Hydroxycut / Fat burner???

Got a question i would like your input on...

Me: Male, 5' 9", 147, Age 33, white,Bodyfat: 10-12%

Workout:
Mon: Arms, Chest, Stomach, Back
Tues: Legs, Carido
Weds: Arms, Chest, Stomach, Back
Thurs:Legs, Carido
Fri: Rest
Sat: Whatever isn't still sore.
Sun: Rest

I am trying to find out if I should start taking Hydroxycut or some
other fat-burner along with my current supplements. Currently, I am
taking the MuscleTech® Musclebuilding Stack
http://www.muscletech.com/PRODUCTS/M...CK/index.shtml and
it is working good muscle wise... I have lean muscle mass, but seems
like this fat layer is hiding too much of it...

What you think? Should I take a fat-burner or will diet & cardio
eventually shed it?

oh... also taking the following to clean out my system, boost immunity,
anti-oxidants, etc..

GNC Mega Men Vitamin daily
Acai Splash liquid daily
Hot Tea at night...either:
-Traditional Medicinals Echinacea Plus (Immune System)
-Traditional Medicinals EveryDay Detox.

Actually I have dropped about 3 lbs in the last week, that tea really
cleans you out... if you know what I mean...lol

"roehrigs01" <shawn.roehrig@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163268836.591543.46470@h54g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Got a question i would like your input on...

Me: Male, 5' 9", 147, Age 33, white,Bodyfat: 10-12%

Workout:
Mon: Arms, Chest, Stomach, Back
Tues: Legs, Carido
Weds: Arms, Chest, Stomach, Back
Thurs:Legs, Carido
Fri: Rest
Sat: Whatever isn't still sore.
Sun: Rest

I am trying to find out if I should start taking Hydroxycut or some
other fat-burner along with my current supplements. Currently, I am
taking the MuscleTech® Musclebuilding Stack
http://www.muscletech.com/PRODUCTS/M...CK/index.shtml and
it is working good muscle wise... I have lean muscle mass, but seems
like this fat layer is hiding too much of it...

What you think? Should I take a fat-burner or will diet & cardio
eventually shed it?


At 5'9" 147# you should be concentrating on building some muscle to help you
burn more calories. Jesus---what do you want to cut down to, 135#? Eat
more.

In article <1163268836.591543.46470@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
"roehrigs01" <shawn.roehrig@gmail.com> wrote:

> Got a question i would like your input on...
>
> Me: Male, 5' 9", 147, Age 33, white,Bodyfat: 10-12%
>
> Workout:
> Mon: Arms, Chest, Stomach, Back
> Tues: Legs, Carido
> Weds: Arms, Chest, Stomach, Back
> Thurs:Legs, Carido
> Fri: Rest
> Sat: Whatever isn't still sore.
> Sun: Rest
>
> I am trying to find out if I should start taking Hydroxycut or some
> other fat-burner along with my current supplements.

You are 147lbs at 5'9" and you think you need a fat burner??!!

> Currently, I am
> taking the MuscleTech=AE Musclebuilding Stack
> http://www.muscletech.com/PRODUCTS/M...CK/index.shtml and
> it is working good muscle wise... I have lean muscle mass, but seems
> like this fat layer is hiding too much of it...
>
> What you think?

I think you need to add some muscle before a gust of wind blows you away.

Actually I was about #135 about 3 years ago.. I use to run alot a had a
runner's build...

Then I got up to about #150 a few months ago by help of the GF's
cooking and drinking good microbrews too much...lol

Now I am about 146-148 depending on the time of day...

The goal is to put on muscle mass and remove the layer of fat near my
stomach to look more toned to the plain eye... I don't really think I
need a fat burner due to I am not 'fat' per say, but don't think cardio
will be enough to get rid of fat layer I want to near my stomach...

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> schreef:

>> I am trying to find out if I should start taking Hydroxycut or some
>> other fat-burner along with my current supplements.

> You are 147lbs at 5'9" and you think you need a fat burner??!!

He also mentioned something about being male...

>> What you think?

You need to gain some LBM.

> I think you need to add some muscle before a gust of wind blows you away.

See?

