Surviving on spiritual force and without food and drink for 70 years
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Pop Star adopts fashionable, diseased incontinent monkey
Next: Surviving on spiritual force and without food and drink for 70years
From: Arindam Banerjee on 3 May 2010 02:39 On May 3, 3:53 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Apr 30, 10:36 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1046232/man-hasnt-eaten-drunk-in-70-.... > >>> Now isn't this the most remarkable news ever???? > >>> This totally upsets all known medical science... > >>> heh-heh, no wonder the Australian doctor is worried. Hmm, Indian > >>> independence is becoming meaningful at long last! > >>> Cheers, > >>> Arindam Banerjee > >> Never mind food or water, I don't use oxygen. This most remarkable news > >> totally upsets and challenges even more all known medical science. A > >> challenge I tell you. To science. A challenge to science. Eh? > > > Indeed. But has your claim been monitored by any organisation equal > > in repute as the DRDO? > > They don't have oxygen testing equipment. I use the MM organization I will agree 100% with you, and salute you most respectfully, if you are an android like Lt. Cdr. Data.
From: harmony on 3 May 2010 12:30 thanks for your this post. mahatma gandhi could make the brits see reason with his fast lasting several days. it takes many years, decades, to make the corrupt thickskinned congressis of brown india plus the killer brown communists plus the scheming fraudulent white&brown kirastanis plus the brown terrorist momedans plus the daroowala kerals plus the biddiwala bengalis see reason. it is a tall order but i am glad somebody is trying. swami jani ji should know a lot of people are appreciative of his tapas. "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:a952c19c-b51c-4717-80a3-6a3edb91a0d1(a)s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1046232/man-hasnt-eaten-drunk-in-70-years/?rss=yes > > Now isn't this the most remarkable news ever???? > > This totally upsets all known medical science... > > heh-heh, no wonder the Australian doctor is worried. Hmm, Indian > independence is becoming meaningful at long last! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee >
From: Arindam Banerjee on 3 May 2010 19:42 On May 4, 2:30 am, "harmony" <a...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > thanks for your this post. Wonders will never cease!! > mahatma gandhi could make the brits see reason with his fast lasting several > days. When? All gandi's emotional blackmail did was to diminish the scope for logic and reason. It has stunted the entire development of a nation. Indians are mentally weak and immature as a result of gandian antics, and fare miserably in comparison with men elsewhere, particularly in the developed countries. There is no comparison between this great man Shri Prahlad Jani, who has naturally not eaten anything for 70 years, and has thus shattered the fundamentals of medical science, and given new directions for research and human endeavour; and the great-unca gandi: an unspeakably shameless megalomaniac, traitor to hindus, anti-technology freak and for his atrocious back-stabbing leadership the greatest socio-political curse upon the Indian subcontinent. Shri Jani exemplifies the best of India, gandi the worst. > it takes many years, decades, to make the corrupt thickskinned congressis of > brown india plus the killer brown communists plus the scheming fraudulent > white&brown kirastanis plus the brown terrorist momedans plus the daroowala > kerals plus the biddiwala bengalis see reason. it is a tall order but i am > glad somebody is trying. swami jani ji should know a lot of people are > appreciative of his tapas. I think my points related to the impact of gandi upon Indians, are proven from the above jumble. It is not just harmony that is so afflicted; we have very many others. Now, how did I escape that curse? Hmm, maybe I should write a book about it, stressing upon my happy childhood in a Soviet commune and a Jesuit day school! The one that got away, that's moi! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > > news:a952c19c-b51c-4717-80a3-6a3edb91a0d1(a)s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > >http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1046232/man-hasnt-eaten-drunk-in-70-... > > > Now isn't this the most remarkable news ever???? > > > This totally upsets all known medical science... > > > heh-heh, no wonder the Australian doctor is worried. Hmm, Indian > > independence is becoming meaningful at long last! > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Immortalist on 3 May 2010 20:16 On Apr 29, 4:19 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1046232/man-hasnt-eaten-drunk-in-70-... > > Now isn't this the most remarkable news ever???? > > This totally upsets all known medical science... > > heh-heh, no wonder the Australian doctor is worried. Hmm, Indian > independence is becoming meaningful at long last! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee Inedia is the alleged ability to live without food. Breatharianism is a related concept, in which believers claim food and possibly water are not necessary, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana (the vital life force in Hinduism), or according to some, by the energy in sunlight. The terms breatharianism or inedia may also refer to this philosophy practised as a lifestyle in place of the usual diet. While it is often seen as an esoteric practice performed by eastern ascetics, with no basis in scientific fact, some groups and individuals promote the practice as a skill which anybody can learn through specific techniques, sometimes only after paying large fees, as in the case of the "Breatharian Institute of America". The word "inedia" simply means "fasting" in Latin, and was first used to describe a fast-based lifestyle within Catholic tradition, which holds that certain saints were able to survive for extended periods of time without food or drink other than the Eucharist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia ------------------------------------- Realistically for the rest of us to live our lives with little disease and more than average mental capacity till the day we die, we can share the hunger also; Undernutrition is a consequence of consuming too few essential nutrients or using or excreting them more rapidly than they can be replaced. (Hungry but still getting vitamins, minerals, etc...) Malnutrition is the condition that develops when the body does not get the right amount of the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients it needs to maintain healthy tissues and organ function. (Hungry and missing vitamins, minerals, etc... [not good]) ---------------------------- Calorie restriction or Caloric restriction is the practice of limiting dietary energy intake to improve health and retard aging. Except for houseflies (below), animal species tested with caloric restriction so far, including primates, rats, mice, spiders, C. elegans and rotifers, have shown lifespan extension. Caloric restriction is the only known dietary measure capable of extending maximum lifespan, as opposed to average lifespan. In human subjects, caloric restriction has been shown to lower cholesterol, fasting glucose, and blood pressure. Some consider these to be biomarkers of aging, since there is a correlation between these markers and risk of diseases associated with aging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_restriction When less is more ....However you slice it, it turns out that the only reliable way to extend the lifespan of rodents, spiders, guppies and water fleas is to drastically cut calories without skimping on essential nutrients. It's a technique scientists call undernutrition without malnutrition. And we're not talking any Slender Centers diet. We're not talking about substituting a grapefruit for the occasional ice-cream sundae. We're talking about feeding lab animals as little as two-thirds of the calories they'd eat if nobody was watching. This kind of serious undernutrition extends both average and maximum lifespans. In rats, for example, a 30 percent cut in calories stretches the average lifespan by 30 percent. And it's not just longevity -- these animals don't get the ailments of aging -- cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer -- until much later in life. And while we haven't heard about the guppies or water fleas, the rats' little brains continued mastering mazes long after rats on a typical all-you-can-eat diet quit learning. The phenomenon, discovered about 70 years ago, remained a laboratory novelty until the 1970s, when scientists began realizing that the ever- sought fountain of youth might consist of simply cutting calories. Monkey business Only in 1987, when George Roth and colleagues began a major study of monkeys at the National Institute of Health, did researchers finally begin studies with primates. To date, about 200 monkeys are involved in the study at two sites. "Until 1987, caloric restriction was never tried in a controlled way with animals that live longer than three years," says Roth. A decade later, we're finally accumulating information on how caloric restriction affects primates. The new results mirror data from lower animals, meaning they may be depressing to those of us who love to eat. The monkeys are being fed 30 percent less than they would eat on their own. Echoing studies with rodents and water fleas, caloric restriction in primates seems to be slowing the diseases of aging: Measures of body temperature, weight, lean mass and fat are below those of free-feeding animals. Biological markers of aging, such as blood pressure, "good" cholesterol and triglyceride levels, are improved. "Taken all together, we predict they will be less likely to develop cardiovascular problems," Roth says. The blood-borne hormone insulin is better able to help metabolize sugar. Since impairment of this so-called "insulin efficiency" can signal adult-onset diabetes, Roth says "this suggests that they are less likely to develop diabetes as they age." Levels of DHEA -- a hormone produced by the body that seems to be a "marker" of the rate of aging -- are dropping more slowly than usual. In other words, the animals don't just look small and hungry. They look healthy. Since the squirrel and rhesus monkeys in the experiment normally live 20 and 30 years, respectively, it's far too soon to tell if they'll outlive the free-feeding control monkeys. Still, Roth speculates that, "Current findings strengthen the possibility that caloric restriction might extend the lifespan" in these monkeys. But are the monkeys happy? What about their minds? It's well documented that aging rats on caloric restriction can learn mazes faster than free-feeding rats. That made us curious about the monkeys' state of mind. But George Roth of the National Institute of Aging, who is testing the monkeys' behavior, says progress is frustrating. "It's taking a long time to train the monkeys to do the tasks," he says. "We hope to get faster, but it's agonizingly slow" and he has no