Food

...since food is probably among the least understood, the most confused and otherwise outlandishly most distorted of almost all the lifestyle factors. So, to help straighten out this 'mishmash' of misinformation about food that we are routinely being bombarded with via the media, magazines, television, newspapers, advertisements, and so on, let's consider what I would call 'some basic logical understandings' about food.

---For one, man has lived on this planet for millions upon millions of years, and all of mankind has had no choice but to consume food in order to live. Just like all machines need a source of energy whether via gasoline or coal or electricity or whatever, so too the 'machine' called man is fueled with food.

---Now logically, as I said, man has been eating food for millions upon millons of years, going back generations upon generation. And throughout all those thousands and millions of generations the source of food was quite literally different from what it is today. That that's a 'no brainer' is logical also.

---The generations of recent or current times are miniscule in comparison to the innumerable thousands of preceding generations and the millions of years these generations go back wherein man consumed totally different kinds and amounts of food, totally alien to the fast foods, and processed foods, and artificial foods, and all sorts of 'unnatural' foods we routinely consume today.

---Ironically though, it is probably a poor pathetic trick of our minds that we tend to think of modern times not only as being the most advanced of times, and therefore most beneficial to our survival, but somehow we forget that the genetics we possess today is that of the genetics passed down to us and which we inherited from ancient times.

---With the understanding of these simple relationships in mind I would say that...

---I emphasize all this because somehow we have put 'food' in one category and 'disease' and 'aging' in other categories. But who would even think as to the amazing degree to which food 'is' the cause of most of our modern day chronic illnesses as well as responsible for many of the signs and symptoms of aging? Fact is, we don't want to think of this. We like earing our harmful foods too much!

---To say which adverse effects specifically result from which foods might be a different matter from simply stating that such foods 'must' be having harmful effects in general, as I said above. But then again, I have been studying foods and looking into these matters for decades, and in doing so I could not help but notice and figure out multitudes of specific interrelationships between these 'harmful' modern day food products and food habits to the very nature, occurrence and etiology of most all the chronic diseases we're routinely suffering and dying from in our modern society, as well as to the signs and symptoms otherwise regarded as normally coming from aging.

---If you think about it, that all this is true would also have to be a no brainer. After all, if the source of 'fuel' becomes alien to the way the 'machine'--the body--has been constructed directly in accordance with the directives of genes going back millions upon millions of years, how could anyone not come to the realization that these alien foods might be harmful to us in many ways, and at both acute and chronic levels?

---You see, we don't like to think of these things because we are hedonists. We like the taste of our foods, and we like the amounts we eat, quite the opposite from ancient man who scruggled over a lifetime just to find food let alone find enough of it, and actually he usually went hungry. Fact is, few of us in the 'present' can feel the 'pain' of a 'future' heart attack or the 'agony' of a 'future' cancer when we are eating a juicy hamburger or when we are overstuffing our faces and savouring in the delicacies of good tasting foods, to the point even of gluttony.

---That modern day foods must relate to disease and aging is a 'no brainer.' After all, and as I've said numerous times throughout this web site, the fact is, when you put different fields of learning together from the study of food and anthropology to the way man lived over the eons and to the study of medicine and disease and body physiology and pathology and exercise and so on and on, one cannot help but come to the conlusion that most of the diseases of modern times (as well as many of the signs and symptoms of aging) are not only lifestyle related, but especially so, are food related.

---Not meaning to belabor a point, but I do so only because these profoundly simple relationships are routinely missed or denied by the human psyche since we revel in being hedonists. So remember:

---Okay, we've established the fact that disease and aging have everything to do with food intake to degrees that would stagger the imagination, to degrees well beyond that which we would like to accept, even scientists, because number one, we human beings are hedonists, and because number two, this staggering degree as to the deleterious effects of improper food, if accepted, would break down long time and currently accepted beliefs which most people psychologically are not willing to, nor cannot, give up.

---For example, if I were to tell you that food and in turn the integrity of the vascular system has something to do with the enlargement of many of the facial structures, such as those of the ears and nose, and which often occurs as one becomes older, would you believe that?
---If this comes as a surprise I would ask you, did you ever wonder why ears and noses often appear bigger in many elderly people? How about the mouth? Mouths tend to become bigger, but there's another reason for that, not food.
---Or perhaps you thought the enlargement of a number of the facial structures was just coming from your imagination. Or perhaps you thought these elderly people must have always had such enlarged features when they were younger.
---Well, fact is, it's likely their features weren't as large when they were younger. And it's likely you might never even have thought about this sort of facial distortion with aging, for one, because you didn't know any better. But if you don't know any better, how can you then do something about stopping it from happening (as well as other aging related changes of the face)? And if you don't know any better let alone know how to stop it from happening...it might eventually just happen to you,
---...unless of course you have an open mind about these things like I've had and are willing to learn.---

---At any rate, fact is, the truth as to the staggering effects of food on disease and aging would challenge your sense of reality, the reality you're used to, and few human beings like to accept something new let alone make change, especially when that change means they might have to deny themselves the greater part of their lust for food!

---This psychological denial of man might be foremost among the reasons why one of the most studied, and well documented, and most proven insights into the nature of food and its effects on aging and disease has for the most part been overlooked by pretty much all of modern society, and medicine, and whatever. I refer here to restriction in the amounts of food we eat.

---Oh, so now that I mentioned 'food restriction' you can fool yourself into saying, "Oh, that's what he's getting at...food restriction. I've heard about that before. That's for fanatics. I don't care what it can do. I'll have nothing to do with it. I like to enjoy my life." [...even though it might mean a disease ridden, much much shorter, and much poorer quality of life!]

---So fine. If you want to jump to conclusions as to where I'm leading in all this, do so. I like eating too. But I'm not about to deny truth. Why go on this or that diet program or whatever if it's just to do only what I'm willing to accept, even though I'd fail miserably if I was foolish enough to do so. Doesn't seem to me that denial of truth smacks of having any brain power. Might as well be a frog or insect. Relatively brainless. Fact is, only truth is real. If you lie to yourself you're bound to fail one hundred percent.

---And if I seek to find truth, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to use that truth the way I find it. Perhaps I'd learn to revise it, or fit it to my own likes or needs. But unless I first find truth, I might as well be spitting into the wind and singing Daisy in La-La Land. In such case though, I would then think myself to be an idiot, which I'm not about to do by any means.

---If finding truth meant that 'cow dung' was determined to be a healthy food, does that mean I'm going to eat cow dung! Listen up. Use your noggin. Perhaps I'd find out why cow dung is healthy. Then I'd somehow take the reasons why and apply them differently, perhaps by revising things and readapting what I've learned into eating cherry pie!
---But to do so I've first got to find the truth as to the reasons why. Right...
---...right! Otherwise, I'd be wasting my time and my life, like most people do when it comes to food and diets and special programs and whatnot. They waste their time. They waste their money. They waste their lives. Then they wonder why they failed.