----
Pete

On Nov 11, 1:39 pm, "roehrigs01" <shawn.roeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then I got up to about #150 a few months ago by help of the GF's
> cooking and drinking good microbrews too much...lol

Generally eating too much home cooking and drinking beer just puts on
bodyfat weight. Not what you want to do.
You will need to really scrutinize your daily nutrition so that you put
on very little bodyfat and more lean weight.
Eating small healthy balanced meals every 2-4 hours. Tracking calories
with a free program like FitDay might be an eye opener as far as what
you need to tweak to reach your goals. http://www.fitday.com
Try modestly increasing your calories - about 500 calories above what
you currently eat to maintain your weight while doing your current
amount of exercising. If you increase your exercise, you will need more
calories to support it and any muscle gains you want.

> The goal is to put on muscle mass and remove the layer of fat near my
> stomach to look more toned to the plain eye... I don't really think I
> need a fat burner due to I am not 'fat' per say, but don't think cardio
> will be enough to get rid of fat layer I want to near my stomach...

You cant spot reduce the ab fat. Bodyfat comes off from all over and
that may just be the last place to go.
Depends on how much cardio you are doing. Six days a week for at least
an hour? 3x a week?
What kind of weight training do you do?



joanne

thank you Joanne... will check out that fitday site!

Weight training is machines doing 4 sets
1) 80% weight for warmup
2) 100% weight
3) 110% weight to failure
4) 110% weight to failure immediately switching to 80% weight to
failure.

Cardio - Running 2 times a week ... 2-3 miles at 8 min miles depending
on spare time...
Diet now is low sodium, low fat, high carbs & protein, lots of veggies,
pasta, 2-3 beers a week max... plus my supplements... and 1 muscle
milk shake after workout, not on rest day...

joanne <jgrrl2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eating small healthy balanced meals every 2-4 hours.

With regard the meal frequency "healthy" and "often" are contradictory
when used in the same sentence. BTW I learned to do these on a
healthy once-a-day diet - http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/DZMuscleUp.wmv

DZ wrote:
> joanne wrote:

> > Eating small healthy balanced meals every 2-4 hours.
>
> With regard the meal frequency "healthy" and "often" are
> contradictory when used in the same sentence. BTW I
> learned to do these on a healthy once-a-day diet -
> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/DZMuscleUp.wmv

- Bad joke 1: "Who fitted you with your lower prosthetic limbs and just
how much DO they weigh?"

- Bad joke 2: "WAY TO MAKE THE REST OF US FEEL INADEQUATE, YOU
BASTARD!!!!"

- Serious comment: "That's very impressive."

- Query: "DZ, do you believe your protocol is applicable to all
individuals without exception?

I have a book somewhere around here that recommends eating less to live
longer. Something about the body having a specific amount of energy and
that's it. That once it's burned up, well, you're dead. The authors
wrote about mice on limited food intake living extended lives and
looking healthier, being more active than their little mouse colleagues
who were put on a diet with a higher food intake.

Hnh! Fwiw, I actually remember the author's name - Axt. Some words from
the Amazon page. Link below.

Every human being has a limited amount of life energy, they say, and
the speed with which it is consumed determines the lifespan. Citing the
scientifically recognized Metabolic Theory, the book explains how being
"lazy" - being calm, eating temperately, reducing or avoiding sports,
exercising moderately, and limiting ambition - can boost the immune
system and increase longevity. Included are energy-saving suggestions
about eating, working, and exercising; quizzes to determine stress
level, life energy, and physical well-being; and valuable tips, charts,
and advice on this controversial idea. From:

http://www.amazon.com/Joy-Laziness-B.../dp/0897934016

Hmm. Better stop that nasty exercise, though. I'd say that wmv showed
some activity that was much more than just "exercising moderately," and
just how ambitious are you, DZ? Doomed! Doomed, I say!

--
Curt

Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> joanne wrote:
>> > Eating small healthy balanced meals every 2-4 hours.
>>
>> With regard the meal frequency "healthy" and "often" are
>> contradictory when used in the same sentence. BTW I
>> learned to do these on a healthy once-a-day diet -
>> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/DZMuscleUp.wmv
>
> - Bad joke 1: "Who fitted you with your lower prosthetic limbs and just
> how much DO they weigh?"
> - Bad joke 2: "WAY TO MAKE THE REST OF US FEEL INADEQUATE, YOU
> BASTARD!!!!"
> - Serious comment: "That's very impressive."
> - Query: "DZ, do you believe your protocol is applicable to all
> individuals without exception?"

