER DIET

Huge oil globs and water gulps may 'drown' harmful organisms and fungi

When most of your calories come from fat, much of the fat is not digested, instead it can be used as an emollient and a skin softener by your body. This is similar to eating petroleum jelly daily, but tastes alot better.



#2 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 June 2008 - 12:39 AM

paulthekind/paulthenaturalist :p it's a great reminder that we shouldn't forget about the basic nuts and bolts that keep the machine running.

1. Fresh air
2. Sunshine


It's a sad states of affairs that the industrialisation of society has made the above 2 hard to get in fact you could also say that industrialisation has made diet, sleep, exercise and water hard to get. So much now that these basic six essentials have been commercialized like some sort of elixir.

Hence, in saying that, I'm so skeptical and am put off by the hippiesc recommendations you see in the "living now" type publications and mags you see at the health food stores. Health/spirituality/connecting with the self and all that shite has become such a commodity that people don't see the above 6 as essentials but rather see them as something they get at a day spa/health retreat and so on. I've been thinking about committing a day spa massacre actually. Just me and a few sawn-offs. I can see the mud masks being sprayed over the walls, the ambient music muffled by the pop, pop, pop, the essential oils spilling onto the floor.*

Whoops, I think I just hijacked the tone of this thread.


*paragraph 3 of the above post is meant for entertainment purposes only. The above does not, by any means, suggest intent to act out such fantasies.

Edited by zoolander, 21 June 2008 - 12:51 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for AGELESS LOOKS to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 21 June 2008 - 04:39 AM

5. Exercise: HIGHLY OVERRATED: in fact, exercise speeds up aging and wears out your body if your daily exercise amounts to more than a refreshing daily walk.
MUCH MORE ON WHY WE SHOULD NOT EXERCISE LATER



hm?

#4 Brafarality

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 21 June 2008 - 12:05 PM

paulthekind/paulthenaturalist :|o it's a great reminder that we shouldn't forget about the basic nuts and bolts that keep the machine running.

1. Fresh air
2. Sunshine


It's a sad states of affairs that the industrialisation of society has made the above 2 hard to get in fact you could also say that industrialisation has made diet, sleep, exercise and water hard to get. So much now that these basic six essentials have been commercialized like some sort of elixir.

Hence, in saying that, I'm so skeptical and am put off by the hippiesc recommendations you see in the "living now" type publications and mags you see at the health food stores. Health/spirituality/connecting with the self and all that shite has become such a commodity that people don't see the above 6 as essentials but rather see them as something they get at a day spa/health retreat and so on. I've been thinking about committing a day spa massacre actually. Just me and a few sawn-offs. I can see the mud masks being sprayed over the walls, the ambient music muffled by the pop, pop, pop, the essential oils spilling onto the floor.*

Whoops, I think I just hijacked the tone of this thread.


*paragraph 3 of the above post is meant for entertainment purposes only. The above does not, by any means, suggest intent to act out such fantasies.


LOL. They are like the Steve Jobs of the health community: infusing zen into unusual places.

Please do not be upset, but your imagery has evoked a response in me that is making me want to go to a spa! :p
Oils, mud masks, ambient music. Somehow, this contrasting with staccato popping sounds favorably highlights it.

I think you may have a marketing idea for an adventurous spa. :)

#5 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 21 June 2008 - 04:54 PM

5. Exercise: HIGHLY OVERRATED: in fact, exercise speeds up aging and wears out your body if your daily exercise amounts to more than a refreshing daily walk.
MUCH MORE ON WHY WE SHOULD NOT EXERCISE LATER



hm?

I concur, Ben.
Sounds like the OP opened a can of worms ;.)

(bring on the science regarding #4, #5)

#6 spacetime

  • Guest
  • 191 posts
  • 5

Posted 22 June 2008 - 04:24 AM

I highly disagree with #5 and there's evidence to the contrary. I know some believe the body will ultimately wear out as a function of use and like to cite Hayflick's limit. They liken it to a machine that can sustain a certain amount of cycles/actuations/etc before it wears out. But the body is capable of self repair and often times this repair increases the amount of subsequent trauma it can sustain. Sure there is a metabolic toll but will it diminish lifespan. If anything it seems like one would avoid any stress as it induces metabolic responses. But as we know inactivity induces atrophy so this is no solution either. But I digress as I should not speculate on the reasoning for this premise.


I also have issues with the THE SWOLLEN BELLY theory. Obviously the stomach will distend outwards so are other internal organs really being compressed and is there any reason to believe they will shrink as a result? Would it not be better to wear a girdle that would ensure compression of otehr organs? Is there even any evidence that smaller organs are beneficial or mroe blissful?

#7 Brafarality

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 23 June 2008 - 04:57 PM

hm?

I concur, Ben.
Sounds like the OP opened a can of worms ;.)

(bring on the science regarding #4, #5)


Though we qualitatively and subjectively determined #4 on sleep in 1998, a recent scientific study supports the conclusion almost to the letter, which is way cool:
How Much Sleep Do You Really Need?

also, Ode to Sleep on *impulse


In summary:
They say today-

Studies show that people who sleep between 6.5 hours and 7.5 hours a night, as they report, live the longest. And people who sleep 8 hours or more, or less than 6.5 hours, they don't live quite as long.

We wrote in 1998-

Sleep: OVERRATED as long as you get 6-7 hours per night. More than 9 hours per night actually accelerates aging.