---So, getting back to 'food restriction,' what's to it? What's it all about? Fact is, if you go back thousands of years, even to Biblical times, you'll hear mention not only of food restriction but also of its extreme, 'fasting.' Fasting means 'no food,' just water. A lot of people like to think of a 'juice fast' or whatever, but juice is still food, in liquid form, that's all. It's not really a fast. So I'd call it a liquid diet. Not a fast.

---Now don't go off in a tizzy and think, "Oh boy...he sucked me into reading on about food restriction, and now he's talking about fasting. What is he, some kind of fanatic?"

---...Just remember what I said about 'truth.' If there is something to fasting for whatever reason, why does it work? ...and can we then use that information and apply it in a different way more compatible to our liking?

---For many years now I've been reading health related and medical writings going back hundreds and thousands of years. Actually, I've always been searching for the long lost 'magic' of ancient times. And ironically, in many many ways, I've actually found some of that 'magic.'

---For example, I remember having read in some medical book from the early 1800's that a one or two day fast gets rid of a tooth ache. I can tell you this. I read that over five years ago. I've had about three toothaches since, some pretty severe. I tried a 48 hour fast with all of them, and they all disappeared, permanently.
---...Now, my apparent success at this doesn't mean that I'm telling you a one to two day fast will get rid of toothaches. I'm simply reporting to you what I read and what I did. It worked for me. And I've wondered why it worked, actually. It seemed so amazing. I mean, I've always known that a toothache usually means a decayed tooth, bacteria, going to the dentist, and having your tooth drilled and filled.
---But I do remember when I first read that bit about fasting and toothaches, I kept an open mind. I'd been studying fasting--and everything else about food!--so I tried it one day after having had a toothache for over a week or so. Just recently I had another toothache for over a month. It was progressively getting worse, especially sensitivity to heat. Got to the point even luke warm water had become painful. By 48 hours of fasting that too was gone. None of them ever returned.

---So I asked myself, why? Here's what I figured. I don't know if it's true or not.
---...You see, the way it works, one of the things fasting is supposed to do--when done the right way, so don't try it!--is to enhance the immune system and in turn the natural ability of the body to fight off infection, like from bacteria and viruses I would imagine.

---Remember, this fasting information comes primarily from hundreds and even thousands of years ago even though in the 1900's a relative minority of health care professionals have dabbled in it, even nowadays.

---I figured, from what dentists would tell me over the years whenever I had a toothache and the corresponding tooth decay, "There's bacteria eating into and decaying your tooth." Antibiotics don't work to get rid of it because they really can't get at the decayed area of the tooth sufficiently so to get rid of the bacteria, and in turn the decay, probably because there isn't a good enough blood supply to the tooth to deliver the antibiotics, such as more readily occurs in other tissues of the body. So the decay has to be drilled away. At least that's what the dentist always said and any studies I've gone over and read relating to dentistry and tooth decay.

---But then again, if it's really true that this fasting business does have the effect to markedly increase the performance of the immune system and the ability of the body to get to 'hard to reach areas' of infection, like tooth decay perhaps...well, perhaps that's why the pain of the toothache disappeared. The fact that it disappeared permanently led me to conjecture that the bacteria might have been peremanently destroyed, because it's the presence of the bacteria decaying the tooth and affecting the nerve that results in the pain. So I figured if the pain went away, perhaps so did the bacteria and in turn any further decay.
---...And perhaps it worked because of the reported effect that fasting has on enhancing the effectiveness of the immune system, or at least of that part of the immune system related to teeth, so as to have some really powerful effect to get into dental nooks and cranies that antibiotics couldn't reach by virture of the blood supply to the tooth and so on!

---I don't know. As I said, I'm not advising anyone to do the same. I'm just reporting what I read and learned from literature going back hundreds of years, and it's worked like a charm for me at least three time now, if not more. Perhaps there's still underlying tooth damage. I don't know. But I've never since had pain and the teeth in question are quite sturdy and look fine as ever.

---I've been studying this sort of stuff for many decades now, so I have a belief system you can't possibly have about these matters. But as for me, for myself, I 'do' know the uncanny degree to which they work, even though I can't tell you that any of these discoveries or realizations of mine are the gospel, even though they're one day likely to be shown to be true.

---"So what's this business about food restriction?...Seems to me," the average person might say, "...seems to me food is healthy for you. Supplies all sorts of nourishment. The more you eat, the better, and the healthier you are. So I'm supposed to eat less?...that's nuts. That's like starving yourself. Can't possibly be healthy!"

---When I grew up I remember, the more food the better, the healthier you are. If you want to grow up to be big, healthy and strong...eat! I remember, we'd have a festive dinner on some holiday, and every kind of food was brought to the table. It wasn't enough just to finish what was on your plate. "Who wants seconds?"...and thirds!

---I should have known better. After the meal everybody would sit around the house, some still plumped down in the dining room chairs, others in the living room, others out on the back porch...subdued, listless, bellies bloated, could hardly move. I can't tell you how many of the guests I found on one of the couchs or easy chairs... snoring!

---Back then it was the sign of a hearty meal. I should have known better. Subdued, listless, could hardly move, tired and fatigued...almost sounds like they'd actually been poisoned!

---And looking back now, I now realize that's exactly what had happened with each and every one of those 'hearty' meals. Little did I know then that the appearance of those guests was a warning sign as to what was really going on, as to what we were really doing to ourselves. We'd satisfied our drives and gluttony and set ourselves up for the long range effects of the very diseases which are killing off most of society today.

---...Who would ever have believed that eating less was healthier! Nowadays most of us know this to be true. But somehow we have a strange way of knowing it. On one hand we smugly say that eating less is known to be healthier, yet everywhere throughout industrialized society we are eating more, and more fattening and much more unhealthy foods. We eat a little less than we think is bad for us, and then we pat ourselves proudly on the back as if we alone had the willpower and resolve to control our hunger drives.

---Fact is, we haven't changed. People haven't changed. They have an amazing way of rationalizing away what they don't really want to accept inwardly... that they really should be walking away from the dinner table somewhat hungry.
---...But then again, who will do that, if only for a short time, a week or two perhaps? Or perhaps for a month or two or more. As I said, I can't tell you how many people pride themselves in eating what they delude themselves into believing is 'healthy' while criticizing or looking down on people in general who don't eat healthy nor have the will-power to do so, like they do! And I listen to these people, and I am supposed to believe them. Right. I'm supposed to believe in people whose bodies and facial appearances are dead giveaways as to their gluttonous and hedonistic behavior!

