Exercise and a Healthy Diet ....

[GysdeJongh]

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>

Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life Expectancy
in Women in Their 70s

ScienceDaily (May 30, 2012) - Women in their seventies who exercise and eat
healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables have a longer life expectancy,
according to research published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics
Society.

Researchers found that the women who were most physically active and had the
highest fruit and vegetable consumption were eight times more likely to
survive the five-year follow-up period than the women with the lowest rates.

wtf
EIGHT TIMES

[hemyd]

"GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote in message
news:4fc69d6f$0$27811$[email protected]. .
>
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>
> Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life
> Expectancy in Women in Their 70s
>
> ScienceDaily (May 30, 2012) - Women in their seventies who exercise and
> eat healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables have a longer life
> expectancy, according to research published in the Journal of the American
> Geriatrics Society.
>
> Researchers found that the women who were most physically active and had
> the highest fruit and vegetable consumption were eight times more likely
> to survive the five-year follow-up period than the women with the lowest
> rates.
>
> wtf
> EIGHT TIMES
Not speaking as a woman, I have always believed in the power of exercise.
Also, I get my carbs almost entirely from fruit and vegetables.

Henry.

[GysdeJongh]

hemyd wrote:
> "GysdeJongh" <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote in message
> news:4fc69d6f$0$27811$[email protected]. .
>>
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>>
>> Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life
>> Expectancy in Women in Their 70s
>>
>> ScienceDaily (May 30, 2012) - Women in their seventies who exercise
>> and eat healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables have a longer life
>> expectancy, according to research published in the Journal of the
>> American Geriatrics Society.
>>
>> Researchers found that the women who were most physically active and
>> had the highest fruit and vegetable consumption were eight times
>> more likely to survive the five-year follow-up period than the women
>> with the lowest rates.
>>
>> wtf
>> EIGHT TIMES

> Not speaking as a woman, I have always believed in the power of
> exercise. Also, I get my carbs almost entirely from fruit and
> vegetables.

Hi Henry,
I suddenly noticed that I not only get all my carbs from fruit and
vegetables (and legumes and nuts) but the rest too. It sort of slowly crept
up to me. Meat became just less and less and I slowly changed from
"flexitarian" to "vegetarian"

Gys

[Chris Malcolm]

GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:

> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>

> Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life Expectancy
> in Women in Their 70s

> ScienceDaily (May 30, 2012) - Women in their seventies who exercise and eat
> healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables have a longer life expectancy,
> according to research published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics
> Society.

> Researchers found that the women who were most physically active and had the
> highest fruit and vegetable consumption were eight times more likely to
> survive the five-year follow-up period than the women with the lowest rates.

> wtf
> EIGHT TIMES

I do believe in the virtues of exercise and getting one's carbs from
sources which include more micronutrients etc. than bread and french
fries. But I wonder about the logic of this study. I know some people
in their 70s who take little exercise because they CAN'T take much
exercise because of medical problems. In other words they're not very
well. Not surprising they don't last as long as people in their 70s
who are still fit and healthy enough to be climbing hills for fun. In
other words for many in their 70s the causation is the other way round
-- people who are not very well die sooner than healthy people, and
can't take as much exercise because they're not very well.

But would these not very well people in their 70s have been healhier
if they'd been taking more exercise in their 50s and 60s? Quite
likely. But there will be some like my friend who recently died -- he
took lots of exercise all his life, an active hill walker, gardener,
sailor. But in his 70s he got ill and became unable to take much
exercise.