Muscleups? Sure. You can do just a few sets of these and get a fairly
decent upper body workout in about 20 min.

Actually, what I meant to say is that skipping meals is not only Ok
but good, and that breakfast is definitely not the most important meal
of the day. Once-a-day may be too extreme.

> I have a book somewhere around here that recommends eating less to live
> longer. Something about the body having a specific amount of energy and
> that's it. That once it's burned up, well, you're dead. The authors
> wrote about mice on limited food intake living extended lives and
> looking healthier, being more active than their little mouse colleagues
> who were put on a diet with a higher food intake.
>
> Hnh! Fwiw, I actually remember the author's name - Axt. Some words from
> the Amazon page. Link below.
>
> Every human being has a limited amount of life energy, they say, and
> the speed with which it is consumed determines the lifespan. Citing the
> scientifically recognized Metabolic Theory, the book explains how being
> "lazy" - being calm, eating temperately, reducing or avoiding sports,
> exercising moderately, and limiting ambition - can boost the immune
> system and increase longevity. Included are energy-saving suggestions
> about eating, working, and exercising; quizzes to determine stress
> level, life energy, and physical well-being; and valuable tips, charts,
> and advice on this controversial idea. From:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Joy-Laziness-B.../dp/0897934016

I know about the book but it's just another phlogiston theory. Did you
know that mice on calorie restriction consume MORE total calories
during the lifetime? (per body mass anyway). That's because of the two
reasons (1) they live longer; (2) the basal metabolic rate on CR does
NOT decrease -

From PMID: 15885745
Rat group Mean lifespan Lifetime calorie intake(*)
Ad-libitum 701 91.5
CR 986 133.5

(*) Mean lifetime k-cal intake per g of body mass

how does this relate to my situation?

DZ wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >> joanne wrote:
> >> > Eating small healthy balanced meals every 2-4 hours.
> >>
> >> With regard the meal frequency "healthy" and "often" are
> >> contradictory when used in the same sentence. BTW I
> >> learned to do these on a healthy once-a-day diet -
> >> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/DZMuscleUp.wmv

-=schnip the schtick (and the compliment, but, yep, truly impressive)=-


> > - Query: "DZ, do you believe your protocol is applicable to all
> > individuals without exception?"
>
> Muscleups?

No! The once-a-day diet approach.

[...]

> Actually, what I meant to say is that skipping meals is not only Ok
> but good, and that breakfast is definitely not the most important meal
> of the day.

*Actually*, that's what I was asking about. )

> Once-a-day may be too extreme.

Okay.

[...]

re http://www.amazon.com/Joy-Laziness-B.../dp/0897934016


> I know about the book but it's just another phlogiston

Bless you.

> theory. Did you know that mice on calorie restriction consume
> MORE total calories during the lifetime? (per body mass anyway).

Yeah, but "during the lifetime" are the key words there, right? I agree
it's more calories but spread out over a longer period of time. And
that longer period of time wouldn't be available unless the mice had
their daily calorie count reduced, right?

> That's because of the two reasons (1) they live longer;

Again, yeah. Their whole deal is that the mice will live longer due to
the many variables presented in the book. Reduced stress, a warmer
environment, lower ambition (just another way to say reduced stress),
calorie reduction, etc. What else?

> (2) the basal metabolic rate on CR does NOT decrea<snip>

Right. But the BMR isn't what the authors are talking about. They're
talking not about "at rest" but rather the dangers of the number of
calories your body burns while NOT at rest. From what I gathered,
they're about conserving the so-called life energy, not reducing
individual BMR.

Never mind. I need a nap.

--
Curt

roehrigs01 wrote:

> how does this relate to my situation?

There's the $64,000 question, rigs.

(Oh, you dirty attention grabber, you!)

Anyway, it's called thread drift. Or hi-jacking. Depends on your
perspective, I guess.