---There's a fellow who in 1905 wrote about food restriction and its amazingly beneficial effects on prolonging the lifespans of various animals. Then there's this fella by the name of McKay who in 1935 did all kinds of studies on various rodents doubling and sometimes trippling their lifespans simply by virture of restricting their food, and this was without regard to the nature or quality or food eaten. The only concern in these studies was restricting the amount of the food, good, bad, or indifferent. Didn't matter what kind of foods they ate.

---I can tell you, there are actually thousands of studies spanning decades and originating from throughout the world wherein the restriction of food, without regard to the nature of the food eaten, not only markedly increased the lifespans of the animals involved in the studies, but also markedly decreased the incidence of all diseases in general.

---The interesting thing, when you have reputable, controlled studies carried out by the most erudite and well respected of learning and research institutions, the results often go two or more ways, showing success or failure for this or that medication, success or failure for this or that treatment or cure, and so on. That's the usual way in research, when things are discovered. And then you compile the innumerable studies and study them carefully and come to conclusions as to the real value of this or that medication or treatment or whatever. And then, years later, there's often a study or a host of studies to prove false everything that was proven to be true years before! That's par for the course for research and studies and so on. Recently that's the way it was for hormonal replacement therapy for women which was supposed to stop heart attacks and help women, not kill them as it is being shown to be doing so today. Given enough time and proven research studies, reputable ones...the most reputable ones...go both ways. Like it or not, that's just the way it works.

---Yet, when you go over food restriction studies, it pretty much doesn't matter from what part of the world the study was taken, or from what decade, even going back hundreds of years to anecdotal research or even thousands of years to reported observations, the results are always the same, and as far as I know pretty much close to one hundred percent. Food restriction without fail affects not only the enhanced prolongation of life but the prevention of disease in general.

---Pretty remarkable, especially when you think that society in general has tended to ignore and pass off food restriction as one of those things we hear about from time to time, but how true could it be? Besides, who would ever want to do it?
---...That's right. who would ever want to do it? Perhaps only somebody who likes living and being healthy or having a greater chance of living longer and being healthier than otherwise. No big deal. Besides, what money can be made from merely telling people about restricting their food? No billions of dollars in profit here like with complicated medical treatments or medications!

---Now don't get me wrong. The medical treatments and medications have helped to save my own life, but without this other avenue of knowledge I'd also now not be writing these very words you are reading, and I'd be dead.
---It's amazing how an open mind can sometimes be so life-saving!

---I had a 94 year old client a number of yers ago. An interesting fellow. Had all his faculties. Lived by himself. Took care of himself. I was called in by a relative of his concerned that he was slowing down. He'd been so active all his life, I wondered what slowing down meant. So I sat down with him and his relative and we talked for two to three hours. That was just the history taking part. When we got to why he was slowing down, well, his gait wasn't as steady as it had been in the past. Right. I tried him out on his bicycle. He put his helmut on. Grabbed the handles and ran along with the bicycle for a little ways to gather a little momentum and took a leap and jumped on the bicycle seat. And away he went. For him, that was slowing down.

---When it got to talking about food, his relative jumped in and said something to the effect, "Well, that's where he's got a little problem." Of course I asked, "What kind of problem?" My client was getting a little ansy by this time. Turned his head away, looked to the floor and mumbled something under his breath to the effect that they've always had problems over this one matter. "What matter?" I continued to inquire. Well, the relative said while shaking his head, "Well, he just doesn't eat too much." My client interrupted, "I do eat. I eat fine."

---Actually, as it turned out after after further questioning, this was not a new thing for the olderly gent. He'd always eaten hardly anything, but when he did eat, he never worried about what he would eat, just not too much of it. Three meals a day, but when you added it all together, even the occasional ice cream along with the daily portion of meat and fish and potatoes, it came out to well under 1,000 calories a day. And he'd always eaten that way. for decades. And he said when he ate more, he'd become lethargic and eventually sick. But he'd learned never to get that way again. It tooks years of learning. But nobody was about to tell him now what to do, even a well meaning senior citizen relative. If he ate too much, which he hardly ever did, that would really slow him down and prevent him from being able to do justice to riding his bicycle.

---It's ironic how ignorance can lead people to believe that that which it is not fashionable to believe might actually be keeping somebody robust and healthy and alive for decades longer than anyone else. But, that's the world we live in, isn't it?

---The way it turned out after working with the pleasant old gent for a number of months--a gent by the way who seemed to thrive off his love of family and friends and people in general [I wonder what that mind factor has to do with all this!]...the way it turned out, by the time I'd gotten him to do about 30 full deep knee bends (squats) in a period of about a minute's time, his 'slowing down' had already begun to 'speed up.'

---I mention this one client because in my business, as a sort of go-between between gyms and hospitals (as a lifestyle medical doctor/person fitness trainer, etc) I've met thousands of people with all kinds of amazing stories. And I will tell you this. I cannot remember one story wherein an elderly person over the age of 90 with all his or her faculties intact and still quite active and robust did not say he or she had always eaten pretty much anything he or she wanted, but always very little of it. It always figured out to be under a thousand calories in divided meals throughout the day.
---...The nature of the food though, a dietician's mightmare, but not mine. All I have to say is you have to live the life to know it. Talk and lack of hands-on experience is cheap.

---Perhaps the hundreds of examples I might be able to remember must be considered anecdotal, but for me, they'e the gospel, and a large part of why I am here on this world today. Once again...always inquiring, always wanting to learn, always having an open mind, always never being the opinionated know-it-all, and always willing to make change. No denial just to hold up old beliefs.

---I remember another nice gent, age about 93, who'd been working out in gym for years much like a kid works out. Had all his faculties. Quick as a wit. A chuckle always in his eye as if he knew what you were thinking. Joked a lot. Like I said, he could do pretty much anything in a gym like a person many decades younger.
---...I remember once having asked him--I've always been picking the minds of elderly people, for years, for who else is it best to learn from if it not be from those with true years of experience...I asked him what all his friends thought about what he was able to do. "They don't say anything," he said. I wondered why. So I asked. "Oh," he said, "they don't say anything because they're long gone"!

---When I asked him about food he always told me, admittedly, he had a problem there. He ate a full three meals a day and never really watched what he ate. He knew to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, he said, but he'd always have trouble on that score.
---..."But I'm a good eater," he'd say to make up for his guilt in the unhealthy nature of what he ate. You see, he knew it was a good thing to eat a full three meals a day...you know, like the daily portions of meat, and fish and potatoes. And he said he ate a lot. Sure he ate a lot, for him. After some questioning, of course, once again--I knew what the answer was going to be even before I'd asked the question...he ate well under a thousand calories a day.
---...No kidding!

