Dirtyhippy, would you explain how rich people becoming poor and subsequently dying early would RAISE the average life expecancy?
Lets say that before the depression, 80% of the people were poor and their average life expectancy was 60 years and 20% were rich and their life expecancy was 80 years giving the average for the total as 64 years.
If during the depression, that changed from 80% to 90% and 20% to 10% (that is 10% more poor people) the average comes to 62 years.
I would be interested in how you reached your averages without using smoke and mirrors.
Dirtyhippy, would you explain how rich people becoming poor and subsequently dying early would RAISE the average life expecancy?
Lets say that before the depression, 80% of the people were poor and their average life expectancy was 60 years and 20% were rich and their life expecancy was 80 years giving the average for the total as 64 years.
If during the depression, that changed from 80% to 90% and 20% to 10% (that is 10% more poor people) the average comes to 62 years.
I would be interested in how you reached your averages without using smoke and mirrors.
Dirtyhippy's comments defy logic. I gave up trying to understand them.
To me your body is an amazing thing and if it is saying its hungry then its best to eat and not ignore that message.
However your body is the same one which had to survive in the wild, when it was best to take advantage of any and every opportunity to eat, especially high calorie fatty foods. Today that is not so imperative, and we have to find ways to control appetite.
Incidentally, British health has never been better than after a few years rationing during and after WWII when food was exceptionally scarce.
However your body is the same one which had to survive in the wild, when it was best to take advantage of any and every opportunity to eat, especially high calorie fatty foods. Today that is not so imperative, and we have to find ways to control appetite.
Incidentally, British health has never been better than after a few years rationing during and after WWII when food was exceptionally scarce.
Still think eating when you hungry is more natural than starving yourself just eat the right stuff and use portion control.
Still think eating when you hungry is more natural than starving yourself just eat the right stuff and use portion control.
It really depends how often you feel hungry. Some people "feel hungry" pretty much all the time, and snack between meals on high calorie foods.
If it is natural to eat when you are hungry, do you think you should also listen to your body and keep eating until you feel full? This contradicts your comment about portion control (which I totally agree with).
As written by atg, we now live in an environment when high calorie processed food is available all day every day. This is not the environment our bodies evolved for.
Hunger is natural. Ability to satisfy that hunger with sweets/snacks/pizza/etc is man made.
My wife and I are going to give the 5:2 scheme a go. One thing wasn't clear from the programme, though; should the 2 fast days be consecutive? Michael said his days were sometimes "scattered" (as though this was a bad thing) yet he still had impressive results after 5 weeks. We'll aim for the 5:2 pattern but if equally good results could come from 3:1:2:1, that might be easier to keep to?
Dirtyhippy, would you explain how rich people becoming poor and subsequently dying early would RAISE the average life expecancy?
Lets say that before the depression, 80% of the people were poor and their average life expectancy was 60 years and 20% were rich and their life expecancy was 80 years giving the average for the total as 64 years.
If during the depression, that changed from 80% to 90% and 20% to 10% (that is 10% more poor people) the average comes to 62 years.
I would be interested in how you reached your averages without using smoke and mirrors.
Moving averages are interesting things and it greatly depends on how the results are presented. To take your example and present it in a slightly different way:
Pre-depression 80% poor: 60 years average
Pre-depression 10% fairly rich: 70 years average
Pre-depression 10% very rich: 90 years average (giving an average for the "rich" of 80 years)
Present these life expectancy figures as "Poor=60years, Rich=80years" (ie don't mention the %ages)
Now suppose that the 10% fairly rich became poor but didn't have any change in life expectancy. Now we have:
Post-depression 80% poor: 60 years average
Post-depression 10% newly poor: 70 years average (giving an average for the "poor" of 61.1 years)
Post-depression 10% rich: 90 years average
Present these life expectancy figures as "Poor=61years, Rich=90years" (ie again don't mention the %ages) and, hey presto change-o, on average, the "poor" live longer and so do the "rich"!
Not saying that's how the Depression-related stats were compiled, but just saying anything's possible with %(aver)ages!
(the above analysis with thanks to the Norwegian joke about the Swedes: The stupidest man in Norway moved to Sweden and increased the average IQ of both countries )
The 101 year-old gentleman seemed to be doing very well on eating small portions and exercising a lot. As an earlier poster pointed out, you can't exercise and fast unless you want to damage your health. I couldn't see how Michael Mosley fasted and hill walked, I would have thought it was a pretty dangerous combination.
Also you have to lay off the protein. I wonder where that leaves the people on Atkins, Dukan etc;?
It's not that long since Michael Mosley's previous documentary where he advocated extreme exercise three times a week - which he claimed would solve all his health problems.
The 101 year-old gentleman seemed to be doing very well on eating small portions and exercising a lot. As an earlier poster pointed out, you can't exercise and fast unless you want to damage your health. I couldn't see how Michael Mosley fasted and hill walked, I would have thought it was a pretty dangerous combination.