There is a chance that this research will be overturned or contradicted very quickly, but, for now, we shall bask, being fully aware of the ephemeral nature of research conclusions! :p

As for #5, there are numerous studies indicating that the free radical damage caused by exercise might affect long term health and longevity, but few appear conclusive.

An interesting, but likely outdated, exposition: Antioxidants and Free Radicals

#8 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 23 June 2008 - 06:28 PM

As for studies on sleep, as many times it was already stressed out, the studies don't conclude on whether the high amount of sleep is a cause or a consequence of a higher chance of death/a more fragile health. Could be either way..

#9 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 23 June 2008 - 08:33 PM

Yep, now tell me which way does the correlation go and what is the particular cause of it? That kind of study is not really reliable (show me a controlled study on the other hand..)

Talking about fitness, you may want to check that particular sub-forum, the jack lalanne thread and others. I'd wager you are wrong, though it's just my common sense and what I've read on this board about fitness (and related studies) so far.

#10 Brafarality

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 June 2008 - 05:42 AM

As for studies on sleep, as many times it was already stressed out, the studies don't conclude on whether the high amount of sleep is a cause or a consequence of a higher chance of death/a more fragile health. Could be either way..


Very true.
It was an immediate consideration: correlation does not imply causation.

At this time, a cursory web search does not reveal much research that supports the '8+ hours/sleep nightly results in a shorter lifespan' possibility.
Qualitatively, though, sleep does seem regenerative and restorative, but, it is possible that the 'refreshed' and 'restored' feeling that comes from a long nights sleep has a high metabolic cost. My impression is that a person who is not exposed to excessive life and environmental stressors should probably sleep between the longevity-correlated 6.5 and 7.5 hours a night. Whereas, a someone who is ill, exercises excessively, or who is exposed to stressors and/or toxins should sleep longer. The benefits of sleep are very well documented.

#11 tintinet

  • Guest
  • 1,972 posts
  • 503
  • Location:ME

Posted 28 June 2008 - 02:28 PM

As for studies on sleep, as many times it was already stressed out, the studies don't conclude on whether the high amount of sleep is a cause or a consequence of a higher chance of death/a more fragile health. Could be either way..


Very true.
It was an immediate consideration: correlation does not imply causation.

At this time, a cursory web search does not reveal much research that supports the '8+ hours/sleep nightly results in a shorter lifespan' possibility.
Qualitatively, though, sleep does seem regenerative and restorative, but, it is possible that the 'refreshed' and 'restored' feeling that comes from a long nights sleep has a high metabolic cost. My impression is that a person who is not exposed to excessive life and environmental stressors should probably sleep between the longevity-correlated 6.5 and 7.5 hours a night. Whereas, a someone who is ill, exercises excessively, or who is exposed to stressors and/or toxins should sleep longer. The benefits of sleep are very well documented.


What search engine are you using? Ever heard of Google?

#12 Brafarality

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 29 June 2008 - 04:22 AM

As for studies on sleep, as many times it was already stressed out, the studies don't conclude on whether the high amount of sleep is a cause or a consequence of a higher chance of death/a more fragile health. Could be either way..


Very true.
It was an immediate consideration: correlation does not imply causation.

At this time, a cursory web search does not reveal much research that supports the '8+ hours/sleep nightly results in a shorter lifespan' possibility.
Qualitatively, though, sleep does seem regenerative and restorative, but, it is possible that the 'refreshed' and 'restored' feeling that comes from a long nights sleep has a high metabolic cost. My impression is that a person who is not exposed to excessive life and environmental stressors should probably sleep between the longevity-correlated 6.5 and 7.5 hours a night. Whereas, a someone who is ill, exercises excessively, or who is exposed to stressors and/or toxins should sleep longer. The benefits of sleep are very well documented.


What search engine are you using? Ever heard of Google?



Google? That's a silly name for a search engine. I think I will give it a whirl. ;)
Kidding, of course. 2002...not bad. I will search more thoroughly next time. When I said 'cursory', I meant 'Cursory'!

Thanks for link.

#13 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 29 June 2008 - 10:31 AM

The entire 60Minutes last week was about sleep and its importance!

#14 tintinet

  • Guest
  • 1,972 posts
  • 503
  • Location:ME

Posted 30 June 2008 - 03:14 PM

As for studies on sleep, as many times it was already stressed out, the studies don't conclude on whether the high amount of sleep is a cause or a consequence of a higher chance of death/a more fragile health. Could be either way..


Very true.
It was an immediate consideration: correlation does not imply causation.

At this time, a cursory web search does not reveal much research that supports the '8+ hours/sleep nightly results in a shorter lifespan' possibility.
Qualitatively, though, sleep does seem regenerative and restorative, but, it is possible that the 'refreshed' and 'restored' feeling that comes from a long nights sleep has a high metabolic cost. My impression is that a person who is not exposed to excessive life and environmental stressors should probably sleep between the longevity-correlated 6.5 and 7.5 hours a night. Whereas, a someone who is ill, exercises excessively, or who is exposed to stressors and/or toxins should sleep longer. The benefits of sleep are very well documented.


What search engine are you using? Ever heard of Google?



Google? That's a silly name for a search engine. I think I will give it a whirl. ;)
Kidding, of course. 2002...not bad. I will search more thoroughly next time. When I said 'cursory', I meant 'Cursory'!

Thanks for link.


Ya. I merely cut from your post ("8+ hours/sleep nightly results in a shorter lifespan") and pasted it into Google. The link is to the very first result of the search. Pretty cursory also.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users