results to report. Roth can say that the restricted monkeys are more active, "particularly around meal times. We know they're hungry, and are anticipating their food." And are the monkeys happy? Unfortunately, they're not saying. The point of the research is not to propose a similar diet for humans, Roth points out. Given that people have trouble staying on much laxer diets, it's unlikely that many people would stick with a 30 percent slash in calories. Although "current findings strongly suggest that caloric restriction might extend lifespan," and a healthy lifespan, Roth says, "I wouldn't recommend anything to humans based on this study." Human guinea pigs Still, a few people have adopted this stringent diet. Some report a constant gnawing of hunger in the stomach, but New York freelance writer Richard Elixxir, 42, who restricted his diet to 1,200 calories per day about 20 years ago, says caloric restriction is easier than it seems -- if it's not approached in a "fundamentalist" manner. "The biggest problem is that most people try it in a way that's not doable in a real-life situation," he says. "You don't have to be a perfectionist, you don't have to hit 100 percent of every nutrient every day." In his yet-to-be-published book, "The Elixxir Program: How to Stay Young, Slim & Healthy," Elixxir also recommends taking a "day off" every week or two to eat in the old, unrestricted style. After 20 years of restriction, he says the benefits are obvious -- with blood pressure and cholesterol levels characteristic of a twenty- something, and a much younger appearance. "It's very reinforcing, when you go to a reunion and everyone is amazed because you look so young." Although it sounds intriguing, The Why Files is not about to endorse any eating schedule that forbids a daily ice-cream sundae. The goal of the caloric restriction research is not to invent another reason to feel guilty about your diet, Roth says, but to "solve the mechanism by which this produces longer life span, and target that pharmacologically, so you could trick the cells and still get to eat." (That reminds us of some fast fat fixes we covered. Or check our story on human obesity) One thing's for sure: restricting calories seems to starve tumors. Cut calories, cut cancer, live longer? Caloric restriction -- the practice of "undernutrition without malnutrition" -- doesn't just slow the progress of cardiovascular disease. It also slows cancer. Calorically restricted rats and mice get fewer and/or smaller tumors than animals that can gobble all they want, says David Kritchevsky, the Caspar Wistar scholar at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. Kritchevsky, who has studied the effects of diet on tumors for more than a decade, says "There's no question, in rats and mice, that any tumor, whether chemically or spontaneously induced, or transplanted, slows or stops growing" under caloric restriction. Sadly, this isn't a cancer treatment: "The tumor doesn't regress, it just doesn't grow so fast." Nobody knows why the technique works, Kritchevsky admits, but it could be a matter of simple competition. "Maybe you don't have enough to feed the disease if you barely get enough to feed the host. If you have enough food the tumor gets what it needs, and it eventually wins." Another clue comes from researchers at Temple University who recently found that removing the adrenal gland neutralizes the protective effect of caloric restriction. This means that an adrenal hormone like cortisol probably plays a role in the cancer-stifling effect. A good word for fat... Kritchevsky adds that the fat content of the diet doesn't seem to matter if the calorie count is low enough. Tumor counts in calorically restricted animals eating 25 percent dietary fat were similar to those of free-feeding animals that ate 5 percent fat. Although caloric restriction may never help prevent or treat cancer, the new recognition that overfeeding may cause tumors has led to changes in the way drug toxicity tests will be done. Since overeating, rather than the chemicals being tested, might be causing tumors in lab animals, in the future, animals will be eating fewer calories . So no matter what happens to the human diet, the new information could be responsible for hunger pangs in the labs. Laboratory animals, Kritchevsky says, "Get too much food. A lab rat sits around and eats. It's a couch potato. The only thing it doesn't have is a TV." We're burning up to discuss the role of free radicals in aging. Long live the fruit flies By manipulating genes, a group of Southern Methodist University researchers have created a race of oldster fruit flies. These latter- day Methuselahs live an average of 75 days, compared to 40 to 50 days for common fruit flies. The achievement was not intended to immortalize the annoying haze of bugs that seem to (but don't) form by themselves around every battered banana and squished squash. Nor was it an effort to threaten the business interests of fruit-fly funeral directors. In reality, the goal was to nail down the role of antioxidants and free radicals in the aging process. Pop quiz: Free radicals. Are they former revolutionaries, or some kind of weird fifth-column saboteurs inside your cells? Let's use the second definition. Free radicals -- nowadays called "reactive oxygen species" are busybody chemicals, usually containing oxygen, that rapidly react with other chemicals. Free radicals damage proteins, DNA and lipids, generally causing mayhem inside cells. The presence of too many free radicals creates a condition called "oxidative stress" in a