I am just assuming this.. But why do those bike racers have diabetes ??. Could it be because of a lifetime of consuming high glycemic carbs to fuel their chronic cardio ??

90 minutes is not a magic number. Why does it have to be 90 min ??. Whose recommendation is that ??. I think it's perfectly acceptable to do half of that or even less then half of the recommended amount and still be in great shape... Although I have to admit that some days I get more then 90 minutes because of my car-free lifestyle , physically demanding job, and my 3-4 times per week workout routine.

I sip my black tea all day long at work, it's my favourite drink, but I never put any sugar into it. The water bottle cages on my bike always have a thermos of tea whenever I go for a ride...

Why are you being so confrontational? I don't think that anyone is here extolling the virtues of a McDonald's Big Mac. I will say that if we're dissecting a McDonald's meal, the Big Mac is not as problematic nearly as much as the large fries, 32 oz Coke and apple pie.

Por Tu':

No, it's because they're Type 1:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/typ...abetes/DS00329

I ride with two very hard riding Type 1 diabetics. They have kept wonderful control of their disease and are still in perfect health, except for the diabetes, at over 50. Very unusual. They eat the same high carbohydrate diet on the bike that we all eat. "Chronic cardio"?? Yeah, chronic cardio is how come they are still healthy.

As CarbonFiber already mentioned, they are Type 1 diabetics.

I'd be more worried about strokes than a heart attack. Come on, each of us know our limits. A doctor tells us our odds...

Because someone might read this thread looking for information on statins and cholesterol control.

A summary of the scientific literature on the subject of diet and cholesterol follows:

Many studies have shown that hypocaloric diets will have a favorable effect on total cholesterol and cholesterol profile and will result in weight loss, no matter what the distribution of macronutrients in these diets might be. IOW as long as you are losing weight, your cholesterol will improve, whether you are eating a low fat or low carb diet. Although:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868OTOH, if the purpose of the diet chosen is weight maintenance, this study compares the Atkin, South Beach, and Ornish diets:
http://engine2diet.com/usrfiles/file...of-3-diets.pdfCooking to lower cholesterol:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Condit...30_Article.jspThe role of dietary fat in body fatness: evidence from a preliminary meta-analysis of ad libitum low-fat dietary intervention studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10889789And finally, the position of the American Dietetic Association on vegetarian diets:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

I suppose I could engage and argue with you. I really don't feel the need to. If anyone wants to compare two diets, they can try each for a month or two and see which they feel better eating. If you're happy eating a nice selection of vegetables and protein powder, far be it from me to get in the way.

Dinner for me tonight was a salad (all sorts of veggies), a sweet potato (butter, coconut milk & cinnamon on it) and an elk burger (no bun) with a little feta on it. I trust you won't try to change my habits, either.

The Lyon Diet Heart Study demonstrated that cholesterol was not much of a contributory factor of heart disease... this compared a Mediterranean diet with a diet based on the USDA Food Pyramid which is high in Omega 6 fatty acids while the Med diet was high in healthy Omega 3 fatty acids as we find in fish.

The cholesterol hypothesis is just that, there is much more evidence to show that a diet that causes increased insulin levels is far more likely to cause heart disease... diabetics are more prone to heart disease.

The longest lived people in the world are the Japanese and you could describe their diet as one that matches the Mediterranean diet and adds a lot more fish which is a primary source of protein.

Dinner tonight was oven roasted pork with a side dish of collard greens that had been braised with onions and garlic and my wife used a little bit of pure lard to do up the vegetables which were insanely good... and really healthy.

There are no hydrogenated oils in our house; butter, olive oil, pastured lard, and other cold pressed oils are the only things we cook with and we occasionally use a little bacon grease for certain dishes as it is quite savoury.

One might note that at the turn of the 20th century heart disease was not the number one killer that it is now... people ate considerably less sugar, less processed foods, ate fruit when it was in season, and did not shy away from meats and fats. Vegetable oil shortening had not been invented.

