[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

You're missing something important: The "conscientious" personality type has all of the above adequately covered. But the "happy-go-lucky" personality type doesn't have all the bases covered as far as living a complete healthy lifestyle. The happy-go-lucky types take more health risks in the name of having fun.

For example, they're likely to laugh and/or ridicule a healthy diet as being extreme or obsessive. They're also likely to dismiss a healthy diet as being dull and boring - no fun! By the way, it's not true but it's true from their perspective or mind set.

It's not that being happy and having a support system isn't good, it's just not the whole picture. (Too many eggs in one basket.)

To the best of my ability to tell, I do not believe that the study incorporated various personality types. Since there are various personality assessment tools (which generally categorize me as type A) I would think the Mayo study does not take them into consideration. Do you think the study you note is recent enough to accurately incorporate the Mayo dynamics and variables?

[jimbo2012]

Neu5Gc, a non-human sugar found in red meat, promotes inflammation and cancer progression

researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine to investigate the possible tumor-forming role of a sugar called Neu5Gc, which is naturally found in most mammals but not in humans.

In a study published in the Dec. 29 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists found that feeding Neu5Gc to mice engineered to be deficient in the sugar (like humans) significantly promoted spontaneous cancers. The study did not involve exposure to carcinogens or artificially inducing cancers, further implicating Neu5Gc as a key link between red meat consumption and cancer.

They found that red meats (beef, pork and lamb) are rich in Neu5Gc, affirming that foods of mammalian origin such as these are the primary sources of Neu5Gc in the human diet. The molecule was found to be bio-available, too, meaning it can be distributed to tissues throughout the body via the bloodstream.

The researchers had previously discovered that animal Neu5Gc can be absorbed into human tissues. In this study, they hypothesized that eating red meat could lead to inflammation if the body’s immune system is constantly generating antibodies against consumed animal Neu5Gc, a foreign molecule. Chronic inflammation is known to promote tumor formation.

more
N-Glycolylneuraminic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People Behind the Progress at the Cancer Research Institute - CRI

"recently published in the British Journal of Cancer, for instance, followed the diets and health of 61,000 participants over more than a decade. The study found that vegetarians—inclusive of those who eat fish—are 50 percent less likely to develop some types of cancer than people who eat red meat."

"the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research described suggestive evidence that animal fat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer.....colon cancer patients who, after having a primary tumor removed, maintained a Western diet that’s high in red and processed meats were three-and-a-half times more likely to have a recurrence than patients who ate higher intakes of fish, poultry, fruits, and vegetables."

"

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by jimbo2012

Neu5Gc, a non-human sugar found in red meat, promotes inflammation and cancer progression

researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine to investigate the possible tumor-forming role of a sugar called Neu5Gc, which is naturally found in most mammals but not in humans.

In a study published in the Dec. 29 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists found that feeding Neu5Gc to mice engineered to be deficient in the sugar (like humans) significantly promoted spontaneous cancers. The study did not involve exposure to carcinogens or artificially inducing cancers, further implicating Neu5Gc as a key link between red meat consumption and cancer.

They found that red meats (beef, pork and lamb) are rich in Neu5Gc, affirming that foods of mammalian origin such as these are the primary sources of Neu5Gc in the human diet. The molecule was found to be bio-available, too, meaning it can be distributed to tissues throughout the body via the bloodstream.

The researchers had previously discovered that animal Neu5Gc can be absorbed into human tissues. In this study, they hypothesized that eating red meat could lead to inflammation if the body’s immune system is constantly generating antibodies against consumed animal Neu5Gc, a foreign molecule. Chronic inflammation is known to promote tumor formation.

more
N-Glycolylneuraminic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People Behind the Progress at the Cancer Research Institute - CRI

"recently published in the British Journal of Cancer, for instance, followed the diets and health of 61,000 participants over more than a decade. The study found that vegetarians—inclusive of those who eat fish—are 50 percent less likely to develop some types of cancer than people who eat red meat."

"the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research described suggestive evidence that animal fat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer.....colon cancer patients who, after having a primary tumor removed, maintained a Western diet that’s high in red and processed meats were three-and-a-half times more likely to have a recurrence than patients who ate higher intakes of fish, poultry, fruits, and vegetables."

"

I would prefer links to credible sources. The organization you link is not a research facility, it is a fundraiser. AND....Words and phrases taken out of context are confusing and often misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_Institute

As to your link to the Wikipedia explanation of N-Glycolylneuraminic acid. there is nothing to suggest or dispute your statement that it "causes" inflammation.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

[message to Jimbo] I would prefer links to credible sources. The organization you link is not a research facility, it is a fundraiser. AND....Words and phrases taken out of context are confusing and often misleading.

The link to the article by Dr. Oliver M. Pearce is a credible source because everything is backed up by scientific studies. For example, if you scroll down to the 3rd. paragraph you will see the words, "A large population study" in blue type. If you click on that blue type you will see a report by the British Journal of Cancer.