Also you have to lay off the protein. I wonder where that leaves the people on Atkins, Dukan etc;?
It's not that long since Michael Mosley's previous documentary where he advocated extreme exercise three times a week - which he claimed would solve all his health problems.
Wasn't it that 3 minutes a week of High Intensity Training were as good as spending hours in a gym doing "ordinary" exercise?
"As well as cutting calories you have to cut your protein intake. Not entirely - that would be a very bad idea. It's about sticking to recommended guidelines, something most of us fail to do."
Sorry I posted something yesterday basically contradicting the programme's assertion that diet increased life expectancy (during the great depression) by several years.
I stated that it was an adjustment in averages that contributed towards this, my explanation was poor but it was written in a rush (I do have to do some work in between posting)
Anyway an interesting article here that has clearer information regarding the increased life expectancy during the Great Depression, diet is hardly mentioned or is at least only has a minor effect.
The 101 year-old gentleman seemed to be doing very well on eating small portions and exercising a lot. As an earlier poster pointed out, you can't exercise and fast unless you want to damage your health. I couldn't see how Michael Mosley fasted and hill walked, I would have thought it was a pretty dangerous combination.
Also you have to lay off the protein. I wonder where that leaves the people on Atkins, Dukan etc;?
It's not that long since Michael Mosley's previous documentary where he advocated extreme exercise three times a week - which he claimed would solve all his health problems.
I thought this as well....but then I suppose there's no reason you can't combine the two approaches.
2 cups of black coffee
2 teaspoons of mixed pumpkin and sunflower seeds - bfast
cucumber, tomatoe, olive salad - lunch
nectarine - late afternoon
brocoli and carrots for dinner
All portions measured so I don't go above 500 calories.
That doesn't seem to bad to me....have I made a mistake?
2 cups of black coffee
2 teaspoons of mixed pumpkin and sunflower seeds - bfast
cucumber, tomatoe, olive salad - lunch
nectarine - late afternoon
brocoli and carrots for dinner
All portions measured so I don't go above 500 calories.
That doesn't seem to bad to me....have I made a mistake?
It really depends how often you feel hungry. Some people "feel hungry" pretty much all the time, and snack between meals on high calorie foods.
If it is natural to eat when you are hungry, do you think you should also listen to your body and keep eating until you feel full? This contradicts your comment about portion control (which I totally agree with).
As written by atg, we now live in an environment when high calorie processed food is available all day every day. This is not the environment our bodies evolved for.
Hunger is natural. Ability to satisfy that hunger with sweets/snacks/pizza/etc is man made.
Thats what I am saying, the reason many people feel hungry all the time is that they are addicted to the wrong things highly proccesed food sugars ect.If i eat the correct balance of natural food protien/carbs/fats ect then I don't feel hungry all the time.
The reason that your body is not great at telling you when to stop eating is because it takes time to process the food it is taking in.
2 cups of black coffee
2 teaspoons of mixed pumpkin and sunflower seeds - bfast
cucumber, tomatoe, olive salad - lunch
nectarine - late afternoon
brocoli and carrots for dinner
All portions measured so I don't go above 500 calories.
That doesn't seem to bad to me....have I made a mistake?
Do you have an active lifesyle?I know if that was me and I do lead an active lifestyle there is no way that would give me the energy I need, I would feel lethargic and hungry on and off all day.
My wife and I are going to give the 5:2 scheme a go. One thing wasn't clear from the programme, though; should the 2 fast days be consecutive? Michael said his days were sometimes "scattered" (as though this was a bad thing) yet he still had impressive results after 5 weeks. We'll aim for the 5:2 pattern but if equally good results could come from 3:1:2:1, that might be easier to keep to?
K
According to someone that heard a followup interview by Mosley on Radio4 about the show, 5/2 doesnt have to be on consecutive days. He also mentions this on his twitter message..
Do you have an active lifesyle?I know if that was me and I do lead an active lifestyle there is no way that would give me the energy I need, I would feel lethargic and hungry on and off all day.
I exercise three times a week but sit on bum all day at work!
It's not that far off my normal week day diet. In the evening I would have some fish or chicken with the veg. Bu then I do eat more at weekends and drink! I've been doing a lot of work on portion control and eating freshly cooked food rather than dieting recently and I've cut out sugar (except in alcohol)!
So I see this as a progression in the changes I'm making - will report back on Friday At the mo I'm going to try and do it once a week and then try and move to twice a week.
2 cups of black coffee
2 teaspoons of mixed pumpkin and sunflower seeds - bfast
cucumber, tomatoe, olive salad - lunch
nectarine - late afternoon
brocoli and carrots for dinner
All portions measured so I don't go above 500 calories.
That doesn't seem to bad to me....have I made a mistake?
