Even More Good News!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 2:01:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, warren.taylor@... writes:

mice in CR lab experiments

Warren, I have not paid enough attention to the details of the Spindler experiments. However, can I conclude that the CR mice were less restricted in proteins than they were in other nutrients? Were they basically on a low-carb regime? Peg

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

another little detail. The control mice were fed 93 kcal/week. But

this does not represent 'fully fed' mice. According to the article,

93 kcal/week " ..... provides ~10% fewer calories than normally are

assumed to be required by a typical mouse " . So the control mice in

this study were on 10% CR.

The reason for feeding the control mice this amount was, I think, to

make sure that after the fact no one could claim the only reason the

CR mice lived longer was because they had been compared with

unhealthy (obese) control mice.

In any event, whatever the reason, if 93 kcal represents 10% less

than a mouse normally requires, then a mouse normally is considered

to require about 103.3 kcal/week.

So, relative to this 103.3 kcal/week 'fully-fed' benchmark, the

controls were on 10% CR; during the first (cautious implementation of

CR) step down in the CR mice diet to 77 kcal/week the CR mice were on

25.5% CR; and on the second step down to full CR, at 52.2 kcal/week,

the CR mice were on 49.5% CR.

So this 42% increased lifespan after age '60-65' was achieved in

these mice by eating about half of what a mouse is generally thought

to need.

Also, IF THE LIFESPAN OF THE CR MICE HAD BEEN COMPARED WITH THE

LIFESPAN OF MICE EATING THE GENERALLY-REGARDED AS NECESSARY AMOUNT

OF 103.3 KCAL/WEEK, THEN PRESUMABLY THE LIFE EXTRENSION WOULD HAVE

BEEN GREATER THAN 42%.

Food for thought.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> More on the diets of Dr. Spindler's mice.

[Guest guest]

Good points that you bring up here, Rodney

Yes, even the control mice in CR lab experiments are 10% CR

restricted, in order to prevent the mice from becoming overweight.

The experimental lab mice are restricted additionally, relative to

the already 10% restricted controls. Thanks for bringing this up.

-- Warren

========================

On 18 Apr 2004, Rodney wrote:

>

> So, relative to this 103.3 kcal/week 'fully-fed' benchmark, the

> controls were on 10% CR; during the first (cautious implementation of

> CR) step down in the CR mice diet to 77 kcal/week the CR mice were on

> 25.5% CR; and on the second step down to full CR, at 52.2 kcal/week,

> the CR mice were on 49.5% CR.

>

> So this 42% increased lifespan after age '60-65' was achieved in

> these mice by eating about half of what a mouse is generally thought

> to need.

>

> Also, IF THE LIFESPAN OF THE CR MICE HAD BEEN COMPARED WITH THE

> LIFESPAN OF MICE EATING THE GENERALLY-REGARDED AS NECESSARY AMOUNT

> OF 103.3 KCAL/WEEK, THEN PRESUMABLY THE LIFE EXTENSION WOULD HAVE

> BEEN GREATER THAN 42%.

>

> Food for thought.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hello Peg,

The CR mice had identical protein as the controls.

The CR mice had identical fat as the controls.

Nothing was changed for protein, nor for fats.

The CR mice were restricted in their carbohydrates only,

but in nothing else.

This fact was uncovered by Rodney. He even called the author

to confirm this fact. The author investigator confirmed it.

And Rodney even got the mouse chow formulas, and the

nutritional analysis for the mouse chow formulas, for both

the CR mice and for the control mice, to prove what is

stated above.

Protein and fats were left identical for CR mice and controls.

Only carbohydrate calories were cut.

Please thank Rodney for his work. He made the discovery,

and also made clear explanations.

-- Warren

________________________________

From: hsanborn2@... [mailto:hsanborn2@...]

Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 11:14 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Even More Good News!

In a message dated 4/18/2004, warren wrote:

Mice in CR lab experiments

Warren, I have not paid enough attention to the details

of the Spindler experiments. However, can I conclude that

the CR mice were less restricted in proteins than they

were in other nutrients?

Were they basically on a low-carb regime? Peg

[Guest guest]

Hi Peg:

[Ooops. Now it's my turn to blush. Thanks Warren!]