cell. In response, cells -- no dummies -- manufacture antioxidants. These enzymes convert free radicals into harmless chemicals like oxygen and water. According to William Orr, a biology professor at Southern Methodist University who created the superannuated fruit flies along with colleague Rajindar Sohal, the prime antioxidant enzymes are superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase. Does aging = burning up? Orr says the oxidative stress hypothesis offers a general explanation of aging. The hypothesis predicts that the level of oxidative stress should increase with age (as it does in fruit flies and mammals). It also predicts that increased levels of antioxidants should reduce oxidative stress and extend the life span. To test the second prediction, Orr and associates manipulated the genes of some fruit flies to make transgenic animals that produced more SOD or more catalase. These animals did not live longer than the average fruit fly. But when transgenic lines were created that simultaneously over-expressed both enzymes, the average life span jumped from 45 to 75 days. The flies' oxygen consumption increased and they were more active than the controls. This suggests that flies did not extend their life span by reducing their metabolic rate or entering a state of semi- hibernation. Because the life span was extended only when two enzymes were present, Orr concluded that they collaborate to disarm free radicals by converting them to oxygen and water. SOD, he says, converts the O2º to H202. Catalase, in turn, converts H2O2 to molecular oxygen (O2) and water. Unfortunately, too much of a good thing is not good at all, Orr says. Increasing SOD without simultaneously increasing catalase would increase the levels of H2O2. And H2O2 is a reactive oxygen species that can cause damage. (However, it's not a free radical, since it does not have an unpaired electron.) The results were widely heralded among aging researchers, and were "the first direct evidence for the oxidative stress hypothesis," Orr says. The next step, he says, will be to see if the same genetic alteration affects the life span of mammals. "Such studies are under way with mice," he adds, "but it will take time to see results because mice live longer than fruit flies." But what does oxidative stress have to do with caloric restriction? Oxidation, super-dieting, and you Oxidative stress -- the buildup of too many free radicals in cells -- may explain the benefits of caloric restriction. That's the opinion of Richard Weindruch, who is studying calorically restricted monkeys at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. Writing in Scientific American, Weindruch suggested that mitochondria are the major source of free radicals. Mitochondria are tiny "factories" inside cells that make adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a chemical that powers a wide range of cellular activities. Weindruch wrote that mitochondria seem to inadvertently make free radicals while producing ATP. The free radicals, in turn, damage the mitochondria, and the damaged mitochondria make more free radicals. Eventually the cycle of damage becomes a slippery slope that we call "aging." (See "Caloric Restriction and Aging" and "Oxidative Stress, Caloric Restriction, and Aging" in the bibliography). It's not clear why reducing caloric intake should reduce the amount of free radicals produced in cells, although there are some candidate explanations. But George Roth, who heads the National Institutes of Aging study on calorically restricted monkeys, suspects that free radicals are part of the more general story of aging. As Roth sees it, aging is a reduction in the amount of order in living systems, which require a high degree of order. He says that more energy, in the form of more calories, creates more disorder (which scientists call entropy). He suggests that caloric restriction "slows the energy flux through the organism so we disorder at a slower rate." Although it might seem that more energy would cause more order (after all, it takes a lot of effort to clean a messy room) remember that adding energy to the atmosphere, for example, actually increases the amount of disorder -- and could eventually cause a hurricane. And when you remove enough thermal energy to lower the temperature to almost absolute zero, things get so orderly that almost nothing happens, and atoms actually fuse. Roth's point is that living cells depend on order. Think of the incredible complexity and specificity of the DNA in your chromosomes. So in the broadest sense, more disorder equals more destruction and less ability to function -- in other words, aging. Should you take antioxidants? We were hoping you wouldn't ask the million-dollar question. Antioxidants -- including vitamins A, C and E -- are widely considered to be antidotes to aging, and there's some evidence that they work. The Why Files won't suggest that you take antioxidants. But we will tell you that in 1997, when a panel of prominent aging researchers (including some of the experts interviewed here), was asked whether they took antioxidants, they all raised their hands in unison. http://whyfiles.org/057aging/lo_cal.html
From: Arindam Banerjee on 4 May 2010 00:53
Well, at least no one of repute says that this remarkable man and the DRDO are frauds. And this is something! Of course there will be a lot of whining in the medical circles, but if they cut out the term 'allegedly' about this, what is an actual and undisputable fact, then that will be a beginning. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |