Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

French Paradox 2.0

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by OnTheBayou View Post
    I completely disagree. In fact, the evidence for "environmental factors" is almost nil, short of toxic water and air. Based on reading your many posts, I'm presuming that you are mostly thinking of diet and the like.

    Even in the absence of any and all environmental negatives - as if we could attain that, but bear with me - our "use by" date is genetically determined. There are people who live generally healthy life styles and never make it to 70. There are people who have lived long lives while eating pretty much SAD and not doing exercise. That would describe most of my deceased relatives. Expiration dates of 90's and 100's. That's over a wide range of geographies, professions, and time frames.

    What is considered nutritious food keeps changing. And to be able to correlate diet with longer or shorter life is really, really tough. I look on eating what appears to be nutritious foods nothing more than stacking the deck a bit in my favor. But in the end, literally, it won't make a huge difference in how long or how well I live. Operative adjective, huge.
    I also believe my individual life span is genetically programmed. However, I want to feel well and enjoy whatever time I have. Eating well and staying fit helps me enjoy life. At 67+, I am definitely losing mental and physical capabilities but I can still do more than many men half my age.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
      I also believe my individual life span is genetically programmed. However, I want to feel well and enjoy whatever time I have. Eating well and staying fit helps me enjoy life. At 67+, I am definitely losing mental and physical capabilities but I can still do more than many men half my age.
      No disagreement with that!

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Paysan View Post
        Genes are not destiny. Environmental factors seem to have equal footing.
        Since we are weighing in I totally agree with this. Simply being optimistic rather than pessimistic seems to extend life by more than seven years. Laughing up regulates genes and improves blood glucose control in type 2 diabetics. Genes are not your destiny. Environmental cues dictate genes status. Each plays its role.

        What is "considered" nutritious food has never changed the facts of what ARE nutritious foods.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Paysan View Post
          Genes are not destiny. Environmental factors seem to have equal footing.
          +1

          Those who think otherwise need to research "gene expression" to learn that most genes that regulate our hormones and enzymes are totally responsive to environmental factors, including diet and external factors. Otherwise, many pharmaceuticals would be totally ineffective as "gene expresdion" is what many of them target.
          Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
          Old Paths ... New Journeys

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
            Simply being optimistic rather than pessimistic seems to extend life by more than seven years.
            Maybe they are genetically optimistic because they have better genes?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
              Maybe they are genetically optimistic because they have better genes?
              Ha ha ha.......... OTOH, I've known plenty of ancient, bitter people.

              My brother and I have often discussed a cousin of ours. She has told me that she has an innate sunny outlook on life. Maybe that's easier to do when you have a stable marriage (longest of any in our family generational cohort), and both of them with interesting, stable, and reasonably high income careers.

              But perhaps she truly is that optimist.

              I also find suspect the "seven years longer" finding. How in the hell do you measure something so subjective and internal and then correlate to lifespan? Maybe the optimists tended to have a more stable lifestyle than the pessimists. I know that my own attitudes changed hugely when years of instability, mostly not of my choosing or mistakes, turned to stable this spring.

              I have beautiful 4x5" Kodachromes taken 70 years ago. In several, I am this 6 month old smiling and laughing little chunky monkey. I think that's who I still am, but it took life circumstance changes to make me 6 months old again. I wonder what my lipid panels were like?

              Comment


              • #67
                The diet you feed to other organisms (animals, yeast, etc) affects their lifespan. I don't see why the same would not apply to humans.
                My opinions and some justification

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by OnTheBayou View Post
                  I also find suspect the "seven years longer" finding. How in the hell do you measure something so subjective and internal and then correlate to lifespan? Maybe the optimists tended to have a more stable lifestyle than the pessimists. I know that my own attitudes changed hugely when years of instability, mostly not of my choosing or mistakes, turned to stable this spring.
                  Admittedly it is not easy to measure, but this is the study if you are interested...

                  http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel...psp-832261.pdf

                  Optimism is a choice.

                  The one about laughing up regulating genes and improving bio markers is much more quantifiable.

                  http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/89228
                  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...24320509002082

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                    The diet you feed to other organisms (animals, yeast, etc) affects their lifespan. I don't see why the same would not apply to humans.
                    No question about it. My point is that you can't make a huge difference towards the positive, especially. Sure, an organism with genetics for a long life span (me), can reduce that with bad food and lifestyle choices. But an organism destined to die rather young, as defined within the species, probably can't gain a whole lot by great lifestyle and diet choices. Some, sure. And that's presuming those choices are made early on and they were the right ones.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Admittedly it is not easy to measure, but this is the study if you are interested...

                      http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel...psp-832261.pdf

                      Optimism is a choice.