But re your situation, can you get your hands on the December 2006
issue of MuscleMag International? There's a good article by Ron Harris
<http://ronharrismuscle.com/> titled _Lose That Gut in 28 Days!_

Cardio
Week 1: a.m. 30 minutes, p.m. 30 minutes
Week 2: a.m. 40 minutes, p.m. 40 minutes
Week 3: a.m. 50 minutes, p.m. 50 minutes
Week 4: a.m. 60 minutes, p.m. 60 minutes

The cardio must be long enough in duration and with sufficient
intensity to melt the fat off.

He also recommends a "clean" diet, low in calories and carbs and offers
a specific list of foods to eat. Pick up the mag or ping me with your
snail mail or P.O. Box and I'll photocopy the pages and send the
article to you gratis.

Why? Because that's how we work it here in MFW! One big happy family,
yo. ;o)

--
Curt

Curt wrote:
> roehrigs01 wrote:
>
>> how does this relate to my situation?
>
> There's the $64,000 question, rigs.
>
> (Oh, you dirty attention grabber, you!)
>
> Anyway, it's called thread drift. Or hi-jacking. Depends on your
> perspective, I guess.
>
> But re your situation, can you get your hands on the December 2006
> issue of MuscleMag International? There's a good article by Ron Harris
> <http://ronharrismuscle.com/> titled _Lose That Gut in 28 Days!_
>
> Cardio
> Week 1: a.m. 30 minutes, p.m. 30 minutes
> Week 2: a.m. 40 minutes, p.m. 40 minutes
> Week 3: a.m. 50 minutes, p.m. 50 minutes
> Week 4: a.m. 60 minutes, p.m. 60 minutes
>
> The cardio must be long enough in duration and with sufficient
> intensity to melt the fat off.

You can melt fat off with cardio -- cool! How intense does it need to be?
Quite intense, or very intense, or maybe really, really, really intense?

>
> He also recommends a "clean" diet, low in calories and carbs and
> offers a specific list of foods to eat. Pick up the mag or ping me
> with your snail mail or P.O. Box and I'll photocopy the pages and
> send the article to you gratis.
>
> Why? Because that's how we work it here in MFW! One big happy family,
> yo. ;o)



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

In article <1163281142.115034.64710@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
"roehrigs01" <shawn.roehrig@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually I was about #135 about 3 years ago.. I use to run alot a had a
> runner's build...
>
> Then I got up to about #150 a few months ago by help of the GF's
> cooking and drinking good microbrews too much...lol
>
> Now I am about 146-148 depending on the time of day...
>
> The goal is to put on muscle mass and remove the layer of fat near my
> stomach to look more toned to the plain eye... I don't really think I
> need a fat burner due to I am not 'fat' per say, but don't think cardio
> will be enough to get rid of fat layer I want to near my stomach...

Gain some muscle first, keep bodyfat about where it is, then focus on
losing some fat. Unless you are a total beginner and or willing to use
drugs, doing both at the same time tends to limit both, so you get sub par
muscle growth and sub par fat loss. The math here is simple: you are not
fat, but you are skinny: time for some heavy ass iron and plenty O
calories.

Bully wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > roehrigs01 wrote:
> >
> >> how does this relate to my situation?
[...]
> > But re your situation, can you get your hands on the December 2006
> > issue of MuscleMag International? There's a good article by Ron Harris
> > <http://ronharrismuscle.com/> titled _Lose That Gut in 28 Days!_
> >
> > Cardio
> > Week 1: a.m. 30 minutes, p.m. 30 minutes
> > Week 2: a.m. 40 minutes, p.m. 40 minutes
> > Week 3: a.m. 50 minutes, p.m. 50 minutes
> > Week 4: a.m. 60 minutes, p.m. 60 minutes
> >
> > The cardio must be long enough in duration and with sufficient
> > intensity to melt the fat off.
>
> You can melt fat off with cardio -- cool! How intense does it need to be?
> Quite intense, or very intense, or maybe really, really, really intense?

Put the match down, okay? I suspect he wasn't speaking literally. Stop
that! You'll burn yourself.

> > He also recommends a "clean" diet, low in calories and carbs and
> > offers a specific list of foods to eat. Pick up the mag or ping me
> > with your snail mail or P.O. Box and I'll photocopy the pages and
> > send the article to you gratis.
[...]