---That food restriction works, that's a given. But to get the public to know it and to believe in it, that's a completely different matter, even if it could save lives. After all, it makes no money, and following it is not like taking a pill once a day. Fact is, abiding by its principles can be sheer torture.

---And then, even if accepted, working out the details as to how to go about making it work, and for what conditions, and for whom, could take years of clinical study and experimental research.

---In other words, the way society works requires that money be made somewhere along the line in order for people to spend the time doing the things to make food restriction work, whether it be for research or whatever. After all, a drug company can invest millions of dollars developing a medication, but they can do so only because they know if they succeed they will have a patent on the product of their endeavors and can thereby gain back their money as well as a profit.

---To spend money, however, determining and working out the details for food restriction would reap no financial benefit to anyone because you cannot patent the mere act of telling people in an article or whatever that 'eating less' works, and here's exactly how much less to eat, who is to do it and under what circumstances and how often.

---Yet, research institutions are still doing food restriction research, but usually government funded or some other such thing, but not enough research nor by enough research institutions. The irony, there are far more than enough studies which have been carried out over many, many decades and in a multitude of living species so as to quite securely and uniformly attest to the miraculous effects of food restriction.
---...In fact, the voluminous nature of these studies has been so impressive that certain private drug companies have actually been trying to tap into or otherwise 'harvest,' in a sense, the amazingly successful results of these studies. And they've been doing so by trying to find the gene, or genes, responsible for the beneficial effects. This way, by finding some such gene or genes, and then, by developing a patentable drug to simulate the gene(s)'s effects, if such a thing be possible--and which they would make possible even if it be impossible!...well then, the pharmaceutical companies would have figured out how to make money from one of the most life-promoting yet little known nor appreciated, let alone believed, modalities in of all man's history on this planet.
---...Wouldn't you know it, what lengths the human animal will do to to make a buck!

---I've heard much on these matters, and these money motivated drug companies are actually thinking they will be making a fortune when they find such a drug. I only mention this again to point out that these companies never would have embarked on such an investment had they not been absolutely convinced, by virture of the studies already done, that food restriction actualy worked.

---The irony, it's not only likely there's more than one gene responsible for the food restriction effects, but what these drug companies haven't taken into consideration is that the beneficial effects of food restriction are a whole body phenomenon, of the body as a whole interacting with and adapting to the environment.
---...In other words, while one gene might directly control the color of blue eyes or another gene directly result in brown hair, other genes provide for the ability of living organisms to change their physical structures and functional capabilities but only by virture of those living organisms having to go through whatever it takes to adapt to the prevailing surrounding environment. The gene(s) provide for the adaptive capability, not the change nor the life-promoting effects. The adaptation to the environment does that.
---...You can inherit all of the genes you want, or try to harness them in a laboratory or develop a drug to do so, but you can never simulate the physical and mental environment interreactions those organisms would have to go through in order to make the corrresponding diversity of life-promoting changes I've been referring to when it comes to the beneficial effects of food restriction.

---You see, few people in the world would understand what I am about to say. Actually, to understand it is easy. To comprehend its meaningfulness is another matter. Fact is, we tend to think that we inherit who we are, ourselves, our physical bodies. What we do not realize more so is that we inherit both a combination ourselves and our environment, both of which 'parts' of ourselves are continually interacting and undergoing change. We think of ourselves as self, as separate human beings. We cannot see that there is no one self. We 'are' the environment. It's the combination of the prevailing environment along with what we normally think of as ourselves which is 'really' ourselves and who we are.
---...Without harnessing that understanding and belief system you cannot attain what I have been discussing on these web site pages. The effects of food restriction are just a part of this broader entity which is ourselves, the food or lack of it being just one part of the prevailing environment.

---Fact is, you might be able to restrict your food. The end result would be a whole bunch of frail looking and otherwise emaciated human beings, and definitely not necessarily healthier. You see, when I think of food restriction, I dare not think of it as isolated and alone.
---...Those people who do so, approach it solely as food restriction, might be living longer secondary to the effect of food restriction on preventing the compromise of the vascular system as we become older and which is responsible for the majority of our chronic illnessess as well as most of the earlier signs and symptoms of aging. But there is much more to it. With human beings, that's sort of like getting people to live ten years longer while yet being emaciated and stuck immobile in a wheel chair.
---...Unless the other lifestyle factors from exercise, aerobic and endurance and weight training and mind body factors are taken into consideration to offset the emaciation of food restiction, you're going to end up with a longer lived frail person with a poor quality of life. By combining the food factors with other lifestyle factors, however, you take care of the whole human being and all aspects of living longer, and not just only certain aspects concerning the integrity of the vascular system (as might be done with food restriction alone). Rather, when other lifestyle factors are taken into consideration along with food restriction not only is the integrity and viability of the vascular system much more fully maintained than could otherwise be attained any other way, but the cardiovascular and respiratory and other bodily systems are actually strengthened, thereby offsetting many of the aging related changes of deterioration and weakening that appear to occur with age.

---In other words, a combination of lifestyle factors is necessary when considering food restriction for people. If the drug company does come up with a pill that in a sense simulates food restriction, it's likely, as I said, only to be one having an effect on certain limited aspects of the integrity of the vascular system, and by no means on all aspects, let alone the important aspects. And furthermore, such a pill, as I also said, although it might result in a somewhat longer lived individual, that individual will be totally frail, weak from limb to limb, looking quite old, and have a markedly weakened vascular system in many many ways, all of which is likely to confine such persons to a wheelchair, or if they're lucky, to a walker.

---Nothing, no pill can simulate the combination of lifestyle factors necessary to offset the negative effects of food restriction, obvious among which is the fraily and weakness of the musculoskeletal system along with other organ systems. Not even growth hormone can even come close to offsetting the aging related musculoskelatal deterioration of aging, which has been improperly promoted to be able to do so, and is probably still being used, but which also does only a miniscule part of the job, not to mention the harmful side effects, both acute and chronic, which come along with its use.
---...Besides, such pills and chemicals and drugs and the like as these (growth hormones) cannot possibly take into consideration the way the body really works and interacts with the environment. Not only are the persons promoting such growth hormones and other similar such products deceptive, but the products themselves deceptively try to improve the integrity of the musculoskelatal and other systems of the body when in fact they cannot even come close to doing so properly the way I'm talking about.

---No. It would be outrageous and utter stupidity to think otherwise. A pill or pills will simply not do it. Nothing can simulate the genetically directed adaptive processes whereby the body changes physically and mentally in accordance with both its physical and mental interactions with the surrounding envirnoment. Nothing.

Is It 'Age,' 'Disease,' Or 'Being Unconditioned & Out Of Shape'?

