ok to eat junk food?

A Muzi writes:

"Q." LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com writes:
A human beings natural lifespan is about 40 years.

Tim McNamara wrote:
And on what do you base this astonishing revelation?

I think that's the accepted number, I've seen it often in disussion
of effects of modern water and sewer systems on longevity. Is it
controversial??

Yes and no. Life span- the "natural" maximum lifespan- is a very
different number from life expectancy. Life expectancy is the more
valuable number and is probably much more accurate. Access to clean
water and sanitation is probably the single most influential factor
on life expectancy.

The life span of humans is about 120 years. That's about as long as
anyone lives and very very few people ever live beyond that age, and
then only a year or two. Basically, we just don't seem to be able to
live beyond that point- we just wear out and die.

I've been priveleged to meet many people over 100 years old, it's
always an interesting thing to meet someone whose life has encompassed
the entire history human flight (well, heavier-than-air flight) from
the Wright brothers to walking on the moon.

"Josh Gatts" wrote in message
...
...
Also, life expectancy numbers are hugely skewed by high infant mortality
rates. If you can make it past toddlerhood or so, as most of us on this
newsgroup presumably have, you've got a decent chance of living to a ripe
old age.


{just to make this thread much larger}

Except those that don't wear helmets!

;-)

Tim

(Carl Fogel) wrote in
om:

Owen Pope wrote in message
...
"Matt O'Toole" wrote in
news

"Per Elmsäter" wrote in
message news
The people in my club that do the Randonneur thing (
Ultra long distances) eat almost nothing but junkfood
on their rides.

For calories per dollar, you can't beat a donut.

Are you sure? I've been looking about and the highest
calorie/dollar ratio I've found is Hostess Fruit Pies,
with 480- 500 calories per $.50 pie, so ~1000 cal/dollar.
Honey buns are close, at 840 cal/dollar.


Dear Owen,

The glory of the doughnut does
not depend upon any measurable
attributes, any more than its
celestial shape (an idealized
bicycle wheel) depends on any
spokes for support.

Fruit Pies? Faugh! You might
save a few pennies, but what
about your immortal soul?

My immortal soul rests on my level of donut consumption?

That sure simplifies things.

-Owen the Pastry Pope

Carl Fogel wrote:

I note with withering scorn apologists
like Jeff and Benjamin Weiner attempting
to conceal the true nature of bagels.

"Ring-shaped" and "O-shaped"--for shame!

Do not be misled by their evasions.

Bagels are stale, still-born doughnuts,
whose shortcomings cannot be disguised
by slicing them in half or spreading
noxious pastes upon their guillotined
corpses.

Ask yourself this--which "ring-shaped"
item would Homer Simpson would reach for,
a godless bagel or a noble doughnut?

It's enough to make me want to change
my name.

Carl Fonut

Carl, are you writing on an Apple II with the 40 column screen width
graphics setting?

Do not set up this false metaphysical exclusion between the bagel and
the donut. Bagels may serve as a main course, while donuts are a snack
or dessert (the diet of Mr. Simpson excepted).

One obsessed with toroidal food may eat a bagel sandwich, with
onion rings on the side, and finish it off with a donut. And
malcontents dare to criticize a world in which this is possible!

I don't recommend eating an entire Bundt cake at century rest stops
though.

Rick Onanian wrote:

I guess it depends when you eat it. For a 26 mile ride, you
probably won't need to eat during the ride; fat is fine. As far as
your weight is concerned, X amount of calories is X amount of
calories regardless of it's source. If you're eating mid-ride to
avoid bonking (running out of fuel), fat will _cause_ you to bonk
even worse (just ask me on many of my failed century attempts).

Find your "power food" and stick with it. Resist the urge to eat
something else. Rice krispies with whole milk (in mass quantities)
seems to be the only fuel that works for me; if I'd remember to eat
it for my mid-ride meal, I could finally achieve a full century.

I am not a coach and I don't know you or your riding habits,
but I don't think what you are describing is usually called
a bonk. It is natural to feel sluggish after eating a large
(or even moderate) amount. This is an entirely different
animal from the running-out-of-fuel bonk. Usually one can
recover from the large meal by riding easily for some time
(5 minutes, 15, 30?). The bonk is different and once into it
you better eat, but if you've gone too deep you won't recover
that day and you will generally feel it the next day as well.