Several years ago, studies were done which determined that 90 minutes of moderate exercise a day is the recommended amount for losing weight, and 60 minutes a day is the recommended amount for maintaining weight.

The studies suggested that exercise become part of life ... not that people had to set aside 90 minutes to go to the gym. Instead they suggested that people choose to walk or cycle whenever possible, instead of driving the car. They suggested that people park in one corner of the shopping centre parking lot in order to walk more while running errands. They suggested taking the stairs, going for a walk at lunch, getting up at coffee breaks and going for a 10 minute walk around the block. They suggested walking or cycling to the park with the kids in the evening and playing ball or tag. And if you're actively doing all that ... maybe you only need to include 30 or 45 minutes of cycling, walking, swimming, going to the gym, etc. per day.

Unfortunately, people gasped in horror when they heard that ... even (if you can believe it) cyclists here on this forum!!!! On Bikeforums, of all places, where I would assume we're all out cycling 30 ... 60 ... 90 or more minutes a day (or 10.5+ hours a week), people were shocked at the idea they might have to get out and ... cycle!

Because of the overwhelmingly negative response to the idea that we should be doing that much (or little, really) exercise a day, "they" backed off and now generally recommend 30 minutes a day. People can get their heads around doing 30 minutes of exercise a day.

Interestingly, as I read over many sites and their discussions about triglycerides, they recommend a minimum of 30 minutes a day, and preferably 60 minutes or more. Some suggested that people start with 30 minutes a day, and then build up to 60 minutes a day or more.

Also interestingly, there are increasing numbers of studies being done which indicate that sitting is really bad for us. They are recommending that offices start incorporating activity throughout the day, or at the very least, standing. One place I worked in Canada, encouraged us to get up and spend 5 minutes doing laps around the large mezzanine about once an hour. The place I work now set me up with an ergonomic expert (most place I've worked have done that, of course) who told me about these studies and also encouraged me to get up and walk somewhere at least once an hour, if not more frequently than that.

If we got up and walked around the office or up and down the stairs for 5 minutes once an hour, we'd have over 30 minutes of exercise during a work day. Add a 30 minute walk at lunch, and go for a 1-hour ride or walk after work ... and suddenly we discover that 90 minutes a day isn't that difficult to achieve. :) And it feels good to do it all too.

ditto

Side note, life expectancy has gone up continuously since human life on earth. Apparently something is done right. Throw all your expertise, *****ing and articles around all you want, the fact is we live longer than 100 years ago!

Trying to censor? Good luck!

Look at it like the rider is the engine, which is true. Proper tuning, feeding and maintenance of the engine is a complex subject. It is worthy of lots of discussion.

Ditto, agree, nothing more, nothing less. Prove to me life expectancy is less than 100 years ago and you have my ears.

I do what my doc tells me.

Carbonfiberboy- in respect to what you said-directly below
"I don't think conflating size with health is necessarily the thing to do. Okinawans are a tiny people, yet they used to routinely live to 100."

I did no such thing. I used height in respect to potential height granny height/grand daughters' height as a stand in for adequacy of diet.

You implied that I was comparing Okinawanheight/USA height-which I certainly wasn't.

And lifespan- you consider a reasonable marker for adequate diet-but it is widely known that various animals-rats-live longer on what amounts to a near starvation diet-so restrict calories-but adequate protein essential fats micronutrients-you will probably live longer-but you will constantly be hungry,\
So is that an adequate diet-constantly hungry?- Not acceptable to most folks.
Chose the right parents-you will live longer too-both probably plays a big role in your Okinawans longevity.(bet their grandkids are taller-right?)