---If I take, let's say, a 75 year old gent deemed medically 'healthy' by medical doctors--normal blood pressure, cholesterol, negative medical history for disease, etc--and tell him to go from walking on a treadmill at two and a half miles per hour to jogging at the same speed (which I dare not do depending upon the circumstances), he might collapse. So I have said to myself over the years, "How 'healthy' could such an individual have been?"
---...The average medical doctor might say the heart and vascular system of such an elderly person, even when 'healthy,' couldn't take the sudden stress of jogging, and so it gave out. It went into collapse. They would attribute the poor response of the cardiovascular sytem to 'age' while I, again, would still have to ask myself, "If the so-called medically 'healthy' elderly gent's cardiovascular system went into collapse while a medically 'healthy' younger person's cardiovascular system wouldn't have given out, was the elderly gent's cardiovascular 'weakness' due to 'age,' or was it perhaps due to the fact that he had not really been so 'healthy' as the usual medical doctor might have been so quick to conclude?"

---And I would say this knowing full well from my vast knowledge in the field and 'hands-on' experience in working with people that the average such elderly gent could easily have withstood such cardiovascular stress had he been properly living by the various combinations of lifestyle factors I have been talking about. Again, food restriction is just one of those lifestyle factors, albeit, granted, an important one. Let's call it just 'eating less.'

---So while the average medical doctor might conceivably go so far as to admit that even though the eldly gent was 'medical healthy' he might have been 'out of shape,' I would still have to ask, "If a mere thing like 'being out of shape' can correct a so-called 'aging related' and supposedly irreversible fraily of the cardiovascular system, doesn't that then strongly suggest that merely being 'out of shape' not only can simulate certain aspects of aging, but must also be deemed to be an important aspect of being 'unhealthy,' just like high blood pressure or high cholesterol?

---...Is 'being out of shape' therefore a form of 'disease', perhaps even more significant or equally significant to that of having high blood pressure or high cholesterol? Being 'overweight' made it to 'disease' status. Why not 'being out of shape'...which actually should have made it to 'disease' status long before high cholesterol and being overweight did! It's somehow been bypassed. We leave it to unlicensed and often unregulated and medically uneducated fitness trainers to treat this disease called 'being ouf of shape'!

---And I take it one step further, through no choice but logic, that such things as 'being out of shape' along with and as well as and many so-called 'disease' states as that of high blood pressure (or a predominant aspect of it) and high cholesterol and late onset diabetes and so on...are all really nothing more than deleterious medical conditions secondary to having been living an improper lifestyle alien to the directives of our underlying genes.
---...So there you have it again, 'Lifestyle Related Medicine.' Let's call a spade a spade and not hide out heads in the sand any longer. If we do not recognize these conditions for what they are--serious life-threatening and like-taking medical conditions of imroper lifestyle--than millions more people are going to die from them.

---For goodness sake. Even you medical doctors who are clearly out of shape yourselves--which also includes 'being unconditioned'--it would behoove you for your own well being as well as that of your patients to stop labeling 'out of shape' and 'unconditioned' people as being 'healthy' just because their blood pressure, cholesterol, and weight are okay and because they have no apparent underlying medical 'diseases.' If you continue to do so, you'll not only be misleading them, but also yourselves... right into the grave!

---Throughout of all medicine I've always read and heard repeated over and over again that the 'healthiest' diet consists of fruits and vegetables. Even as far back as my medical school days in the 1960's, and in medical texts which date back even before that, it was always fruits and vegetables, 'the best diet,' and especially because it was cardiovascular in nature.
---In other words, especially when it came to maintaining cardiovascular 'health' or cardiovascular disease related dietary guidelines or preventing cardiovascular disease or whatever, no question, fruits and vegetables were 'the best.' It had always been known that anything else, such as diets consisting of meat or containing higher levels of fat, especially saturated fat, were clearly inclined to be 'bad' for the blood vessels throughout the body, and for the heart, and were more more inclined to be responsible for laying down plaque throughout the blood vessels throughout the body, and not just within the heart...an unfortunate and limited misconception that still exists today, that just the coronary arteries of the heart and perhaps the carotid arteries in the neck are the only blood vessels involved with plaque. There's a lot more to it than that, so much so that even most of the medical doctors of today don't know the full extent of this.

---...It's not just the laying down of plaque throughout most all the blood vessels of the body that really counts for what's going on when it comes to the deterioration of the body, but it's the compromising of the 'integrity' and 'viability' of all those blood vessels that is responsible as the underlying basis for so many disease states and aspects of the aging process itself, a circumstance, I'm sorry to say, as to which modern day medicine has missed the boat. Perhaps decades from now, if not in a century or two, the medical community will finally realize what's really going on.

---I don't want to sound omnipotent about these matters, but I've been studying them all my life and been engaged in 'hands on' experience such as few other medical doctors or other health care professionals have been privy to (my being a medical doctor/personal fitness trainer and having become learned in so many interrelated fields). Time will bear out what I am saying. For the time being, however, I must once again simply categorize as theory what I have said about this matter.

---At any rate, when I first made my total body transformation at the age of 48, the basis for the diet I used in order to be able to do so, to make my transformation, was a 'done deal' well before I did it, consisting almost completely of fruits and vegetables. I hadn't just suddenly lost 100 pounds of fat and added 25 pounds of muscle during a period of eight months. I had been thinking about it for years. It's just that at the age of 48 I finally put my mind to it, and did it.

---First off, I knew that besides being 'healthier' than anything else, such as with regard to the cardiovascular system and otherwise, fruits and vegetables contained the least amount of 'bad' fat, or at least that kind of fat that is at the top of the list for really being 'bad' for you...more specifically, the saturated fats as opposed to unsaturated fats. Actually, back then, the main idea was that more than any other kinds of foods, fruits and vegetables didn't contain the kinds of fats that were contained within meat, and which were 'bad' for you. Besides, 'meats' contained high levels of protein, and it has always been a known thing in medicine that protein 'overworks' the kidneys, and that if exposed to high levels of protein for a sufficiently long enough period of time, the kidneys were more likely to deteriorate prematurely, a significant fact I'm sure the average lay person is not quite aware of.

---It's a cardinal rule that when an organ or organ system of the body is overworked, it's more likely to deteriorate and break down prematurely, and I would now say, in a very real sense, it's more likely to 'age' more rapidly. And the kidneys are no different. As a matter of fact, if cardiovascular disease or cancer doesn't get you before the age of 100, it's a good bet decreased functional capability of the kidneys and kidney disease will, unless of course you do such things as not inundate the kidneys with the breakdown products of protein, which as I said, goes along with and is part and parcel of the ingestion of 'meat,' all kinds of meat from all kinds of animals!

