Overview of the purported pathophysiological mechanisms explaining the association between sarcopenia and cognitive function.

 

https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/77/10/1959/6602136?login=false 

Overview of the purported pathophysiological mechanisms explaining the association between sarcopenia and cognitive function. Yellow marked fields could also be affected by the mediating role of exercise. Aβ = amyloid beta; BBB = blood–brain barrier; BDNF = brain-derived neurotrophic factor; CRP = C-reactive protein; CNS = central nervous system; CDLK-5 = cyclin-dependent-like kinase 5; FNDC5 = fibronectin type III domain containing 5; IDE = insulin-degrading enzyme; IGF-1 = insulin-like growth factor 1; IL-6 = interleukin 6; ROS = reactive oxygen species; SASP = senescence-associated secretory phenotype; UPS = ubiquitin–proteasome system.

Keto-Champagne?

 https://shop.philipponnat.com/collection/royale-reserve-non-dose/

Unfortunately, this Champagne is sold.

It advertises 0g/l of sugar, which means complete fermentation. Does it mean that there is also 0g/L of sugar in the liquor?

The question is asked through the website.

And the answer came a few minutes later:

Bonjour Monsieur,

 

Nous vous remercions pour votre message et pour l’intérêt que vous portez à notre cuvée Royale Réserve Non dosé.

Effectivement cette cuvée n’est pas dosée, pas de liqueur d’expédition ajouté.

Mais il reste dans le vin des résidus de glucose/fructose de la liqueur de tirage pour la prise de mousse.

Dans les analyses ils ont trouvé 0.7 g/L de Glucose/Fructose.

 

Cordialement

 

Nicoletta de Nicolo

 

T +33 (0)3 26 56 93 00 ~ F +33 (0)3 26 56 93 18

I will try it when it will available on the website. 
Just a tip for diabetic patients:
0,7g/l is not traces nor 0g/l. When drinking wines in gnéral keep an eye on the residual sugar content.

High blood glucose, high Insulin, high IGF

Diminuer les carbs?
Diminuer les calories?
En termes de besoins cela dépend de l'âge.
Pour les adultes c'est rationnel. Maintenir les apports en protéines et en gras et diminuer les carbs. Tous... Surtout les ajoutés car ce sont les mêmes certes mais cela fait plus!
Les enfants c'est autre chose mais 80-90% de glucides au petit déjeuner c'est nouveau ( au sens evolutionniste) et les csq sont réelles.
1/ oui grâce au shoot d'insuline cela fait grandir, je sais les calories aussi.
2/ même l'oeil et donc plus de myopes cela est assez bien lié à l'IGF ( https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/1106565), (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6991122/#:~:text=Genetic%20studies%20have%20been%20used,et%20al.%2C%202012), ce point est controversé
3/ en termes d'obésité compte tenu de l'effondrement de la dépense ce n'est pas favorable et cela nous le voyons sur la plage d'années en années.

Paleo-diet

Au contraire, I would have expected you to cry Eureka!

I think it is a great reminder that we must forever cease confounding Genotype with Phenotype..

Previous studies on human evolution were based on the paleonathropology study of bone and brain phenoytypes. Bone from fossils etc and brain phenotypes  are deduced from the skull/brain cavity.

The bone phenotypes showed massive differences, which were presumed to be due to changes in genes.

But you know better than anyone in the world that the biggest loser in the Neolithic diet is brain, and I contend bone is the next biggest loser.

So back in the day, paloeanthropologists made the best conclusions from their fossils (how many do they have now- I think your books Nutrition and Evolution says you could put them all into an SUV and still have room for groceries).

But they always presumed that phenotype was determined by genotype.

Diet has a bigger effect on phenotype than genotype. We all know that diet is the main determinant of phenotype otherwise we shouldn't be having this discussion.

Just to outline my view of the sequence of destruction of bone and brain which led to the erroneous conclusion that our brains shrank because they were somehow better....(because evolution does NOT always does what we want it to),

Heretic alert!