To be even more specific: for each diet, in both type and amount,

fat content was identical, protein content was identical, vitamin

content was identical, 'mineral' content was identical. The only

difference was a reduction in total carbohydrate.

And among the four carbohydrate components the changes were: 98% less

starch; 55% less dextrin; 14% less fibre; and 20% more (Yes! More!)

sucrose (table sugar).

Of course we do not know based on this study how much of the huge

life extension effect is accounted for by each of those specific

changes, or whether it is simply the total amount of carbohydrate

that matters. Probably it is simply the total carbohydrate that is

the key factor. No doubt future studies will definitively determine

that.

Rodney.

>

> Mice in CR lab experiments

>

> Warren, I have not paid enough attention to the details

> of the Spindler experiments. However, can I conclude that

> the CR mice were less restricted in proteins than they

> were in other nutrients?

>

> Were they basically on a low-carb regime? Peg

[Guest guest]

Ok Rodney: here's the $64 question. What carbs are you going to give up?

I would hate to give up fruit for example, when so many health benefits are

attributed to them. I guess we're back to giving up grains????

on 4/18/2004 12:36 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

> another little detail.

[Guest guest]

Remember, folks, this is a study done on MICE, not MEN (or women). Also,

the studies comparing the effect of reduction of calories using varying

percentages of carbs, fats, protein, apparently, remain to be done on both

mice and man. So I'd not, necessarily, make any rash changes in diet based

on this study. Cutting out sucralose and other low nutrient density carbs is

an obvious move most of us did long ago.

>From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: [ ] Even More Good News!

>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:33:43 -0400

>

>Ok Rodney: here's the $64 question. What carbs are you going to give up?

>I would hate to give up fruit for example, when so many health benefits are

>attributed to them. I guess we're back to giving up grains????

>

>on 4/18/2004 12:36 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

> > another little detail.

>

[Guest guest]

Correction, I meant " sucrose " not " sucralose " .

>From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: [ ] Even More Good News!

>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:33:43 -0400

>

>Ok Rodney: here's the $64 question. What carbs are you going to give up?

>I would hate to give up fruit for example, when so many health benefits are

>attributed to them. I guess we're back to giving up grains????

>

>on 4/18/2004 12:36 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

> > another little detail.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Well, based purely on the results of this study, it doesn't look like

reducing starch-containing foods would do much harm. For those that

eat minimal amounts of starch already that isn't much help.

If you are concerned about completely eliminating grain products from

your diet you could reduce your starch intake by eating no bread,

either white or whole grain, but adding bran and germ to things

whenever possible (my soup contains both as thickeners, for

example). I believe pretty much all the starch is in the endosperm

part of the seed. This component, I recall, constitutes more than

80% of whole grain breads and pretty much 100% of white bread.

I do not plan to increase my consumption of sugar, notwithstanding

the larger amount of it in the diet of the longer-lived mice in this

study! Nor reduce my consumption of fiber.

----------------

In this CR diet, fat accounted for 16% of calories and protein 25%.

I wouldn't be surpised to see a study sometime soon using this CR

diet as a benchmark and comparing it with diets with the same number

of calories but 10% fat and 15% protein, with the balance made up

with some extra carbohydrate. This should clarify whether it is just

total calories that matter, or if reducing carbohydrate is more or

less important than the other macronutrients.

Rodney.

>

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

> > another little detail.

[Guest guest]

Good point. Mice are not humans. And we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Also it seems we need a certain amount of carbs for proper brain function

(some people more than others - depression prone people for example).

on 4/18/2004 3:43 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> Remember, folks, this is a study done on MICE, not MEN (or women). Also,

> the studies comparing the effect of reduction of calories using varying

> percentages of carbs, fats, protein, apparently, remain to be done on both

> mice and man. So I'd not, necessarily, make any rash changes in diet based

> on this study. Cutting out sucralose and other low nutrient density carbs is

> an obvious move most of us did long ago.

>

>

>> From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

>> Reply-

>> < >

>> Subject: Re: [ ] Even More Good News!

>> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:33:43 -0400

>>

>> Ok Rodney: here's the $64 question. What carbs are you going to give up?

