Re: Dr. Spindler's Mice (continued)

[Guest guest]

Can you translate 42% longer in " human " years. If one is 60-65 when one

starts CRON, to avoid any misunderstandings how many more years can one be

expected to live above and beyond the average life expectancy (of course

this will vary for individuals).

on 4/16/2004 6:40 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> As a reminder ......... after going on this 43.9% CR diet at

> age '60-65', in a two step process, the mice lived 42% longer than

> those eating a 10% CR diet - equivalent, perhaps, to a ~twelve year

> difference in humans.

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

For a number, about twelve years longer than those on a 10% CR diet.

Rodney.

>

> > As a reminder ......... after going on this 43.9% CR diet at

> > age '60-65', in a two step process, the mice lived 42% longer than

> > those eating a 10% CR diet - equivalent, perhaps, to a ~twelve

year

> > difference in humans.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Also worth noting that, comparing the 44% CR mice with the 10% CR

mice, the 44 percenters consumed 59% carbohydrates (compared with 76%

for the controls); 16% fat (versus 9%); and 25% protein (versus 15%).

Hmmmmm.

Rodney.

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

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Diet F05314 is designed in such a way that, in comparison with mice

> fed F05312, mice fed 40% less of F05314 will consume 40% fewer

> calories but very nearly identical amounts of all nutrients except

> carbohydrates. And the entire reduction in calories is achieved by

a

> reduction in the amount of carbohydrate.

>

> Further, in summary, for almost every nutrient the CR feed, F05314,

> contains 67% more grams of nutrient per kilogram of feed than does

> the control feed, # F05312. This includes 67% more casein (the

major

> protein source) and 67% more soybean oil (the principal source of

> fat). The result is that when one feeds 40% less (grams) of F05314

> the mice are eating the same amounts of all the above nutrients as

> the control mice.

>

> There are four nutrients which, in the CR feed, are not 67% higher

> (grams of nutrient per kilogram of feed) than in the control diet.

> They are starch, dextrin, fiber and sucrose. To cut a longish

story

> short it appears that the CR mice consumed 98% less starch; 55%

less

> dextrin; 14% less fibre; and 20% more (sic) sucrose (compared with

> the control mice, in absolute terms).

>

> As a reminder ......... after going on this 43.9% CR diet at

> age '60-65', in a two step process, the mice lived 42% longer than

> those eating a 10% CR diet - equivalent, perhaps, to a ~twelve year

> difference in humans.

>

> Quite interesting.

>

> Rodney.

>

> (It looks like white sugar may not be as bad as some would have us

> believe!)

[Guest guest]

And there's no tradeoff of health when starting so late (as Walford says?)

As you know, I've been posting that Walford says to be moderate in your CR

regimen if you're older. According to what you posted, being " stricter " in

your regimen and older, leads to " better " (not worse) health???? If this is

correct, perhaps (because you seem to have established a rapport with these

scientists) you could ask/tell them that Walford's experiments came to a

different conclusion? Or am I not understanding these results correctly?

on 4/16/2004 6:53 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Francesca:

>

> For a number, about twelve years longer than those on a 10% CR diet.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Well I have no opinion about whether people should be much more

cautious if they are older. Nor do I have an opinion on the

supplements issue. In both cases, the reason I do not have an

opinion is because I have not read empirical studies which carefully

examined these issues.

That said, these mice were placed on 44% CR in a two stage process as

the study pointed out (cautious gradualism). And they WERE

supplemented (caution again). But on the other side of the argument

I don't think we should expect that 10% CR will work wonders.

Speaking for myself I am taking supplements for anything I know I

have been deficient in and some nutrients I am not deficient in too.

And when I get to about 16% body fat I am going to revert to a

somewhat higher calorie diet for at least a few months, before

resuming the effort to get my BF% down to more CR-like levels than

the 21.5% I started at.

But I am not doing this because I know it is the right way to do it.

I am doing it that way because Francesca told me to!!! And a little

caution is not likely to be misplaced.

If anyone knows of empirical studies that tackled head-on the

gradualism and supplements issues, I wish they would post the

reference here so we can read them. There is much that gets absorbed

into common knowledge (like the eight glasses of water a day) that

may have no basis in science. I don't know whether these issues fall

into this category or not. There is only one way to find out.

Rodney.

>

> > Hi Francesca:

> >

> > For a number, about twelve years longer than those on a 10% CR

diet.

> >

> > Rodney.