Hey, Neil, the offer goes for you too. Ping me with your P.O. Box or
snail mail address and I'll send a photocopy of the article to you. Or,
yeah, I'm sure Harris has a contact html on his website.

Otoh, you could always order online:
http://emusclemag.com/content.php?cat=4

> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

Curt
Olympic bars: http://www.bigfitness.com/barat.html

--

> Gain some muscle first, keep bodyfat about where it is, then focus on
> losing some fat. Unless you are a total beginner and or willing to use
> drugs, doing both at the same time tends to limit both, so you get sub par
> muscle growth and sub par fat loss. The math here is simple: you are not
> fat, but you are skinny: time for some heavy ass iron and plenty O
> calories.


Right on... yesterday according to FitDay site, I ate
2800 cal, 243g carbs, 168g protein...

Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
> re http://www.amazon.com/Joy-Laziness-B.../dp/0897934016
>
>> Did you know that mice on calorie restriction consume
>> MORE total calories during the lifetime? (per body mass anyway).
....
> They're talking not about "at rest" but rather the dangers of the
> number of calories your body burns while NOT at rest. From what I
> gathered, they're about conserving the so-called life energy, not
> reducing individual BMR.

The "life energy" is their miracle phlogiston. I could just as well
read some Behe on Intelligent Design.

The lifetime total energy expenditure is higher in calorie restricted
mice, as pointed out in the article. The article also reviews
experiments showing that mouse lines with mutations increasing
protective mechanisms (such as DNA repair) tend to have higher
metabolism, and live longer. No matter how you go about it, the book's
theory cannot explain these facts.

Here is a much better account of what is currently known about
the mechanisms of CR -

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.c...8083414B7F0000

roehrigs01 <shawn.roehrig@gmail.com> wrote:
> DZ:
>> mice on calorie restriction consume MORE total calories during the
>> lifetime? (per body mass anyway). That's because of the two reasons
>> (1) they live longer; (2) the basal metabolic rate on CR does NOT
>> decrease -
>>
>> From PMID: 15885745
>> Rat group Mean lifespan Lifetime calorie intake(*)
>> Ad-libitum 701 91.5
>> CR 986 133.5
>
> how does this relate to my situation?

If I personally were to follow Joanne's suggestion to eat every 2
hours, I would soon abandon the whole idea of maintaing a certain body
composition and doing resistance training. So what I'm saying is that
not only it doesn't need to be that complicated, but from the
health/fitness compromise point of view it is more sensible to do
nearly the opposite. Go to the gym and have some protein containing
food afterward. If you'd like to be really pedantic about that, take a
protein+carbs shake to the gym and consume between sets. It's known
that this would be the optimal timing.

DZ wrote:

re calorie restriction

> Here is a much better account of what is currently
> known about the mechanisms of CR -
> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.c...8083414B7F0000

So it looks like I should trade in my ANIMAL PAK and look for ANIMAL
_STAC_ instead?

(ba dump bump)

Resveratrol, eh? Sweet. I just read an article about that last night at
the book store.

The account you present raises some questions, however.

What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful and
live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"? They'll
die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be out on their
motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of wasting away in
nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their younger counterparts? By
accident or other... what?

What's your take?

The article mentions the jump from 45 to 75. Earth's still standing,
but what's the limit?

The author states, "No doubt, future generations accustomed to living
past 100 will also look back at our current approaches to improving
health as primitive relics of a bygone era."

But how will this impact quality of life as it relates to society? I
know I Googled somethingsomething at one point in time... what was
that? Earth's capacity perhaps.

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environ...-earth-sustain


Yeah.

Thank you for the very interesting article, DZ.

