Re: Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners

[Guest guest]

And your evidence for that statement is.........????

This takes us back to whether ON is just as important as CR. IMHO yes. I

have often posted that I've seen too many thin people ( thin because they

didn't eat much) die young - anecdotal to be sure, but I'm keeping my diet

as high quality as possible.....I ain't taking any chances.

on 7/12/2004 7:20 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

snipped........

> Take heart disease as an example. If the classic cardiovascular risk

> factor data of the WUSTL CR subjects are any guide, then CR pretty

> much eliminates the chances of suffering cardiovascular disease. If

> this is correct, then is there any relevance for CR practitioners of

> making minor changes in the types of foods they eat in response to

> protective heart characteristics of certain foods proven to be of

> help for that purpose to the general (non-CR) population? It may

> make an appreciable difference to them. But will it make any

> difference to us? Probably not.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

People sometimes read too much into things I post. The point I was

trying to make was NOT to dispute whether ON is necessary or

desirable. We all, I assume, believe it is both.

I was questioning the relevance of studies conducted on ad libbers

for people on CR.

Ad libbers are likely to suffer, and die from, an entirely different

set of diseases from us. So, some wrinkle in diet even if PROVEN to

have a considerable impact on study subjects consuming the average

american diet (average in both quantity and quality), will most of

the time have no relevance for us. The reason being that most of the

time the disease the subject substance has been shown to

prevent/cure, or whatever, will be one not suffered by those on CR.

So it is probably appropriate to be cautious about assuming

substances shown to be beneficial in many of these studies (all of

which are conducted on ad libbers) will help people on CR. It is

even possible there might be cases where something that helps an ad

libber avoid heart disease (a big deal for him) might make worse

whatever illnesses it is CR practitioners will be suffering from

later in life. Hence my suggestion that we need to know what those

illnesses are.

It is now clearly established, at least in many animals, that CR is

highly beneficial. IMO we do not need to do dozens more studies that

demonstrate that 40% restricted animals live longer than their 105%

controls. If we are to learn what further dietary adjustments will

benefit people on CR we need to see studies, from here on, where THE

CONTROL GROUP is on 40% CR, and where the study examines whether

additional interventions result in further improvement (or harm) -

beyond that of CR alone. Interventions that reduce heart disease

incidence in ad libbers, for example, it seems to me, are likely to

be irrelevant to us.

Does this make my point clear?

Rodney.

> And your evidence for that statement is.........????

>

> This takes us back to whether ON is just as important as CR. IMHO

yes. I

> have often posted that I've seen too many thin people ( thin

because they

> didn't eat much) die young - anecdotal to be sure, but I'm keeping

my diet

> as high quality as possible.....I ain't taking any chances.

[Guest guest]

AFAIK the body of human CR research is pretty thin :-). It is a bit

premature to extrapolate from it what will likely happen to you or me. I

have no doubt that energy restriction is very powerful in mitigating against

diseases (?) that are dominated by over consumption but beyond that who

knows, it may make us more susceptible to others. What good is living to 120

if you can't snap your fingers for multiple reasons (strength and frailty).

While energy restriction should be helpful against type II diabetes, I

wouldn't expect it to cure Type I. It may reduce cancer but if you live

longer guess what? I know at least one individual who is far more restricted

than I am but still has much higher BP. CR will not completely unwind

genetic biases.

I believe that energy restriction is far more powerful than " optimizing "

nutrition, but I am also pretty confident that any nutritional deficiencies

will trump the benefits from energy restriction. If you consume massive

amounts of fiber, don't ignore that you may be thwarting your bodies ability

to absorb essential nutrients, etc. Also many mass market foods are

supplemented (vit D milk, iodized salt, etc etc). Once you withdraw from

that food chain you are on your own.

My personal philosophy is to focus on what is more likely to kill me or

reduce my QOL. I have already buried one sibling and several close relatives

from my generation so I can guess what my genetic weakness may be. I suspect

yours will be different.

I would suggest you study your family tree and then select the rat or house

fly CR studies that promise to modulate what is likely to kill you. Since

rats don't drive cars, remember to wear seat your belt too.

This following comment is not directed at anybody in particular, but IMO

life is not a contest to see who lives the most hours. The goal if there is

one, might be to actually accomplish something. More hours should help us

accomplish more as long as we don't spend too many of those hours just

trying to get more hours.

JR

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

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 6:20 PM

Subject: [ ] Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners

Hi folks:

A background point worth mentioning, perhaps: As we all know well,

not only from the studies in non-human animals but in the WUSTL human

CR study also, CR goes a very long way to prevent many of the

diseases that are the principal causes of death in western societies.

Nearly 100% of the studies we share with each other here that

demonstrate some benefit, or harm, from some food or other, are based

on observations of non-CR subjects. So one must wonder how much, if

any, relevance they have for those of us involved in CR.

Take heart disease as an example. If the classic cardiovascular risk

factor data of the WUSTL CR subjects are any guide, then CR pretty

much eliminates the chances of suffering cardiovascular disease. If

this is correct, then is there any relevance for CR practitioners of

making minor changes in the types of foods they eat in response to

protective heart characteristics of certain foods proven to be of

help for that purpose to the general (non-CR) population? It may

make an appreciable difference to them. But will it make any

difference to us? Probably not.