--
Chris Malcolm

[GysdeJongh]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>
>> Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life
>> Expectancy in Women in Their 70s

> I do believe in the virtues of exercise and getting one's carbs from
> sources which include more micronutrients etc. than bread and french
> fries. But I wonder about the logic of this study. I know some people
> in their 70s who take little exercise because they CAN'T take much
> exercise because of medical problems. In other words they're not very
> well. Not surprising they don't last as long as people in their 70s
> who are still fit and healthy enough to be climbing hills for fun. In
> other words for many in their 70s the causation is the other way round
> -- people who are not very well die sooner than healthy people, and
> can't take as much exercise because they're not very well.
>
> But would these not very well people in their 70s have been healhier
> if they'd been taking more exercise in their 50s and 60s? Quite
> likely. But there will be some like my friend who recently died -- he
> took lots of exercise all his life, an active hill walker, gardener,
> sailor. But in his 70s he got ill and became unable to take much
> exercise.

Hi Chris,
sorry for your friend. As me and one of my best friends tell each other at
the increasing number of funerals we attend together : "We know more and
more dead people"

Otoh he is 10 years older, 20kg heavier, thinks broccoli is rabbit food , a
bike for really poor people and smokes 2 packs/day. He is in such good shape
that his Gp let him donate blood. He will probably tell your story about his
friend on my funeral.

Nice to see you back after long time no see I hope all is well with you.



I agree from this study you (Chris) cannot decide what is cause and what is
effect. For me the problem is much less pressing as I don't believe in the
concepts "True" and "Cause"

Do you have a religion ? Were you baptised ? My mother and her mother
decided that they would have me baptised by (for, in to ??) some utterly
small and strickt protestant group.

My father made me an official member of the Dutch Communistic Party and
thus, as a registered atheist, I could not be babtised.

Later my father told me that my grandmother would not speak to him for a
week. "This was the most quiet and peaceful week of my whole marriage" he
said.

For me the events : 1) exercise, 2) fruit, 3) vegetables and 4) health forme
a cluster that tend to happen together. Not always and not for everybody.

As the article says, part of this cluster belongs to the group : "Modifyable
Risk factors" Which just means (of course) that I *Could* change these
factors if I want to and look for myself if the "Un-Modifyable factor"
change in the direction I like.

If yes : enjoy, if no : bad luck. I have no education in religion.
Exercise/Fruit/Heath does not need to be "True" for me to try it and or use
it.

For me science is not about finding the "Truth" or following the right
"Paradigma" like it is for you, I guess.

For me science is nothing more than a fomalisation of the survival strategy
of a social living animal :

Do what most people/the leader does and learn from each other. Chimps do it
as they copy the fishing of termites with a grass straw from each other.
Otters do it as the baby Otter copies his mother by using a stone on his
belly to hammer a juicy watter molusc out of his protective shell etc.

Science, for me, only formalises this survival startegy with rules for
deciding what and how to copy what. Our Big Brain has invented statistics,
randomized control trials to vastly improve on this simple survival strategy

Copy each other and survive together.

Science did not discover the "Truth" but it did give us sliced bread and the
plastic rain coat so we can better manipulate the physical reality around us
:

Adapt or Die

Gys

[Chris Malcolm]

GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>>
>>> Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life
>>> Expectancy in Women in Their 70s

>> I do believe in the virtues of exercise and getting one's carbs from
>> sources which include more micronutrients etc. than bread and french
>> fries. But I wonder about the logic of this study. I know some people
>> in their 70s who take little exercise because they CAN'T take much
>> exercise because of medical problems. In other words they're not very
>> well. Not surprising they don't last as long as people in their 70s
>> who are still fit and healthy enough to be climbing hills for fun. In
>> other words for many in their 70s the causation is the other way round
>> -- people who are not very well die sooner than healthy people, and
>> can't take as much exercise because they're not very well.
>>
>> But would these not very well people in their 70s have been healhier
>> if they'd been taking more exercise in their 50s and 60s? Quite
>> likely. But there will be some like my friend who recently died -- he
>> took lots of exercise all his life, an active hill walker, gardener,
>> sailor. But in his 70s he got ill and became unable to take much
>> exercise.