Then scroll down to where it says "Abstract". At the end of the abstract there is a conclusion: "The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters."

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

...At the end of the abstract there is a conclusion: "The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters."

I believe that conclusion is probably true. But "some", "maybe"? Not very definitive or convincing.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

I believe that conclusion is probably true. But "some", "maybe"? Not very definitive or convincing.

I didn't say I liked the study. I was merely giving instructions on how to get the scientific back up to various statements in the article.

In my opinion, the study would have been better if they had compared those who eat animal protein with those who don't eat any. Protein has many different forms, but it's still protein.

Remember the heading of this thread: "Protein activates genes, accelerates aging"

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by dbussone

To the best of my ability to tell, I do not believe that the study incorporated various personality types. Since there are various personality assessment tools (which generally categorize me as type A) I would think the Mayo study does not take them into consideration. Do you think the study you note is recent enough to accurately incorporate the Mayo dynamics and variables?

I read the book about 5 years ago, so the only thing I feel sure about now is what I stated. I remember feeling satisfied because, after taking the personality tests in the book, I was classified as "conscientious". And those who were conscientious in the study had the best outcomes as far as longevity etc.. And I remembered why the "happy-go-lucky" personality didn't do as well. There were other personality types but I don't remember enough to comment on them.

Someday I'll see if I can get the book again and review it.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I read the book about 5 years ago, so the only thing I feel sure about now is what I stated. I remember feeling satisfied because, after taking the personality tests in the book, I was classified as "conscientious". And those who were conscientious in the study had the best outcomes as far as longevity etc.. And I remembered why the "happy-go-lucky" personality didn't do as well. There were other personality types but I don't remember enough to comment on them. Someday I'll see if I can get the book again and review it.

VPL, this post is for you.
I know you like to read the newspaper and you often quote articles that support your point of view.

Friday's Daily Sun had an article by Dr. Barton Goldsmith entitled:
Depression, Loneliness are Bad for Your Health

I quote:
"Apparently loneliness and depression are the new killers.
In fact, recent studies show that either one is more dangerous to your life than obesity or using tobacco products."

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

VPL, this post is for you.
I know you like to read the newspaper and you often quote articles that support your point of view.

Friday's Daily Sun had an article by Dr. Barton Goldsmith entitled:
Depression, Loneliness are Bad for Your Health

I quote:
"Apparently loneliness and depression are the new killers.
In fact, recent studies show that either one is more dangerous to your life than obesity or using tobacco products."

Where's your link to the article? It's all to easy to take statements out of context.

If you feel strongly about this, you should start a new thread and advise people not to be lonely and/or depressed.

In your opinion, does this new finding make it more acceptable to be obese and use tobacco products?

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Where's your link to the article? It's all to easy to take statements out of context.



If you feel strongly about this, you should start a new thread and advise people not to be lonely and/or depressed.



In your opinion, does this new finding make it more acceptable to be obese and use tobacco products?

The article was in the Daily Sun. I don't believe it possible to provide a link. However your local library most likely has a subscription you can access.

[Villages PL]

Originally posted by Barefoot: Depression, Loneliness, are Bad for Your Health. "....more dangerous to your life than obesity or using tobacco products."

If you feel strongly about this, you should start a new thread and advise people not to be lonely and/or depressed.

In your opinion, does this new finding make it more acceptable to be obese and/or use tobacco products?

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I personally think that people who have a close, supportive circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are the healthiest and happiest of people!

Originally Posted by Barefoot

VPL, this post is for you.
I know you like to read the newspaper and you often quote articles that support your point of view.

Friday's Daily Sun had an article by Dr. Barton Goldsmith entitled:
Depression, Loneliness are Bad for Your Health

I quote:
"Apparently loneliness and depression are the new killers.
In fact, recent studies show that either one is more dangerous to your life than obesity or using tobacco products."

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Where's your link to the article? It's all to easy to take statements out of context.

If you feel strongly about this, you should start a new thread and advise people not to be lonely and/or depressed.

In your opinion, does this new finding make it more acceptable to be obese and use tobacco products?

VPL, you often quote articles from the Daily Sun to make a point. I was merely doing the same.
I do feel strongly about this, however I wouldn't dream of starting a thread and advising people not to be lonely or depressed. The members of TOTV are quite capable of deciding how to live their lives without my advice!
And I don't feel that people with a close circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are obese and use tobacco products. I don't understand where you came up with that extrapolation.
I think people with supportive friends and loving relationships tend to be well balanced individuals who take care of themselves and their friends.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

VPL, you often quote articles from the Daily Sun to make a point. I was merely doing the same.
I do feel strongly about this, however I wouldn't dream of starting a thread and advising people not to be lonely or depressed. The members of TOTV are quite capable of deciding how to live their lives without my advice!
And I don't feel that people with a close circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are obese and use tobacco products. I don't understand where you came up with that extrapolation.
I think people with supportive friends and loving relationships tend to be well balanced individuals who take care of themselves and their friends.

Quite correct.