>> I would hate to give up fruit for example, when so many health benefits are

>> attributed to them. I guess we're back to giving up grains????

>>

>> on 4/18/2004 12:36 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

>>

>>> Hi folks:

>>>

>>> Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

>>> another little detail.

>>

[Guest guest]

As Rae points out, again and again on the CR Society discussion

board, it always appears to turn out the it's " calories, calories, calories "

that count. As long as minium requirements for protein and essentially fatty

acids are met, everything else is just minor tweaking.

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:24:22 -0000

>

>Hi Francesca:

>

>Well, based purely on the results of this study, it doesn't look like

>reducing starch-containing foods would do much harm. For those that

>eat minimal amounts of starch already that isn't much help.

>

>If you are concerned about completely eliminating grain products from

>your diet you could reduce your starch intake by eating no bread,

>either white or whole grain, but adding bran and germ to things

>whenever possible (my soup contains both as thickeners, for

>example). I believe pretty much all the starch is in the endosperm

>part of the seed. This component, I recall, constitutes more than

>80% of whole grain breads and pretty much 100% of white bread.

>

>I do not plan to increase my consumption of sugar, notwithstanding

>the larger amount of it in the diet of the longer-lived mice in this

>study! Nor reduce my consumption of fiber.

>----------------

>In this CR diet, fat accounted for 16% of calories and protein 25%.

>I wouldn't be surpised to see a study sometime soon using this CR

>diet as a benchmark and comparing it with diets with the same number

>of calories but 10% fat and 15% protein, with the balance made up

>with some extra carbohydrate. This should clarify whether it is just

>total calories that matter, or if reducing carbohydrate is more or

>less important than the other macronutrients.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But here is

> > > another little detail.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Even in the reduced carbohydrate CR diet Dr. Spindler used in this

study, carbohydrates still constituted 59% of total calories. (The

control diet was 76% from carbohydrates). I don't think you are in

any danger of being carbohydrate deficient any time soon.

One important difference between mice and wo/men is that mice rarely

suffer from heart disease, which, of course kills about half of

humans. This may, possibly, have important implications for the

transferability of these data to humans.

Rodney.

> Good point. Mice are not humans. And we shouldn't jump to

conclusions.

> Also it seems we need a certain amount of carbs for proper brain

function

> (some people more than others - depression prone people for

example).

[Guest guest]

Hi :

How could I find out what evidence it is that persuades Rae

that it is simply total calories? If the studies of the effects of

variations in the macronutrients in CR diets have already been done I

would certainly like to read them.

[i am not saying they are wrong. I am saying I haven't seen them,

and would like to be persuaded.]

Rodney.

> > >

> > > > Hi folks:

> > > >

> > > > Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But

here is

> > > > another little detail.

> >

[Guest guest]

It's not just calories. Quality counts. As evidenced by the remarkable

properties of particular foods we've discussed in the past.

on 4/18/2004 5:05 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> ........ it's " calories, calories, calories "

> that count. As long as minium requirements for protein and essentially fatty

> acids are met, everything else is just minor tweaking.

[Guest guest]

Rodney-

The subject is endlessly discussed in the CR Society email archives. It

contains hours, if not days, of reading matter on the issue.

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:32:30 -0000

>

>Hi :

>

>How could I find out what evidence it is that persuades Rae

>that it is simply total calories? If the studies of the effects of

>variations in the macronutrients in CR diets have already been done I

>would certainly like to read them.

>

>[i am not saying they are wrong. I am saying I haven't seen them,

>and would like to be persuaded.]

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> > > >

> > > > > Hi folks:

> > > > >

> > > > > Sorry to keep bugging you about Dr. Spindler's mice! But

>here is

> > > > > another little detail.

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/18/2004 2:01:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> warren.taylor@e... writes:

>

> > mice in CR lab experiments

>

> Warren, I have not paid enough attention to the details of the

Spindler

> experiments. However, can I conclude that the CR mice were less

restricted in

> proteins than they were in other nutrients? Were they basically on

a low-carb

> regime? Peg

Hi All and Peg,

By my rough calculations,it is ~50% carbohydrates, 18% fat and 31%

protein.