I do a semi-regular long ride with a lunch stop. At the stop
I'm hungry enough to eat a large sandwich, but if I do, I'm a
little slow for the next 5-10 minutes. Since the ride usually
picks up speed after the stop, it seems a better strategy (for me)
to eat a big muffin and some nuts or salty stuff.

I agree with Paul Kopit (?) who said that finishing a long ride
like a century should be doable for anybody if you put in enough
practice and pace yourself.

A Muzi wrote in message ...
"Q." LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com writes:
A human beings natural lifespan is about 40 years.

Tim McNamara wrote:
And on what do you base this astonishing revelation?

I think that's the accepted number, I've seen it often in
disussion of effects of modern water and sewer systems on
longevity. Is it controversial??

Dear Andrew,

Here's a mortality table for poets
from my 1970 Norton Anthology of Poetry,
an oddball but interesting look at
mortality for the last 650 years.
(See why I've been such a pest about
sprocket variation data?)

Obviously, poets tended to live longer
than the "life expectancy" because they
survived childhood. As the centuries go
by, they do tend to live longer, probably
because of better sanitation, food, and
inoculations.

With what we'd consider primitive conditions,
the great hurdle to overcome is reaching the
age of five. After that, your odds of beating
40 improved tremendously.

Various illnesses (chiefly tuberculosis),
suicide, alcoholism, accident, murder,
execution, and war take their premature
toll on the poets.

Cancer, despite our modern horror, is
primarily a disease of age, grown more
prominent because so many of us now
live long enough to die of it.

Being poets, they're from the literate
class and therefore more likely to be
from the more successful classes.

On the other hand, only a few women appear,
so the life expectancy is presumably lower.

The 20 out of 114 who failed to reach 40
are marked with an asterisk, with a few
causes of death listed.

Their average age is 60, so you can see why
I scribble limericks.

Carl Fogel

O dark dark dark. They all go into the dark . . . .
T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets, "East Coker," III, 1