---It is interesting, but the term 'meat' usually referred to 'red meat,' and it still often does. Why this is so, I don't know. I suppose nowadays people in general know that 'meat' is far from being as 'healthy' as fruits and vegetables, and just the opposte, very unhealthy, and being that people like their meat 'no matter what' and are inclined not to give it up, they have sort of conveniently-- and improperly and foolishly--diverted the term 'meat' to mean 'red meats' such as comes from cows and pigs and the like. You see, if we are to say that the 'unhealthy' kind of meat is only red meat, then that allows the hedonist to eat all other meats and be 'healthy'! It's sort of like 'having your cake and being able to eat it,' in this case the cake being substituted for meat. This is where the 'foolish ignorance' comes in.

---You see, what is meat? Meat is muscle...muscle from an animal. Some meat happens to have more blood in it, so it is referred to as 'red meat.' But muscle is nevertheless still muscle whether it comes from a cow or a pig or a duck or a chicken or even a fish. So the muscle from chicken is also meat! It's just not 'red meat,' or at least not the same kind of red meat as that of a cow. The chicken meat is supposedly safer. We conveniently categorize it as being safer because we are hedonists and we can't control our drives, even if it is to save our lives, which is exactly what is at stake here, our lives, and of course we are losing.

---Meat is meat is meat. Muscle is muscle is muscle. Some muscle has more blood in it. Chicken has both white breast meat and red thigh and leg meat. But it's all still the same, meat.

---Actually, from a phsyiological point of view, red meat has red muscle fibers, and it is red for that reason, not necessarily because of the presence of more blood. The red muscle or 'meat' fibers are responsible for long range muscle action, like long distance running, more for endurance rather than acute bursts of strength, which is exactly what white muscle fibers are supposed to be for, short range bursts of energy, like for sudden sprints of running or sudden bursts of force to push against a resistance like a weight. But muscle is muscle whether it comes from a cow, a pig, a chicken or even a fish. And it's muscle whether it's red or white.

---What I'm getting at here is that the culprit is 'meat.' All 'meat' is the culprit, which means that all muscle is the culprit whether from the cow or the pig or other animals, or from the chicken or other birds, or whether even from fish. Like it or not, that's just the way it is.

---Now, I know what you're thinking, fish is 'healthy.' Sure, relative to other more unhealthy kinds of meat, the kinds that are more likely to lay down fat, the kinds that are more likely to contain saturated and other bad kinds of fat that tend to build up plaque and destroy blood vessels throughout the body and the like. On that score red cow and other animal meat is among the worst. Chicken 'meat' is better, and of course with the skin off, since the skin contains so much fat. And of course fish 'meat' is the least harmful, or as people would prefer to say, fish is the 'healthier' of most all the forms of meat!

---I would venture to point out that fish has been coming out 'smelling like a rose' in terms of studies which have been done over the years showing that populations of people eating predominantly fish, almost to the exclusion of meat from cows and the like, have markedly less cardiovascular disease. And this has been well established. So on this score I would say that fish meat is definitely the better of the meats, or muscles, to eat when it comes to trying of offset cardiovascular disease, which is one of the main 'diseases' causing widespread suffering and death among man.

---The Eskimoes have long since been known to eat primarily fish, and they have markedly less incidence of cardiovascular disease secondary to plaque build-up, which again is most liklely to occur from eating other kinds of meats and red meats other than fish. However, I would also note on this score that fish is known to contain the now famous omego-3 fatty acids which have been shown to decrease the tendency or likelihood of blood to clot.
---...This is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the increased likelihood or ability of the blood to clot brings with it a greater tendency toward the formation of blood clots, which are the primary culprits behind such things as heart attacks and 'clot' driven strokes. On the other hand, when the blood is 'thinner' (a layman's term) and has less tendency to clot, as can occur with the omega-3 fatty acids, there is oppositely, a greater tendency of the blood to 'bleed,' especially through the wall of a blood vessel otherwise compromised in some way, as from years of high blood pressure, or aging, or as I have theorized above, from lack of the 'viability' and 'integrity' of blood vessels.
---It goes without saying then that this decreased tendency of the bloood to clot brings along with it a different kind of stroke, one wherein there is a 'bleed' through the wall of a blood vessel in the brain!

---And wouldn't you know it, while Eskimoes have a decreased tendency toward having heart attacks and 'clot' driven strokes, on the other hand they have a markedly increased incidence of 'bleed' driven strokes, wherein a blood vessel in the brain simply bursts and 'bleeds out' into the brain tissue, thereby destroying it.

---You can't win. Like I've been saying throughout this web site, there is a fine balance throughout the body which Nature maintains 'naturally' at many different thousands and millions of levels. Only Nature can keep these millions upon millions of interactions in balance in context with how the body works as a whole. Otherwise you have side effects, like from too much 'thinning' of the blood from the omega-3 fatty acids... or from aspirin or vitamin E or other blood thinners...death producing side effects like stroke!

---You know, when I go into the gym to work out--depending upon which exercise I do or what type...aerobics, endurance, weight or resistance training and so on--I am always aware of such things as my body physiology and any underlying medical conditions I might have, of what I ate the day before, of how much I slept the night before, of how I am feeling before I exercise, of my sensations of inner strength and well being, and of countless other things...inclusive among which is how much aspirin did I take, and when, and how might each motion or exercise I do affect the blood vessels within my body in context with the exercise induced pressure changes or elevations of blood pressure throughout my body and increase in pulse rate and so on!
---...And I come up with an overall sixth sense, a feeling, a generalized idea of what I can and cannot do. Of how the aspirin will affect any given motion or exercise movement, and as to how that might affect the blood pressure, and vice versa.

---On one hand I have no doubt most people exercising are not aware of these things let alone how to feel within their bodies and make educated judgments as to what to do, which exercise motions to make, and how hard and how fast to make them, and so on, and many of these people are having strokes within days or weeks of their exercise sessions. On the other hand, many of them might have inadvertently performed a particular exercise motion, most likely without realizing what they were doing like I do, and actually offset a cardiac insult or heart attack or even stroke, and actually they might even have strengthend their vascular system somewhat, while other persons might inadvertently have wekaened it and even set themselve up for a cardiac insult or stroke for some time in the future!

---I'm not trying to discourage you here. I'm just reporting how I've learned all these things work. Remember, when I said 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts' and that 'all parts of the whole body must work together in balance,' I meant it, and that means not only in balance with and with regard to all the internal workings of the body physically and mentally working along with and in harmony to the motions or exercises one makes, but the balance would need be balanced with regard to all other facets of the environment, such as to how much sleep one has had and of what type, and with regard to what one ate, or with regard to what pill or medication they took that morning or the day or two before, whether it be vitamin E or aspirin or a prescribed blood thinner. Without understanding and incorporating all these fine-tuned interrelationships and thereby ulitlizing Nature to help balance things out, as when engaged in such exercises or whatever, it's like playing Russian Roulette. Eventually you lose!