This is from:

> Rodent Diet,

> Control (F05312), 40% DR (F05314)

>

> F05312 F05314

> Ingredient gm/kg gm/kg

> Casein 140.00 233.33

> Sucrose 100.00 200.00

> Fiber 40.00 57.80

> Dextrin 470.00 355.00

> Starch 160.70 5.00

> Salt Mix (AIN-93MMX) 35.00 58.30

> Soybean oil 40.00 66.70

> Vitamin Mix (AIN-93MVX)10.00 16.70

> L-Cystine 1.80 3.00

> Choline Bitartrate 2.50 4.20

Cheers, Al Pater.

[Guest guest]

Quality does count for something, but it alone will not increase maximum

lifespan. It will help maximize one's potential to reach a maximum lifespan

in good health (85 years, for example). However, apparently, only lowering

caloric intake will increase maximum lifespan (Walford's 120 years).

>From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:39:10 -0400

>

>It's not just calories. Quality counts. As evidenced by the remarkable

>properties of particular foods we've discussed in the past.

>

>

>

>on 4/18/2004 5:05 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

>

> > ........ it's " calories, calories, calories "

> > that count. As long as minium requirements for protein and essentially

>fatty

> > acids are met, everything else is just minor tweaking.

>

[Guest guest]

getting there in good health means a lot! I know that's minimized in other

CR circles, but I don't buy it. There's too much evidence that certain

foods prevent what is going to kill you . If you succumb at an early age

because you didn't eat quality, where will you be? (Six feet under, unless

of course they cremate you).

It' s just anecdotely, but I've seen too many people who didn't eat much

(and were thin) that didn't live long. I also notice that many of the

" extremists " get sick often - or at least they did back when I was paying

attention to them.

I don't get what you mean by " minimum requirements " below? What about the

foods that actually " prevent " disease such as veggies and fruits?

>on 4/18/2004 5:05 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

>

> > ........ As long as minium requirements for protein and essentially

>fatty

> > acids are met, everything else is just minor tweaking.

>

on 4/18/2004 7:09 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> Quality does count for something, but it alone will not increase maximum

> lifespan. It will help maximize one's potential to reach a maximum lifespan

> in good health (85 years, for example). However, apparently, only lowering

> caloric intake will increase maximum lifespan (Walford's 120 years).

[Guest guest]

I absolutely agree, Francesca! Good health means everything, really. Without

longer life is prolonged misery. Nonetheless, for some, the goal of CR is

life extension, including lengthening maximum lifespan. While a few

individuals have been know to succumb to anorexia, most appear to maintain a

more reasonalble balance.

As far as foods that prevent diseases, by all means, I advocate them. CR has

it's own, extremely powerful disease preventing effect; however, that may

far outweigh individual food choice. Food choice may, therefore, be truely

important only to " overfed/normally fed " idividuals, who require such

adjuvants.

>From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:33:33 -0400

>

>getting there in good health means a lot! I know that's minimized in other

>CR circles, but I don't buy it. There's too much evidence that certain

>foods prevent what is going to kill you . If you succumb at an early age

>because you didn't eat quality, where will you be? (Six feet under, unless

>of course they cremate you).

>

>It' s just anecdotely, but I've seen too many people who didn't eat much

>(and were thin) that didn't live long. I also notice that many of the

> " extremists " get sick often - or at least they did back when I was paying

>attention to them.

>

>I don't get what you mean by " minimum requirements " below? What about the

>foods that actually " prevent " disease such as veggies and fruits?

>

> >on 4/18/2004 5:05 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> >

> > > ........ As long as minium requirements for protein and essentially

> >fatty

> > > acids are met, everything else is just minor tweaking.

> >

>

>

>on 4/18/2004 7:09 PM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

>

> > Quality does count for something, but it alone will not increase maximum

> > lifespan. It will help maximize one's potential to reach a maximum

>lifespan

> > in good health (85 years, for example). However, apparently, only

>lowering

> > caloric intake will increase maximum lifespan (Walford's 120 years).

>

[Guest guest]

: I ain't taking any chances myself afa food choice. As

previously mentioned I know too many who died young (and thin) who didn't

eat much. AFA illness: I note: osteoporosis, anemia, frequent bouts of the

flu - all posted by extremists in the past.