> Hi Chris,
> sorry for your friend. As me and one of my best friends tell each other at
> the increasing number of funerals we attend together : "We know more and
> more dead people"

> Otoh he is 10 years older, 20kg heavier, thinks broccoli is rabbit food , a
> bike for really poor people and smokes 2 packs/day. He is in such good shape
> that his Gp let him donate blood. He will probably tell your story about his
> friend on my funeral.

> Nice to see you back after long time no see I hope all is well with you.

I'm fine. It's the summer, so I'm spending a lot more time outside and
a lot less time in front of the computer :-)

> I agree from this study you (Chris) cannot decide what is cause and what is
> effect. For me the problem is much less pressing as I don't believe in the
> concepts "True" and "Cause"

I hope this doesn't give you too many conceptual problems :-)

> Do you have a religion ?

I adhere to the beliefs of no organised religion.

> Were you baptised ?

Yes.

> My mother and her mother
> decided that they would have me baptised by (for, in to ??) some utterly
> small and strickt protestant group.

Since my mother and father were of different flavours of Christianity
they decided that I and my sister should alternate between the two
churches. From their point of view that might have been a bad idea,
since I started asking lots of questions about the differences. It
didn't take me long to discover that none of the differences were
based on evidence. It was also the case that in the streets where I
grew up the most serious danger of physical injury came from
trespassing alone into the streets "owned" by a different flavour of
Christianity.

> For me the events : 1) exercise, 2) fruit, 3) vegetables and 4) health forme
> a cluster that tend to happen together. Not always and not for everybody.

> As the article says, part of this cluster belongs to the group : "Modifyable
> Risk factors" Which just means (of course) that I *Could* change these
> factors if I want to and look for myself if the "Un-Modifyable factor"
> change in the direction I like.

That sounds like a way of doing causal reasoning without using the
concept of cause. I agree with you that the usual concept of "the
cause" is absurdly over-simplified. For a start cause is always
relative to purposes and intervention possibilities, and loses useful
meaning outside that context.

> For me science is not about finding the "Truth" or following the right
> "Paradigma" like it is for you, I guess.

I long ago gave up believing in idea of "The Truth" just as I long ago
gave up the idea of "The Cause". For example I think the question
"what causes type 2 diabetes" is meaningless outside a specific
context of purpose and interventions possbilities.

With respect to the concept of "paradigm" in science as popularised by
the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn working within a specific
paradigm is according to Kihn only one of the phases of science. I
agree with that, and have long argued here that one of the current
awkward problems in diabetes research is that it is closely associated
with human nutritional research which is currently NOT in the paradigm
following "normal science" phase. Since almost all scientists are
trained in the methodology of paradigm-following science this gives
rise to s lot of research confusion and contradiction.

> For me science is nothing more than a fomalisation of the survival strategy
> of a social living animal :

I agree, but I wonder why you say "nothing more" as though it wasn't
much more. That's like saying human language is "nothing more" than a
formalisation of animal cries.

--
Chris Malcolm

[None Given]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:45:01 AM UTC-7, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>
> > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>
> > Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life Expectancy
> > in Women in Their 70s
>
> > ScienceDaily (May 30, 2012) - Women in their seventies who exercise and eat
> > healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables have a longer life expectancy,
> > according to research published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics
> > Society.
>
> > Researchers found that the women who were most physically active and had the
> > highest fruit and vegetable consumption were eight times more likely to
> > survive the five-year follow-up period than the women with the lowest rates.
>
> > wtf
> > EIGHT TIMES
>
> I do believe in the virtues of exercise and getting one's carbs from
> sources which include more micronutrients etc. than bread and french
> fries. But I wonder about the logic of this study. I know some people
> in their 70s who take little exercise because they CAN'T take much
> exercise because of medical problems. In other words they're not very
> well. Not surprising they don't last as long as people in their 70s
> who are still fit and healthy enough to be climbing hills for fun. In
> other words for many in their 70s the causation is the other way round
> -- people who are not very well die sooner than healthy people, and
> can't take as much exercise because they're not very well.
>
> But would these not very well people in their 70s have been healhier
> if they'd been taking more exercise in their 50s and 60s? Quite
> likely. But there will be some like my friend who recently died -- he
> took lots of exercise all his life, an active hill walker, gardener,
> sailor. But in his 70s he got ill and became unable to take much
> exercise.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm



On Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:45:01 AM UTC-7, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>
> > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>
> > Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life Expectancy
> > in Women in Their 70s
>
> > ScienceDaily (May 30, 2012) - Women in their seventies who exercise and eat
> > healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables have a longer life expectancy,
> > according to research published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics
> > Society.
>
> > Researchers found that the women who were most physically active and had the
> > highest fruit and vegetable consumption were eight times more likely to
> > survive the five-year follow-up period than the women with the lowest rates.
>
> > wtf
> > EIGHT TIMES
>
> I do believe in the virtues of exercise and getting one's carbs from
> sources which include more micronutrients etc. than bread and french
> fries. But I wonder about the logic of this study. I know some people
> in their 70s who take little exercise because they CAN'T take much
> exercise because of medical problems. In other words they're not very
> well. Not surprising they don't last as long as people in their 70s
> who are still fit and healthy enough to be climbing hills for fun. In
> other words for many in their 70s the causation is the other way round
> -- people who are not very well die sooner than healthy people, and
> can't take as much exercise because they're not very well.
>
> But would these not very well people in their 70s have been healhier
> if they'd been taking more exercise in their 50s and 60s? Quite
> likely. But there will be some like my friend who recently died -- he
> took lots of exercise all his life, an active hill walker, gardener,
> sailor. But in his 70s he got ill and became unable to take much
> exercise.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

The idea is to square the mortality curve. Sometimes keeping moving
and fit, rides on the thin reed of such things as fish oil and dimethyl
sulfone (MSM).

Trig

[GysdeJongh]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> GysdeJongh <JonghSevenHundredElevenAtPlanet.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100512.htm>
>>>
>>>> Exercise and a Healthy Diet of Fruits and Vegetables Extends Life
>>>> Expectancy in Women in Their 70s
>
>>> I do believe in the virtues of exercise and getting one's carbs from
>>> sources which include more micronutrients etc. than bread and french
>>> fries. But I wonder about the logic of this study. I know some
>>> people in their 70s who take little exercise because they CAN'T
>>> take much exercise because of medical problems. In other words
>>> they're not very well. Not surprising they don't last as long as
>>> people in their 70s who are still fit and healthy enough to be
>>> climbing hills for fun. In other words for many in their 70s the
>>> causation is the other way round -- people who are not very well
>>> die sooner than healthy people, and can't take as much exercise
>>> because they're not very well.
>>>
>>> But would these not very well people in their 70s have been healhier
>>> if they'd been taking more exercise in their 50s and 60s? Quite
>>> likely. But there will be some like my friend who recently died --
>>> he took lots of exercise all his life, an active hill walker,
>>> gardener, sailor. But in his 70s he got ill and became unable to
>>> take much exercise.
>
>> Hi Chris,
>> sorry for your friend. As me and one of my best friends tell each
>> other at the increasing number of funerals we attend together : "We
>> know more and more dead people"
>
>> Otoh he is 10 years older, 20kg heavier, thinks broccoli is rabbit
>> food , a bike for really poor people and smokes 2 packs/day. He is in
>> such good shape that his Gp let him donate blood. He will probably
>> tell your story about his friend on my funeral.
>
>> Nice to see you back after long time no see I hope all is well
>> with you.
>
> I'm fine. It's the summer, so I'm spending a lot more time outside and
> a lot less time in front of the computer :-)


Good, about the same for me.
I got my new Gps working. I made a power supply from scratch and a constant
current source to recharge it. So now I have a Garmin Nuvi with the latest
Opensource cycle map for Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemberg on my bike.
17 hours up-time I'm now tracing old and abandonned railway lines.
Making photo's of the remainings. Interesting and physical demanding hobby.