age born died poet
57 1343 1400 geoffrey chaucer
74 1391 1465 charles d'orleans
69 1460 1529 john skelton
56 1491 1547 henry viii
39* 1503 1542 thomas wyatt, a fever
30* 1517 1547 henry howard, executed
54 1540 1594 barnabe googe
47 1552 1599 edmund spenser
66 1552 1618 sir walter raleigh, executed
32* 1554 1586 philip sidney, war
52 1554 1606 john lyly
74 1554 1628 fulke greville
39* 1557 1596 george peele
67 1558 1625 thomas lodge
32* 1560 1592 robert greene, illness
34* 1561 1595 robert southwell, executed
57 1562 1619 samuel daniel
68 1563 1631 michael drayton
29* 1564 1593 christopher marlowe, stabbed
52 1564 1616 william shakespeare
53 1567 1620 thomas campion
33* 1567 1601 thomas nashe
60 1572 1632 thomas dekker
65 1572 1637 ben jonson
59 1572 1631 john donne
46 1579 1625 john fletcher
45 1580 1625 john webster
65 1583 1648 lord herbert
32* 1584 1616 francis beaumont, sudden fever
64 1585 1649 william drummond
83 1591 1674 george wither
83 1591 1674 robert herrick
67 1592 1669 henry king
40 1593 1633 george herbert
41 1598 1639 thomas carew
43 1602 1645 willliam strode
81 1606 1687 edmund waller
70 1596 1666 james shirley
66 1608 1674 john milton
33 1609 1642 john suckling
36* 1613 1649 richard crashaw
59 1618 1667 abraham cowley
40 1618 1658 richard lovelace
57 1621 1678 andrew marvell
73 1622 1695 henry vaughn
69 1631 1700 john dryden
37* 1637 1674 thomas traherne
87 1642 1729 edward taylor
33 1647 1680 john wilmot
57 1664 1721 matthew prior
78 1667 1745 jonathan swift
47 1672 1719 joseph addison
74 1674 1748 isaac watts
47 1685 1732 john gay
56 1688 1744 alexander pope
48 1700 1748 james thomson
75 1709 1784 samuel johnson
55 1716 1771 thomas gray
38* 1721 1759 william collins, died insane
49 1722 1771 christopher smart
69 1731 1800 william cowper
80 1752 1832 philip freneau
78 1754 1832 george crabbe
70 1757 1827 william blake
37* 1759 1796 robert burns, probably rheumatic heart disease
80 1770 1850 william wordsworth
62 1772 1834 samuel coleridge
79 1775 1864 walter landor
36* 1788 1824 lord byron, fever
30* 1792 1822 percy shelley, drowned
67 1793 1864 john clare
84 1794 1878 william cullen bryant
26* 1795 1821 john keats, tuberculosis
47 1799 1846 thomas hood
79 1803 1882 ralph waldo emerson
75 1807 1882 henry wadwsorth longfellow
85 1807 1892 john greenleaf whittier
74 1809 1883 edward fitzgerald
85 1809 1894 oliver wendell holmes
40 1809 1849 edgar allan poe
83 1809 1892 alfred, lord tennyson
77 1812 1889 robert browning
45 1817 1862 henry david thoreau
72 1819 1891 herman melville
73 1819 1892 walt whitman
52 1821 1873 frederick tuckerman
66 1822 1888 matthew arnold
54 1828 1882 dante gabriel rossetti
56 1830 1886 emily dickinson
54 1830 1894 christina rossetti
62 1834 1896 william morris
75 1834 1909 algernon swinburne
88 1840 1928 thomas hardy
86 1844 1930 robert bridges
45 1844 1889 gerard manley hopkins
77 1859 1936 a.e. housman
71 1865 1936 rudyard kipling
74 1865 1939 william butler yeats
33* 1867 1900 ernest dowson, alcoholism
66 1869 1935 e.a. robinson
29* 1871 1900 stephen crane, tuberculosis
67 1871 1938 james weldon johnson
34* 1872 1906 paul laurence dunbar, tuberculosis
83 1873 1956 walter de la mare
89 1874 1963 robert frost
89 1878 1967 carl sandburg
39* 1878 1917 edward thomas, war
76 1879 1955 wallace stevens
80 1883 1963 william carlos williams
45 1885 1930 d.h. lawrence
87 1885 1972 ezra pound
75 1887 1962 robinson jeffers
85 1887 1972 marianne moore
77 1888 1965 t.s. eliot

"Rick Onanian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:11 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:
"Q." LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com writes:

A human beings natural lifespan is about 40 years.

And on what do you base this astonishing revelation?

His key word was "natural". That is, wild (not domesticated) homo
sapiens in their natural (not modern) environment.

For which you have little evidence?
Unless you can fish out fossil evidence (of which there isn't much as there
really weren't that many humans about 20,000 years ago).
Most places where the conditions have been OK there have been "domesticated"
humans for most of the last 3000 years.

In some places, it's even less than 40. Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Zambia

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 35.25 years
male: 35.25 years
female: 35.25 years (2003 est.)

total population:37.24 years
male:37.08 years
female:37.41 years (2000 est.)

It's going down! They're living SHORTER there. Pretty soon, nobody
there will survive childhood.

Ever heard of AIDS?

The "natural" human state is not closest matched by the people who live
under very harsh conditions.
BTW: 38% of Zambians are classed as "urban".

Minimize the junk food.

Eat lots of fruit. Eat lots of vegetables. Eat potatos and whole grains for
carbs. Eat beans and oatmeal for fiber. Eat fish and poultry for protein
BRBR

But all things in moderation, like junk food and ...beer.....

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

David Reuteler wrote:
Werehatrack wrote:
that is almost exactly two pints of guinness per hour.
Or four American beers[1] of most varieties.
good news! somewhat counter-intuitively guinness has less calories.
per 12oz serving:

Er, a British pint is 20 UK floz (just over 19 US floz).
--
David Damerell flcl?

David Damerell wrote:
: Er, a British pint is 20 UK floz (just over 19 US floz).

so?

i know that. i was trying to normalize .. unless the oz is different as
well. are 12oz 12oz in the UK?
--
david reuteler