--
Curt

"DZ" <23802@25601792.217883755.24694.5056.8565> wrote
> roehrigs01 <shawn.roehrig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> DZ:
>>> mice on calorie restriction consume MORE total calories during the
>>> lifetime? (per body mass anyway). That's because of the two reasons
>>> (1) they live longer; (2) the basal metabolic rate on CR does NOT
>>> decrease -
>>>
>>> From PMID: 15885745
>>> Rat group Mean lifespan Lifetime calorie intake(*)
>>> Ad-libitum 701 91.5
>>> CR 986 133.5
>>
>> how does this relate to my situation?
>
> If I personally were to follow Joanne's suggestion to eat every 2
> hours, I would soon abandon the whole idea of maintaing a certain body
> composition and doing resistance training. So what I'm saying is that
> not only it doesn't need to be that complicated, but from the
> health/fitness compromise point of view it is more sensible to do
> nearly the opposite. Go to the gym and have some protein containing
> food afterward. If you'd like to be really pedantic about that, take a
> protein+carbs shake to the gym and consume between sets. It's known
> that this would be the optimal timing.

The Fitday Freaks are almost cult like in their belief that the only way to
deal with dieting is to count calories, the more obsessively, the better.

Of course, you one-meal-a-day freaks are pretty freaky, too

David
not freaky, has had sex with freaks

Cohen wrote:
[...]

> David
> not freaky, has had sex with freaks

You are, therefore, freaky by association.

GUILTY!

--
Curt

Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
> What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful and
> live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"? They'll
> die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be out on their
> motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of wasting away in
> nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their younger counterparts? By
> accident or other... what?

I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
call young and middle age. I wouldn't mind being employed full time
at 120.

But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length maintenance
mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an enzyme that
maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in cells that lead to
sperm and eggs.

It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells behave
this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current society
would be against such research.

DZ <7657@3209223836.59228443.1308.22641.10422> wrote:

>Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful and
>> live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"? They'll
>> die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be out on their
>> motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of wasting away in
>> nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their younger counterparts? By
>> accident or other... what?
>
>I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
>call young and middle age. I wouldn't mind being employed full time
>at 120.
>
>But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
>immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
>accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length maintenance
>mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an enzyme that
>maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in cells that lead to
>sperm and eggs.
>
>It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells behave
>this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current society
>would be against such research.

But isn't cell senescence a natural preventative measure against
cumulative mutation?

JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful
>>> and live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"?
>>> They'll die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be
>>> out on their motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of
>>> wasting away in nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their
>>> younger counterparts? By accident or other... what?
>>
>> I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
>> call young and middle age. I wouldn't mind being employed full time
>> at 120.
>>
>> But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
>> immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
>> accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length
>> maintenance mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an
>> enzyme that maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in
>> cells that lead to sperm and eggs.
>>
>> It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells
>> behave this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current
>> society would be against such research.
>
> But isn't cell senescence a natural preventative measure against
> cumulative mutation?

I'm not saying it would be as simple as activating the telomerase in
somatic cells. But chromosomal shortening would have to go, like
it did in these -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9742964

or like in human germ line which is kind of immortal. There is some
variance in telomerase activity in germ line of a given individual, in
that various sperm cells form a distribution of telomere lengths. That
has to be corrected somehow in the next generation(s). I've done
statistical part for some experimental work on that, but it's
unpublished.

DZ <20902@1315528196.574422776.11062.25982.9591> wrote:
>JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful
>>>> and live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"?
>>>> They'll die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be
>>>> out on their motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of
>>>> wasting away in nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their
>>>> younger counterparts? By accident or other... what?
>>>
>>> I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
>>> call young and middle age. I wouldn't mind being employed full time
>>> at 120.
>>>
>>> But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
>>> immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
>>> accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length
>>> maintenance mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an
>>> enzyme that maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in
>>> cells that lead to sperm and eggs.
>>>
>>> It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells
>>> behave this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current
>>> society would be against such research.
>>
>> But isn't cell senescence a natural preventative measure against
>> cumulative mutation?
>
>I'm not saying it would be as simple as activating the telomerase in
>somatic cells. But chromosomal shortening would have to go, like
>it did in these -
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9742964
>
>or like in human germ line which is kind of immortal. There is some
>variance in telomerase activity in germ line of a given individual, in
>that various sperm cells form a distribution of telomere lengths. That
>has to be corrected somehow in the next generation(s). I've done
>statistical part for some experimental work on that, but it's
>unpublished.

But you didn't answer the question, Dmitri. Yes, cell sensescence
eventually causes the death of the organism, but at what price
immortality? To the best of my knowledge, we don't have a clue as to
precluding things like replication and transcription errors, and
without some really foolproof apoptotic mechanisms, you could be
looking at something really ugly.

I'm going to die someday, and I'm pretty comfortable with that fact.
Better that than metamorphing into a monster.

<cue comments from The Alliance>

John Williams wrote:

> <snip> and without some really foolproof apoptotic
> mechanisms, you could be looking at something
> really ugly.

Try shaving with your eyes closed. I mean, if you're using an electric
then it's really not that inconceivable, right? Oh, wait. You meant...
never mind.

> I'm going to die someday, and I'm pretty comfortable
> with that fact.

No comment.

> Better that than metamorphing into a monster.
>
> <cue comments from The Alliance>

heh )

We'll all die some day, I imagine. May your life be long and healthy,
John Williams.

--
Curt

JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful
>>>>> and live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"?
>>>>> They'll die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be
>>>>> out on their motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of
>>>>> wasting away in nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their
>>>>> younger counterparts? By accident or other... what?
>>>>
>>>> I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
>>>> call young and middle age. I wouldn't mind being employed full time
>>>> at 120.
>>>>
>>>> But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
>>>> immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
>>>> accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length
>>>> maintenance mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an
>>>> enzyme that maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in
>>>> cells that lead to sperm and eggs.
>>>>
>>>> It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells
>>>> behave this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current
>>>> society would be against such research.
>>>
>>> But isn't cell senescence a natural preventative measure against
>>> cumulative mutation?
>>
>>I'm not saying it would be as simple as activating the telomerase in
>>somatic cells. But chromosomal shortening would have to go, like
>>it did in these -
>>
>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9742964
>>
>>or like in human germ line which is kind of immortal. There is some
>>variance in telomerase activity in germ line of a given individual, in
>>that various sperm cells form a distribution of telomere lengths. That
>>has to be corrected somehow in the next generation(s). I've done
>>statistical part for some experimental work on that, but it's
>>unpublished.
>
> But you didn't answer the question, Dmitri. Yes, cell sensescence
> eventually causes the death of the organism, but at what price
> immortality? To the best of my knowledge, we don't have a clue as
> to precluding things like replication and transcription errors, and
> without some really foolproof apoptotic mechanisms, you could be
> looking at something really ugly. I'm going to die someday, and I'm
> pretty comfortable with that fact. Better that than metamorphing
> into a monster.

I didn't dodge the question though. Some think that telomere
shortening is a part of the cell death mechanism, so I thought that is
the extent of what you're getting at. Do old sturgeons turn into
monsters? As I'm not a sturgeon, I don't know. If we had a programmed
death at a certain age, say 30, like salmon after spawning, I suspect
that a today 80 y.o. person would look like a monster to us, should we
encounter one. Regarding "immortal" fish I can say that one of the
explanations is that they lost some killer genes by accident during
evolution. Instead of waiting until and if some extremely rare
combination of mutation events would happen "naturally" and drift up
to appreciable population frequency, science could direct the process
some day. Do you have a problem with genetic correction of diseases?
Some consider aging a disease. Now, I'm not suggesting that any actual
experimentation along these lines is either possible today, or should
be done. But who knows, maybe one day you will write some articles on
"The demonization of illegal telomeraze activating drugs" :-)

DZ wrote:
> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful and
> > live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"? They'll
> > die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be out on their
> > motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of wasting away in
> > nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their younger counterparts? By
> > accident or other... what?
>
> I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
> call young and middle age.

Duh. Yes, you're right, of course. I wasn't looking at it that way,
however that's not addressing the whole picture, is it? Right now
people (okay, dead people) are being shoved into burial plots, etc.
around age 75, give or take. Won't there be a rush on real estate,
social services, food, water... OH, MY GOD! GYM MEMBERSHIPS!!!!

You think it's tough to get a bench or a power rack NOW, just wait
until all these healthy 90-year-olds come rumbling from the rest homes.
I picture some modern day _Day of the Dead_ (okay, _Day of the Sir2
Undead_) film festival... in real life!

"Braaaaains, brrrrraaaains, brrraaaaiiiiinnnsss! Say, are you done with
that bench? Pardon me, can I work in? Do you mind?
Brrrraaaaiiiiiiins!!!!"