Do you have an active lifesyle?I know if that was me and I do lead an active lifestyle there is no way that would give me the energy I need, I would feel lethargic and hungry on and off all day.
According to someone that heard a followup interview by Mosley on Radio4 about the show, 5/2 doesnt have to be on consecutive days. He also mentions this on his twitter message..
Comments
Lets say that before the depression, 80% of the people were poor and their average life expectancy was 60 years and 20% were rich and their life expecancy was 80 years giving the average for the total as 64 years.
If during the depression, that changed from 80% to 90% and 20% to 10% (that is 10% more poor people) the average comes to 62 years.
I would be interested in how you reached your averages without using smoke and mirrors.
Dirtyhippy's comments defy logic. I gave up trying to understand them.
Incidentally, British health has never been better than after a few years rationing during and after WWII when food was exceptionally scarce.
Still think eating when you hungry is more natural than starving yourself just eat the right stuff and use portion control.
It really depends how often you feel hungry. Some people "feel hungry" pretty much all the time, and snack between meals on high calorie foods.
If it is natural to eat when you are hungry, do you think you should also listen to your body and keep eating until you feel full? This contradicts your comment about portion control (which I totally agree with).
As written by atg, we now live in an environment when high calorie processed food is available all day every day. This is not the environment our bodies evolved for.
Hunger is natural. Ability to satisfy that hunger with sweets/snacks/pizza/etc is man made.
K
Pre-depression 80% poor: 60 years average
Pre-depression 10% fairly rich: 70 years average
Pre-depression 10% very rich: 90 years average (giving an average for the "rich" of 80 years)
Present these life expectancy figures as "Poor=60years, Rich=80years" (ie don't mention the %ages)
Now suppose that the 10% fairly rich became poor but didn't have any change in life expectancy. Now we have:
Post-depression 80% poor: 60 years average
Post-depression 10% newly poor: 70 years average (giving an average for the "poor" of 61.1 years)
Post-depression 10% rich: 90 years average
Present these life expectancy figures as "Poor=61years, Rich=90years" (ie again don't mention the %ages) and, hey presto change-o, on average, the "poor" live longer and so do the "rich"!
Not saying that's how the Depression-related stats were compiled, but just saying anything's possible with %(aver)ages!
(the above analysis with thanks to the Norwegian joke about the Swedes: The stupidest man in Norway moved to Sweden and increased the average IQ of both countries
K
Also you have to lay off the protein. I wonder where that leaves the people on Atkins, Dukan etc;?
It's not that long since Michael Mosley's previous documentary where he advocated extreme exercise three times a week - which he claimed would solve all his health problems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
K
"As well as cutting calories you have to cut your protein intake. Not entirely - that would be a very bad idea. It's about sticking to recommended guidelines, something most of us fail to do."
K
I stated that it was an adjustment in averages that contributed towards this, my explanation was poor but it was written in a rush (I do have to do some work in between posting)
Anyway an interesting article here that has clearer information regarding the increased life expectancy during the Great Depression, diet is hardly mentioned or is at least only has a minor effect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm
I thought this as well....but then I suppose there's no reason you can't combine the two approaches.
2 cups of black coffee
2 teaspoons of mixed pumpkin and sunflower seeds - bfast
cucumber, tomatoe, olive salad - lunch
nectarine - late afternoon
brocoli and carrots for dinner
All portions measured so I don't go above 500 calories.
That doesn't seem to bad to me....have I made a mistake?
K
Thats what I am saying, the reason many people feel hungry all the time is that they are addicted to the wrong things highly proccesed food sugars ect.If i eat the correct balance of natural food protien/carbs/fats ect then I don't feel hungry all the time.
The reason that your body is not great at telling you when to stop eating is because it takes time to process the food it is taking in.
Do you have an active lifesyle?I know if that was me and I do lead an active lifestyle there is no way that would give me the energy I need, I would feel lethargic and hungry on and off all day.
According to someone that heard a followup interview by Mosley on Radio4 about the show, 5/2 doesnt have to be on consecutive days. He also mentions this on his twitter message..
Michael Mosley @DrMichaelMosley
“@N_G_Jones: @DrMichaelMosley Do the two fasting days need to be successive?” in the trials it is. I didn't
I exercise three times a week but sit on bum all day at work!
It's not that far off my normal week day diet. In the evening I would have some fish or chicken with the veg. Bu then I do eat more at weekends and drink! I've been doing a lot of work on portion control and eating freshly cooked food rather than dieting recently and I've cut out sugar (except in alcohol)!
So I see this as a progression in the changes I'm making - will report back on Friday
Isn't it supposed to all be at one meal?
Michael Mosley @DrMichaelMosley
@HJonesy I ate my 600 calories in two sittings. Breakfast and dinner
If it is..forget it!!!! No way that would be torture!!
I am going to watch the programe again at the weekend and understand it better.
I could do 500 calories over the day but not just in one meal!!
relieved!:)
K