                      The one about laughing up regulating genes and improving bio markers is much more quantifiable.

                      http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/89228
                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...24320509002082
                      While psychologists still plumb the human mind, I absolutely do not think optimism is a choice. We might be able to feel a bit more accepting of circumstances or even optimism by living in the present and with awareness, but it's SO obvious that every toddler already has his or her personality framework formed. Not much choosing at that point.

                      I have a one and a half year old grandson with one of the strongest personalities I've ever seen at such an age. He's always looking for that moment when he can get away with something. Whatever happens, it's never mean or with defiance, he's laughing as you stop him. Jus' checking those boundaries!

                      You can't choose your way out of depression.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by OnTheBayou View Post
                        While psychologists still plumb the human mind, I absolutely do not think optimism is a choice. We might be able to feel a bit more accepting of circumstances or even optimism by living in the present and with awareness, but it's SO obvious that every toddler already has his or her personality framework formed. Not much choosing at that point.

                        I have a one and a half year old grandson with one of the strongest personalities I've ever seen at such an age. He's always looking for that moment when he can get away with something. Whatever happens, it's never mean or with defiance, he's laughing as you stop him. Jus' checking those boundaries!

                        You can't choose your way out of depression.
                        I literally just gave a lecture on this subject today. It's a really interesting topic. I won't bore you with all of it, but there are a few points you may consider.
                        To change a conditioned response one must at least be aware of it. Conditioned responses are not genetic, but they are subconscious. We access them by becoming aware and conciously recognizing its existence. Only then can you take the steps to alter it. Pessimism and optimism are conditioning.
                        Meditation, introspection, and visualization can help you retrain this conditioning when applied properly. It's not immediate, but it is effective if you put in a little work each day.
                        It's interesting you choose depression as something you can't "choose" your way out of given that about 80%of people with mild to moderate depression respond just as well to placebo as they do some of the most prevelant prescription drugs. Placebo is just another example of us exerting choice and optimism to alter physiology for the better.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          My personal experience...

                          Optimism and major depression can coexist, which is by itself a very strange thing and at least in my case created some interesting head-spins.

                          Optimism has been my default for as long as I can remember. It has a few holes and blind spots in it but for the most part, it's unshakable. (I've shaken it probably as much as a person can while still being around to tell the tale and it's still there). I don't know where it comes from. I do know people can choose it to an extent but it seems to be a big struggle, and the defaults slip in.

                          I'm curious about the placebo studies for mild and moderate depression, mostly wondering how long the effects were monitored for. Is it a temporary boost, where the hope of relief cuts through the symptoms for a while and "holds it all together" while they wait for an effect that never comes, or does it last beyond the period psychiatrists tell their patients to wait before the medication starts to really get in and have an effect?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Roadrhythm View Post
                            My personal experience...

                            Optimism and major depression can coexist, which is by itself a very strange thing and at least in my case created some interesting head-spins.

                            Optimism has been my default for as long as I can remember. It has a few holes and blind spots in it but for the most part, it's unshakable. (I've shaken it probably as much as a person can while still being around to tell the tale and it's still there). I don't know where it comes from. I do know people can choose it to an extent but it seems to be a big struggle, and the defaults slip in.

                            I'm curious about the placebo studies for mild and moderate depression, mostly wondering how long the effects were monitored for. Is it a temporary boost, where the hope of relief cuts through the symptoms for a while and "holds it all together" while they wait for an effect that never comes, or does it last beyond the period psychiatrists tell their patients to wait before the medication starts to really get in and have an effect?
                            If it helps here is that metaanalysis...its relevant to the drugs fluoxetine, venlafaxine, nefazodone, and paroxetine which I think correlates to the brand names Prozac, Effexor, Serzone, and Paxil

                            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0050045

                            Editors note:

                            "These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression, but show significant effects only in the most severely depressed patients. The findings also show that the effect for these patients seems to be due to decreased responsiveness to placebo, rather than increased responsiveness to medication. Given these results, the researchers conclude that there is little reason to prescribe new-generation antidepressant medications to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have been ineffective. In addition, the finding that extremely depressed patients are less responsive to placebo than less severely depressed patients but have similar responses to antidepressants is a potentially important insight into how patients with depression respond to antidepressants and placebos that should be investigated further."

                            To me it depends on what lens you want to look at this through. I see it as validation of how our outlook, beliefs, and expectations can influence our health rather than stating outright that it means these drugs don't hold value.
                            Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-29-2016, 01:58 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X