I also wonder if the human brain (large as it is) might need more nutrients

than other animal brains to function properly. Irritability and hostility

have seemed to go along with extremism (unless that type of person to

begin with is the type that is more likely to go to extremes) - and that

affects quality of life.

To each his own - the human data ain't in yet.

on 4/19/2004 3:52 AM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> I absolutely agree, Francesca! Good health means everything, really. Without

> longer life is prolonged misery. Nonetheless, for some, the goal of CR is

> life extension, including lengthening maximum lifespan. While a few

> individuals have been know to succumb to anorexia, most appear to maintain a

> more reasonalble balance.

>

> As far as foods that prevent diseases, by all means, I advocate them. CR has

> it's own, extremely powerful disease preventing effect; however, that may

> far outweigh individual food choice. Food choice may, therefore, be truely

> important only to " overfed/normally fed " idividuals, who require such

> adjuvants.

[Guest guest]

The biggest diff, IMO, is that rats don't live 77 yrs. Surely, there is a diff in the rate of decline of kidneys, brain, other organs/glands, and an increase in oxidized fat, due to TIME - things a short lived animal might not encounter.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:24 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

Hi Francesca:Even in the reduced carbohydrate CR diet Dr. Spindler used in this study, carbohydrates still constituted 59% of total calories. (The control diet was 76% from carbohydrates). I don't think you are in any danger of being carbohydrate deficient any time soon.One important difference between mice and wo/men is that mice rarely suffer from heart disease, which, of course kills about half of humans. This may, possibly, have important implications for the transferability of these data to humans.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, Francesca-

The hard science of animal studies sometimes falls flat in the light of

human real life. Humans live much more complex lives than animals in

controlled experiments, and any health aid I can find, I try to take

advantage of. For me this includes high nutrient density foods and beverages

such as fresh fruit, nuts, green tea, coffee, leafy green vegetables,

tomatos, peppers, spices, herbs, fatty fish, whey protein, yogurt, cocoa,

and so on.

Years ago I read an article on longevity in OMNI magazine, IIRC. One

interviewed person was an oriental gentleman who said " Do everything;

believe in nothing. " I certainly try to do everything I can to enhance my

health and longevity, and I would not be willing to bet on a single

strategy, such as pure caloric restriction, to succeed.

>From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

>Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:41:06 -0400

>

>: I ain't taking any chances myself afa food choice. As

>previously mentioned I know too many who died young (and thin) who didn't

>eat much. AFA illness: I note: osteoporosis, anemia, frequent bouts of

>the

>flu - all posted by extremists in the past.

>

> I also wonder if the human brain (large as it is) might need more

>nutrients

>than other animal brains to function properly. Irritability and hostility

>have seemed to go along with extremism (unless that type of person to

>begin with is the type that is more likely to go to extremes) - and that

>affects quality of life.

>

>To each his own - the human data ain't in yet.

>

>

>on 4/19/2004 3:52 AM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

>

> > I absolutely agree, Francesca! Good health means everything, really.

>Without

> > longer life is prolonged misery. Nonetheless, for some, the goal of CR

>is

> > life extension, including lengthening maximum lifespan. While a few

> > individuals have been know to succumb to anorexia, most appear to

>maintain a

> > more reasonalble balance.

> >

> > As far as foods that prevent diseases, by all means, I advocate them. CR

>has

> > it's own, extremely powerful disease preventing effect; however, that

>may

> > far outweigh individual food choice. Food choice may, therefore, be

>truely

> > important only to " overfed/normally fed " idividuals, who require such

> > adjuvants.

>

[Guest guest]

that. The mice don't live 75yrs meaning they don't have the opportunity for slow growth rate stuff like cancer and oxidized fat in arteries.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:41 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Even More Good News!

: I ain't taking any chances myself afa food choice. Aspreviously mentioned I know too many who died young (and thin) who didn'teat much. AFA illness: I note: osteoporosis, anemia, frequent bouts of theflu - all posted by extremists in the past.I also wonder if the human brain (large as it is) might need more nutrientsthan other animal brains to function properly. Irritability and hostilityhave seemed to go along with extremism (unless that type of person tobegin with is the type that is more likely to go to extremes) - and thataffects quality of life.To each his own - the human data ain't in yet.