My point-a HIGH CARB DIET -is a bad diet for fat sedentary USAers-modern-heck if you are active-not fat-high carb high protein high fat-hardly matters if you avoid crummy "food industry food" (and preserved meats-nitrates nitrites-which have been around for 1000

The mitochondria/training with depleted glycogen study you linked etc-interesting-here is an excerpt-below


"In two studies on training every day versus training twice every other day, increases in enzyme activity have been more significantly increased in the twice every other day group. In the study by Hansen et al., they used knee extensor exercises with one leg being trained every day and the other twice every other day (2005). The twice every other day leg should significant better time till exhaustion at the end of the training, along with the increased enzyme activity.

In the study by Yeo et al., they compared two different groups using cycling as the means of training (2008). The groups performed either easy or interval training, with the every day group alternating each day between hard and easy. The twice every other day group performed an easy ride early, then the interval session. In their study glycogen content, fat oxidation, and CS and HAD enzyme activity were higher in the twice every other day group, but performance was equally increased in both groups. "

ME AGAIN- Notice-despite the increase in mitochondria-THE PERFORMANCE WAS EQUALLY INCREASED IN BOTH GROUPS- that could mean they weren't any faster despite the increase in mitochondria or mitochondria activity. Focusing on single MARKERS-like mitochondrial activity or actual mitochondria
-frequently gives MARKER IMPROVEMENT- but no functional improvement-
The same argument can be made for STATINS and various markers-total cholesterol etc-drug cures the MARKER-BUT NOT THE PATIENT- or cures the MARKER much better than it cures the patient.
Human studies that use stand ins-markers- mine and yours for adequacy of diet- always subject to different-plausible-interpretations.
Mine=% of genetic height potential good marker for adequate diet
Yours=Longevity good marker of adequate diet
Being fat and inactive smoke HBP -great markerS for poor health outcome-pretty simple really

Life expectancy isn't really all that much longer either.

We have simply eliminated child mortality and epidemic diseases here.

This. When we hear figures like "average life expectancy was 36 years in 1700" we get this perception that no one made it past 40, when in truth, child mortality skewed the numbers to all hell.

Going back earlier in this thread, I'm surprised no one commented that Lipitor going generic just means that it's a loss leader for the statin industry -- with the new guidelines, millions more people will be "up-sold" the latest and greatest (non-generic) statins once they're customers. ;)

I bet if the 1/3 of people who could now be prescribed statins dropped 10% of their body weight instead ... they might not need the drugs.

And that's exactly the root of the problem in our society today. Too many overweight people, our rates of obesity and diabetes have skyrocketed in the past 30 years or so. It all started during the "low fat" and "fat free" craze/propaganda during the 1980's and 1990's.
There are a lot of sincere people out there who are trying to loose weight but they are doing it wrong because they are misinformed and bombarded with wrong information. And then we have all kinds of " magical snake oil remedies and pills" that promise results but fail to deliver or at best only produce temporary results...We have more gyms, more fitness equipment, more personal trainers, more nutritionists, more doctors, more choices of food then at any other time in history ...and yet more people are on prescription drugs then ever before. Something is wrong somewhere.

Most of the people who have been prescribed Statins don't need them, regardless of their weight.

Did you get blood tests for C-Reactive proteins and trigylceride to cholesterol ratios ?

These are better indicators for risk of heart issues than cholesterol readings.

If you mean the bolded statement as confrontational as it reads no one can prove anything to you. But, this whole thing has digressed significantly from my original question.

When discussing longevity it is important to be sure to decide whether it is macro, specied, or micro, individual, longevity. In this discussion that hasn't been made clear and factors affecting both have been intermixed making the discussion something way less than useful.

As far as macro longevity is concerned Public Health, Agriculture and Economics are probably the most important factors..

Public Health has probably had the greatest impact on well being and longevity. Improved sewer systems, clean water and pest control have made major contributions. Today places without good waste management, clean water and bugs, like mosquitoes, have significantly lower quality of life than those who do. Population wide vaccinations have made a major improvement.

Agriculture has helped immensely. By selective breeding we have been successful in being able to feed the world, even at current population levels. Except for short time disasters food shortages are rooted in politics, not lack.