1. Discovery that cooking makes inedible species edible (or at least no longer lethal). These inedible species also can store for long periods. Increases available calories (primary determinant of population size) and reduces winter starvation (a major determinant of death rate and the need to fight neighbours). Total calories increased 2-4 times (and 10 times in winter). Population carrying capacity increases 2-4 times, winter starvation death rates collapse.

2. Discovery that the food is the seed leads to farming. Desecrate the environment and replace it with edible species. Increases calories per hectare 10-100 times. Population carrying capacity increases 10-100 times. Winter starvation death eliminated. Population boom. Fertile crescent population explosion (followed by soil salination and desertification but that was later).

3. Bone nutrition is greatly affected. (lack of sunlight leads to low vitamin D, high acid load, etc) Pelvic inlet depth size collapses. Death of mother and child during childbirth increases dramatically (the biggest nexus in human evolution).

4. Evolution solves the problem the quickest way- select for smaller skulls and smaller brains. This happened immediately. Later on the much slower process of selecting for larger pelvises occurred.

The shattering conclusion- evolution does what works, not what we want. It does not select for bigger brains if this increases maternal infant mortality. It will select for smaller brains if that reduces maternal infant mortality.

Weston Price's classic book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration outlined that recently Westernised populations immediately needed Caesarean sections and also had massive decimations of the population numbers and gross changes in facial phentypes. These initial decimations were presumably followed by population booms from the higher calories. I presume we have all read this book, it can be downloaded on the web. A big book but essential reading.

Eureka! Hopefully you are not reading this in the bath tub.

Hi Michael,

Big eyes- that is interesting! Eyes fascinate me.

We all remember that Weston Price "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" documents that
1. the Neanderthal cave paintings in Lascaux, France show stars in the constellation Pleiades (Subaru in Japanese, look at the car symbol) INCLUDING stars not seen by Europeans until the invention of the telescope.
2. Captain Cook visited New Zealand in the 1700's and observed that the Maoris could see the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye, and proved this by telling an observer with a telescope when the eclipse occurred.

Reymond tested the eagle and the hawk and found their vision to be 6/1.2

The vision of the eagle approaches the theoretical limits of physics.

Hugh Taylor MJA 1981 visual acuity of Traditional Aborigine= 6/1.4

(Reymond) the eagle has 6/1.2. The Aborigine has slightly better shade discrimination, putting their overall vision at equal with an eagle.

So it is likely that the Neanderthal had vision superior to the eagle.

Of course today Australian Aborigines have amongst the worst eye health in the world, another case of "Diet has a bigger effect on phenotype than genotype"

Regards

Ben

3 Attachments

 

 

Hi Michael,

Big eyes- that is interesting! Eyes fascinate me.

We all remember that Weston Price "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" documents that
1. the Neanderthal cave paintings in Lascaux, France show stars in the constellation Pleiades (Subaru in Japanese, look at the car symbol) INCLUDING stars not seen by Europeans until the invention of the telescope.
2. Captain Cook visited New Zealand in the 1700's and observed that the Maoris could see the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye, and proved this by telling an observer with a telescope when the eclipse occurred.

Reymond tested the eagle and the hawk and found their vision to be 6/1.2

The vision of the eagle approaches the theoretical limits of physics.

Hugh Taylor MJA 1981 visual acuity of Traditional Aborigine= 6/1.4

(Reymond) the eagle has 6/1.2. The Aborigine has slightly better shade discrimination, putting their overall vision at equal with an eagle.

So it is likely that the Neanderthal had vision superior to the eagle.

Of course today Australian Aborigines have amongst the worst eye health in the world, another case of "Diet has a bigger effect on phenotype than genotype"

Regards

Ben

3 Attachments

 

 

Silphion

 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/miracle-plant-eaten-extinction-2000-years-ago-silphion?utm_content=223310249&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-297483026945793