---Perhaps you're beginning to undertand why I've been learning how to harness Nature and allow Nature to maintain these fine tuned balances 'naturally' throughout my body. To me the necessity to do so is a 'no brainer.' To most everybody else and likely even to you, you've got a lot to learn, hopefully not the hard way...and you don't have to learn the hard way if you heed my words. Otherwise, beware.

---In general then, what I mean to say is that with fruits and vegetables, as far as the food factor is concerned, you're pretty much safe, especially when it comes to 'naturally' balancing the food factor with other lifestyle related factors...unless you have some underlying medical reason not to have fruits and vegetables. But generally speaking, fruits and vegetabels are the building blocks out of which our living tissue has been made, similar to the way bricks might be the building blocks out of which buildings are made.
---...It's actually as simple as that, but few people like to accept it. They are hedonists at heart, and find any excuse to eat their meat or otherwise other unhealthy food products...and they then try to place a band-aide on their food driven 'guilt' by swallowing down a vitamin or two. What foolhardly self-deception and nonsense!

---What if I were to tell you some little anecdotal stories and statements I have come across from the writings and teachings of learned and well studied medical doctors and other learned scholars in the 1800's who themselves had researched and studied the effects of the consumption of vegetetable diets, as practiced from time to time by ancient civilitzations?
---...Remember, I myself have been studying, for well over forty-five years now, so many diverse aspects of Nature related to our status of existence and consciousness both on this planet we call Earth and within the universe, that I have by sheer volume of information been able to 'piece' together information such as one might gather the pieces of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle over many decades of time.
---After having gathered enough pieces and for so long you begin to see patterns that other people could never possibly have seen simply by virture of their intelligence or reasoning powers.

---When you 'piece' things together as I have been doing, a new and glorious world of wonderment is exposed to view, and I can only say to you that I might report the nature of some of these jigsaw puzzle pieces to you so that you might make from them the best you can.

---...With but only the first 'pieces' of a jigsaw puzzle you can make little of the whole, and you cannot be sure as to the exact placement and relationship each 'piece' has to the whole. But when you have amassed so many pieces as I have amassed--as you can also see from the diverse nature of the information presented on this web site--you begin to see 'truth' as few other, if any, persons have been able to see.

---As the 'pieces' come together, more and more the relationships of one 'piece' to another is revealed, and the more sure you are that--when considering any given piece--it does or does not have a rightful place in the formation of the jigsaw puzzle as a whole. You know which 'piece' of information fits together with which other 'pieces' of information, and how it fits into the whole, and you know which information or 'pieces' need be discarded because of their totally alien nature as to any of the numerous pieces which have already been 'fit' together.

---Again, with all this in mind I would then say to you again that I will make you privy to some such 'pieces' or tidbits of information related to food and its vegetable nature or lack of its vegetable nature thereof with regard to various ancient civilizations as has been researched by schorarly and learned men of the past, inclusive of medical doctors in the 1800's. Remember, I did say somewhere in this web site that my studies for over forty-five years have taken me from the present and then deep into the past, centuries even, and through the mellenium, so much so that I might report to you the following anecdotal tidbits of information from which to open your minds and learn the true nature of the world within which you live...

---The writings point out that "the muscular power of the ancient athlete was not increased by the addition of flesh meat to the originally simple vegetable diet."

---As I have also noted, and as it was noted in the 1800's, vegetable eating animals are stronger and capable of more endurance than carnivorous animals. The gorilla is just one example. And the hippopotamus is actually, pound for pound, among the strongest of animals that has ever lived, and they're all herbivorous, or vegetation eaters, these animals and many, many more.
---...Think even of the Brontosaurus from over 65 million years ago, the largest dinosaur of all. Its diet, vegetation of course. If vegetables didn't produce large strong muscles, I would wonder how the largest animal that ever lived ever managed even to walk!

---In the ancient days of the Grecian army I have learned that their food was "the plain and simple produce of the soil." And the famous "Spartans...were nourished from infancy on vegetable aliment." And the same is said for the ancient Roman army, that it subsisted on vegetable food. Even the Hebrew armies of ancient times subsisted on vegetable food of the simplest kind and it is said "performed such wonders that the astonished nations whom they conquered believed them to be endowed with supernatural power."

---It was said of the Russian armies in the 1800's that the soldiers "endured the greatest fatigues and sufferings with patience and calmness," and that those abilities were attributed to by their subsistence on vegetable foods. Even Napoleon Bonapart is said to have fed his armies vegetable foods so as to be "the bravest, most hardy and enduring of soldiers."

---I have learned that the Polish and Hungarian peasants from the Carpathian mountains, also primarily vegetable fed, are among the most powerful of men in the world. And then I heard about 'slaves' who lived in South America centuries ago and who were reared to travel over forty miles a day on foot as couriers. In order to have the stamina to do so they were fed small amounts of food of a vegetable nature. Otherwise, they could not perform their Herculean-like tasks of endurance. The irony, their 'masters,' having lived high on the hog with meat laden foods, lived short, unhealthy lives!

---And I also heard about certain Indians of ancient times who, when furnished with a supply of vegetable food, are in short time transformed into "very fine looking, active, and valiant warriers with well proportioned and athletic bodies." When I read about that I couldn't help but think back to my own total body transformation at the age of 48 wherein I resitricted both the amount of my food and its nature to almost wholly fruits and vegetables. And I think to now, how, at an age past 60 and despite having had such severe congenital heart disease, I have been able to bring myself back to such great strength and stamina such that I can max out a good portion of the weight machines, am among the strongest of members of my gym of all age groups, and can jog up a 15 degree incline now regularly approaching 4 miles per hour!

---I can also tell that that whenever I have come across long-lived populations of people, they are largely people who work the land via a 'natural' form of what I have recognized to be continuous endurance training, and often do so working the fields up an incline--and which I have also discovered is good for the strengthing of the heart and cardiovascular system, and which accounts for my often being found to be jogging up an incline...and that these peoples largely subsist most often on the vegetation of the land, not to mention their close family ties and emphasis on caring for one another as a group.

---When the 'pieces' of the jigsaw puzzle 'fit' together toward figuring out the formula toward increasing one's chances toward living a longer and healtheir life, the nature of that lifestyle, as you can see from what I've said above, is quite consistent and uniform...quite uniform.

---It is interesting, but most people probably don't even realize how the Bible, in Genesis, dictates not only what foods are proper for man to eat, but the true nature of man's lifespan, what our Creater at first intended it to be, and then, pending certain circumstances in the thoughts of man, made it to be different, but much longer than it is today. In Genesis (1:29) the Creator quite clearly states:

---"Behold, I have given to you all herbage yielding seed that is on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit; it shall be yours for food. And to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the sky, and to everything that moves on the earth, within which there is a living soul, every green herb is for food."