>> I agree from this study you (Chris) cannot decide what is cause and
>> what is effect. For me the problem is much less pressing as I don't
>> believe in the concepts "True" and "Cause"
>
> I hope this doesn't give you too many conceptual problems :-)
>
>> Do you have a religion ?
>
> I adhere to the beliefs of no organised religion.
>
>> Were you baptised ?
>
> Yes.
>
>> My mother and her mother
>> decided that they would have me baptised by (for, in to ??) some
>> utterly small and strickt protestant group.
>
> Since my mother and father were of different flavours of Christianity
> they decided that I and my sister should alternate between the two
> churches. From their point of view that might have been a bad idea,
> since I started asking lots of questions about the differences. It
> didn't take me long to discover that none of the differences were
> based on evidence. It was also the case that in the streets where I
> grew up the most serious danger of physical injury came from
> trespassing alone into the streets "owned" by a different flavour of
> Christianity.


Amazing what parents can do for the better survival of their kids I
have one friend who was baptised in a Catholic Church but his mother was a
Jew, so he was a Jew by Jewish law and also circumcised. Just to be sure and
give him the best chances in life , I guess


>> For me the events : 1) exercise, 2) fruit, 3) vegetables and 4)
>> health forme a cluster that tend to happen together. Not always and
>> not for everybody.
>
>> As the article says, part of this cluster belongs to the group :
>> "Modifyable Risk factors" Which just means (of course) that I
>> *Could* change these factors if I want to and look for myself if
>> the "Un-Modifyable factor" change in the direction I like.
>
> That sounds like a way of doing causal reasoning without using the
> concept of cause. I agree with you that the usual concept of "the
> cause" is absurdly over-simplified. For a start cause is always
> relative to purposes and intervention possibilities, and loses useful
> meaning outside that context.


Actually I mean that I have great respect for the scientific method. I'm not
in favor of causal reasoning. I'm a fan of strickt adhering to the consensus
of rules about what and how to measure things and how to repeat them.

I do not believe that those set of rules or science itself will inevitably
lead to a closer approximation of "The Truth".

I just don't believe that there is a "Truth" . I just don't believe that
science will ever discover anything that is "True"

I do believe that if we keep following the scientific method we will
discover more and more efficient ways to manupulate the physical reality
around us. Which might give us a higher chance of survival.

The chimps seem to have their own scientific rules for that : only repeat
the alpha male. Which is why it takes a day to copy the fishing of termites
with a straw if the alpha male shows how that is done, but it took about a
year to wash the sand a way in a handful of grains in the river because that
was shown by a insignificant female member of the group.



>> For me science is not about finding the "Truth" or following the
>> right "Paradigma" like it is for you, I guess.
>
> I long ago gave up believing in idea of "The Truth" just as I long ago
> gave up the idea of "The Cause". For example I think the question
> "what causes type 2 diabetes" is meaningless outside a specific
> context of purpose and interventions possbilities.
>
> With respect to the concept of "paradigm" in science as popularised by
> the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn working within a specific
> paradigm is according to Kihn only one of the phases of science. I
> agree with that, and have long argued here that one of the current
> awkward problems in diabetes research is that it is closely associated
> with human nutritional research which is currently NOT in the paradigm
> following "normal science" phase. Since almost all scientists are
> trained in the methodology of paradigm-following science this gives
> rise to s lot of research confusion and contradiction.
>
>> For me science is nothing more than a fomalisation of the survival
>> strategy of a social living animal :
>
> I agree, but I wonder why you say "nothing more" as though it wasn't
> much more. That's like saying human language is "nothing more" than a
> formalisation of animal cries.


I tend to agree. For me human language is a communication channel, a bit
more sophisticated than the "animal crie" but not fundamentally different
Imo

Gys