A nightmare, I tell you.

> I wouldn't mind being employed full time at 120.

True.

I call Wal-Mart, the entertainment center kiosk/area! Just watched
_Hercules and the Princess of Troy_ and _Hercules Against the Mongols_
today. Yes, purchased at Wally World for a buck. Going to pop the other
dollar DVD in momentarily - _Hercules and the Masked Rider_ and
_Hercules and the Tyrants of Babylon_. Both DVDs were a buck, double
features. Gotta love the sword and sandal flicks.

> But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
> immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
> accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length maintenance
> mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an enzyme that
> maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in cells that lead to
> sperm and eggs.
>
> It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells behave
> this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current society
> would be against such research.

DZ, your writing reminds me of my days as a proofreader of medical
journals. Could you please use the word drosophila in a future post?
Tia. ;o)

Seriously, interesting words (if incomprehensible).

(i KEED!)

--
Curt

DZ wrote:
> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful and
> > live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"? They'll
> > die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be out on their
> > motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of wasting away in
> > nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their younger counterparts? By
> > accident or other... what?
>
> I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
> call young and middle age.

Duh. Yes, you're right, of course. I wasn't looking at it that way,
however that's not addressing the whole picture, is it? Right now
people (okay, dead people) are being shoved into burial plots, etc.
around age 75, give or take. Won't there be a rush on real estate,
social services, food, water... OH, MY GOD! GYM MEMBERSHIPS!!!!

You think it's tough to get a bench or a power rack NOW, just wait
until all these healthy 90-year-olds come rumbling from the rest homes.
I picture some modern day _Day of the Dead_ (okay, _Day of the Sir2
Undead_) film festival... in real life!

"Braaaaains, brrrrraaaains, brrraaaaiiiiinnnsss! Say, are you done with
that bench? Pardon me, can I work in? Do you mind?
Brrrraaaaiiiiiiins!!!!"

A nightmare, I tell you.

> I wouldn't mind being employed full time at 120.

True.

I call Wal-Mart, the entertainment center kiosk/area! Just watched
_Hercules and the Princess of Troy_ and _Hercules Against the Mongols_
today. Yes, purchased at Wally World for a buck. Going to pop the other
dollar DVD in momentarily - _Hercules and the Masked Rider_ and
_Hercules and the Tyrants of Babylon_. Both DVDs were a buck, double
features. Gotta love the sword and sandal flicks.

> But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
> immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
> accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length maintenance
> mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an enzyme that
> maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in cells that lead to
> sperm and eggs.
>
> It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells behave
> this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current society
> would be against such research.

DZ, your writing reminds me of my days as a proofreader of medical
journals. Could you please use the word drosophila in a future post?
Tia. ;o)

Seriously, interesting words (if incomprehensible).

(i KEED!)

--
Curt

DZ <11940@130268370.213810965.29069.23481.20358> wrote:
>JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>> Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What happens with all these people who "are able to feel youthful
>>>>>> and live relatively free of today's diseases well into their 90s"?
>>>>>> They'll die... when? I'm thinking that the 90-year-olds will be
>>>>>> out on their motorcycles, or hiking, or rock climbing instead of
>>>>>> wasting away in nursing homes? Their ends will be met as their
>>>>>> younger counterparts? By accident or other... what?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that might simply mean extending the years of what we now
>>>>> call young and middle age. I wouldn't mind being employed full time
>>>>> at 120.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there are species like some sturgeons that are practically
>>>>> immortal and indeed die of accidents (or accumulated non-lethal
>>>>> accidents). They for example have somatic telomere length
>>>>> maintenance mechanism that we lack. In humans, the telomerase, an
>>>>> enzyme that maintain chromosomal end length, is only active in
>>>>> cells that lead to sperm and eggs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would take genetic manipulations to make normal human cells
>>>>> behave this way. As you can imagine, a lot of people in a current
>>>>> society would be against such research.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't cell senescence a natural preventative measure against
>>>> cumulative mutation?
>>>
>>>I'm not saying it would be as simple as activating the telomerase in
>>>somatic cells. But chromosomal shortening would have to go, like
>>>it did in these -
>>>
>>>ht