---Actually, I don't know how much clearly it could have been written. At the very beginning of Genesis the Creator tells us that the vegetation of all the earth, including fruit, is the source of food not only for human beings, but for animals and birds, for everything that moves on earth, which would include all animals, and within which there is a living soul...for all these animals and human beings it is the vegetation of the earth that is the source for food. He says nothing of the sort that man should be eating the animals. If you think that this passage in Genesis says that man should be eating animals, we're speaking another language, and you'd better go back to the first grade and relearn how to read!

---At any rate, then notice what the Creater says about the 'ages' of man. Beginning with Genesis (5:5) the Creator states that "All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years..." And he goes on to say that (Genesis 5:8) "All the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years..." and he continues stating the ages of Enosh at 905 years, and Kenan at 910 years, and Mahalalel at 895 years...then Jared, 962 years. For some reason Enoch lived to only 365 years (Genesis 5:23). But then Methuselah is stated to have lived to 969 years (Genesis 5:27).

---I would point out that I'm not trying to teach the Bible here. But remember, in the quest for knowledge and understanding it behooves us, for the sake of truth, to have open minds, and as you'll see, it's not only the foods stated by the Creator to be eaten by man but also the ages he lived to, which appear to 'fit' quite nicely with everything 'scientific' I have discussed above and have been discussing throughout this web site.

---At this point you might wonder where I'm going with all this. Well, I've shown how the vegetation and fruits of the earth were meant for food for man and animals alike, and that nowhere did the Creator at first give the 'okay' for man to eat animals. And furthermore, the lifespans stated above for the biblical figures denoted were for the most part about ten times longer than the average age to which man lives today, middle to late seventies, perhaps eithty.
---...So I would understand that you might be inclined to believe that the biblical calendars were different back then, that there must have been approximately a ten to one ratio in the designation for the length of time of a year from back then till now: approximately 'ten' biblical calendar years for every 'one' of our modern day calendar years. But as I will point out, the Bible shows otherwise, that the calendar years, back then and now, were just about the same, one year then for every one year now. And if this is true it might then follow that man's original 'biblical lifespan' had at first been intended to be ten times longer than it is now!

---Yes, this is pretty interesting stuff because I've pretty much already figured out 'scientifically,' as delineated throughout this web site--and as you would see if you read through and learned what the web site says--that the biological lifespan for man is at least 120 years. You'll find that this age of 120 years is often given as the maximum lifespan of man by various biologic scientists throughout the world today, the age beyond which man's genetics determine that he cannot live, even though man has not yet attained that age, since the average person, again, lives only till the late seventies or so. All these things I've been and will be saying, by the way and as you'll see, also all 'fit' with the theories I have been presenting, that man is prematurely aging himself through improper lifestyle since he has not lived according to the directives of Nature, of our Creator, if you will, by virture of the directives of our inherited genes.

---I, for one, have come to realize how to actually attain the biologic age of 120 years through the combined lifestyle changes I've been talking about on these web site pages, my having 'scientifically' figured it out. But then again, I also have reason to believe--since the 'pieces' of the jigsaw puzzle seem to 'fit' so well together--that man's true biological lifespan is well upwards in the biblical age ranges as I depicted above is stated in the bible...the eight and nine hundreds of years and upwards to 1,000 years of age! Fantastic talk, I know, but read on and learn what I have discovered.

---For example, it is especially interesting to note that just after the Creator speaks of Lemech's lifespan as being 777 years (Genesis 5:31), he then almost immediately goes on to say at the very beginning of Genesis 6 that

---"My spirit shall not contend evermore concerning Man since he is but flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

---Basically, the Creator is angry with man, as even the opening phrase of Genesis 6 aludes to--"And it came to pass" (Genesis 6:1)--for this phrase in the scriptures is often used to forewarn of coming trouble, in this case that 'trouble' being the anger of the Creator for mankind's having not lived up to his aspirations. That there is such anger on the part of the Creater is evidenced in that same first paragraph wherein it is said that "the sons of rulers...took themselves wives from whomever they chose," (Genesis 6:2). This sentence's significance lies in its being the first evidence as to the Creator's dissatisfaction with mankind's subjugation of the weak by the powerful, something which The Creator would not tolerate. And so he decided to gradually decrease the lifespan of mankind from the one thousand age range or thereabouts to 120 years, which again, I repeat, is stated in Genesis 6:3 via "My spirit shall not contend evermore concerning Man since he is but flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

---I would further note that there is an element of this latter statement (Genesis 6:3) that smacks of the Creator's original intent that man's 'spiritual' nature had originally been intended to have been at a higher level than it has turned out to be for most all people (since lifespans thereabouts of 1,000 years could actually be attained, as it had been so in biblical times, but only via those higher spiritual levels). Man's spiritual nature, however, could be at this higher level only by virtue of his 'proper' thoughts and designs to live life according to the more virtuous directives of the Creator (of Nature, or our inherited genes?). But then again, man has proved not to live by these virtuosities of thought...as depicted by his subjugation of the weak by the powerful and the like as I indicated above. And man continues to do the same in society today. Just look around and see the depravity. To think otherwise would be a 'no brainer.'

---And so man's lifespan was gradually to be decreased to levels more commensurate with man's infirmities and inequities of thought, making man more 'of the flesh' than 'of a higher spiritual level' as had at first been originally intended by the Creator, and again, as I have already indicated above.

---So man was relegated to live only till a maximum of 120 years, and as to which men 'of flesh' could live no longer...and which is, again, a lot shorter than our lifespans are today. And actually, our lifespans are even much shorter than the more primitive long-lived populations in the world today (which I have spoken about above) and who ironcially--as 'primitive' as we would in our omnipotence make them out to be-- probably care more about their fellow human beings than we do in the typical hedonistic, self-centered modern day societies of today.

---The way it continued to turn out, the Creator continued to see corruption and evil within men and was bent on destroying him, but he had seen that Noah was a righteous man, and so he entrusted Noah to build an Ark to house two of a kind of living things so that the world could begin anew after it would be destroyed for its evil.

---In rebuilding the world after its destruction, the Creator placed a different status upon all animals and beasts of the world, upon all birds and fish, such that "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; like the green herbage I have given you everything." In other words, in his anger the Creator decided that other living creatures be food for man. Man could now eat meat. And wouldn't you know it, thereafter most all references as to the lifespans of all subsequent biblical figures gradually decreased over the years...right after the okay to eat animals was introduced.

---Noah, one of the last of the righteous people upon whom the Creator would bestow a longer life, lived to 950 years. Then came Shem, one of Noah's children. He lived for 600 years. Then Arpachshad, 438 years. Then