Economics is the big negative. As so clearly stated in the classic book "An Omnivores Dilemma" the primary driver in today's food iindustry is profit. That desire has moved the world to produce food more for its' profitability than for its' actual nutrition. People have obeyed their nature and been much like other animals. They have not gone around the easy meal to the more healthful; opting instead for the cheapest and best tasting.

Medicine, especially things like statins, are just nibbling around the edges of health and longevity.

Unfortunately, that's not the way that most people look at things. The vast majority seems to approach it from the view of, "Hey, if I take this pill I can eat like crap and still be 'healthy'!". Forget the fact that this isn't even remotely true, the entire premise of the conversation is skewed.

When you couple that attitude with governmental and doctor backed diet plans that induce metabolic syndrome, you've got the makings of a seriously diseased population. It's truly sad.

BTW, has anyone watched the documentary, _King Corn_? It's really well done.

Sorry, I missed most of this thread (partly because I was reading the several hundred pages of new standards) and now I see that it has drifted into other related areas. But responding to the original poster on "what'da think of the new standards?" -- and not getting into the issue of whether statins are good or bad:

I think the new standards are complete BS (as in Bad Science) ...

First, they eliminated the traditional concept of 'treat to goal' (meaning an LDL of 70 if you have risk factors, otherwise 100). They justified that change by saying that there was 'no evidence to support those goals'. Yet, most of their many recommendations are based on "expert opinion" -- meaning that there is no evidence! (I call that cherry picking at it's finest!)

Then, for somebody without risk factors, they nearly doubled the acceptable LDL level from 100 to 190 - but yet they did not site any evidence for reversing 20 years of recommendations. The only way that I can interpret that is: they are saying that LDL is not a factor in heart disease.

Instead, they replaced the cholesterol based guidelines with a 'risk assessment' spreadsheet for which there is no evidence that it works correctly! The spreadsheet can be found at:

http://my.americanheart.org/professi...ubHomePage.jsp

And, although cholesterol is included in this risk assessment calculator, the main factors are things like AGE, SEX and BLOOD PRESSURE! And, if you score 7.5% or higher, they will tell you to not only take a statin -- BUT TAKE THE HIGHEST DOSAGE ALLOWABLE BY LAW! That is, the recommendations say that, as soon as you cross the 7.5% line, they should put you on the highest dose statin the law allows rather than start you on a lower dose regimen to see if that fixes the problem.

So, for example: a person in otherwise perfect health but who has high blood pressure could be told to take the highest dosage of a medication that has no affect on blood pressure!

In my own case, the spreadsheet gives me a 6.8% -- so I should not be taking a statin. But, next June when I turn 64, my number will automatically change to 7.5% and they will try to put me on the highest dosage of statin the FDA will permit -- only because I turned 64!

Regardless of what you think about statins, these new guidelines, in my opinion are garbage!
-- they are NOT based on evidence.
-- they are very inconsistent with proven past practice
-- they provide no justification for prescribing statins to people who do not have high cholesterol and neither do they justify not prescribing them for people who do! (Perhaps that is the right things to do -- but they do not provide that reason!)

And, to make matters even worse, they ignored many of the more modern theories about heart disease (such as inflammation, HS-CRP, CIMT, etc...) -- because they 'did not have the time or resources'.

... Yet, reading comments from physicians on medical websites, most of them think these changes are good! I find that incredible (and very, very sad)!

Probably the best supported review I've seen.

Interestingly, my blood chemistry is excellent. But, today because of the new recommendations I fall into the group where statins are to be presecribed, ignoring all else. So, since patients have the legal right to refuse treatment why not just refuse? The downside to that is the patient is now marked as acting against medical advice. In short, being a non-cooperative patient. That can have some pretty serious consequences in the availability and quality of future treatment.

The best hope is that, so far, these are only recommendations and may not be adopted by all providers.