And a related point: In part this was the reason why, many months

ago, I asked here if anyone had a breakdown of the causes of death of

people/animals on CR.

If cardiovascular disease is nearly eradicated by CR and cancer

greatly reduced, then what ailments is it we should be spending our

time trying think of ways to avoid?

Rodney.

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Apologies Rod that I read more into your post than was there.

Walford seems to think that we'll die of what we would have died of -- but

later. We're just postponing the inevitable. There is also such a thing

as dying of old age. My mother did. She was independent and healthy til

the age of 97 1/2. Then she started having constant pain from arthritis and

develped a " dowager's hump " whereas up until then she had never had

osteoporosis.

This decline continued for the next 7 months . She got frailer and frailer

and then lapsed into a coma for a couple of days and died.

on 7/12/2004 8:58 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Francesca:

>

> Ad libbers are likely to suffer, and die from, an entirely different

> set of diseases from us. So, some wrinkle in diet even if PROVEN to

> have a considerable impact on study subjects consuming the average

> american diet (average in both quantity and quality), will most of

> the time have no relevance for us. The reason being that most of the

> time the disease the subject substance has been shown to

> prevent/cure, or whatever, will be one not suffered by those on CR.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

You make valid points, Rodney. There is a different pattern of

mortality factor for ad lib and CR animals. Sorry am I that I have

no readily available reference. Infections come to mind as a disease

of relatively greater impact for CRers.

Heart disease deaths and the more significant in rodents cancers were

major causes of mortality in CR rodents.

Less than adequate intake for ad lib levels of minerals and vitamins

results in shorter CR rodent lifespans. So, if we take our RDAs, we

should be fine, I believe.

johnroberts speaks of house flies, when referring to fruit flies, I

believe.

Cheers, Al.

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

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> A background point worth mentioning, perhaps: As we all know well,

> not only from the studies in non-human animals but in the WUSTL

human

> CR study also, CR goes a very long way to prevent many of the

> diseases that are the principal causes of death in western

societies.

>

> Nearly 100% of the studies we share with each other here that

> demonstrate some benefit, or harm, from some food or other, are

based

> on observations of non-CR subjects. So one must wonder how much,

if

> any, relevance they have for those of us involved in CR.

>

> Take heart disease as an example. If the classic cardiovascular

risk

> factor data of the WUSTL CR subjects are any guide, then CR pretty

> much eliminates the chances of suffering cardiovascular disease.

If

> this is correct, then is there any relevance for CR practitioners

of

> making minor changes in the types of foods they eat in response to

> protective heart characteristics of certain foods proven to be of

> help for that purpose to the general (non-CR) population? It may

> make an appreciable difference to them. But will it make any

> difference to us? Probably not.

>

> And a related point: In part this was the reason why, many months

> ago, I asked here if anyone had a breakdown of the causes of death

of

> people/animals on CR.

>

> If cardiovascular disease is nearly eradicated by CR and cancer

> greatly reduced, then what ailments is it we should be spending our

> time trying think of ways to avoid?

>

> Rodney.

Replies Name/Email ID Date

13524 Re: Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners Francesca Skelton

fskelton2002 Mon 7/12/2004

13525 Re: Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners Rodney

perspect1111 Mon 7/12/2004

13526 Re: Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners john roberts

johnrobertsi Mon 7/12/2004

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

So died my brother of colon cancer at 31 years old.

Old age is not a disease, but leads to increased incidence of death

for you-name-it disease, is my take of the situation.

Cheers, Al.

.... There is also such a thing

> as dying of old age. My mother did. She was independent and

healthy til

> the age of 97 1/2. ....

> This decline continued for the next 7 months . She got frailer

and frailer

> and then lapsed into a coma for a couple of days and died.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Thanks for raising the issue of infections. It is an interesting

one. I had a wonderful 22 year old domestic cat (~110 in human

terms). It was still bounding up the stairs two at a time until

shortly before it died. It caught some kind of infection and just

couldn't fight it off, even with antibiotics.

There must be a long list of these things: salmonella, e coli, 'flu,

SARS, MRSA, ...........

If we knew the full list it would help figure out the precautions

needed to avoid them. Cooking food properly and avoiding cross-

contamination are two precautions especially important for older

people, flu shots another, avoiding hospitals a

third, ............... .

While not an infection, air pollution is often blamed for thousands

of deaths in respiratory-system-compromised individuals in hot,

polluted, summer weather.

Nutrition quality is no doubt a very important aspect of this. Have

any of the claims made for herbal supplements been genuinely shown to

strengthen the immune system? Lots of claims are made. I have

always assumed they are snake oil remedies. It has been demonstrated

that tea drinkers have a much stronger immune response to bacterial

infection.

Any other infections to add to the list?

Rodney.

--- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...>

wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> Infections come to mind as a disease of relatively greater impact

> for CRers. ....................

> Less than adequate intake for ad lib levels of minerals and

> vitamins

> results in shorter CR rodent lifespans. So, if we take our RDAs,

> we

> should be fine, I believe.

[Guest guest]

Not to disagree.

I've never been sure what CRON is actually.

Sounds like CRON is CRAN but adding more vitamins, minerals by trying to "optimize" what nutrients we need. Like eat more essential aminos and less sugar/high caloric density carbos. But that leaves me eating a lot of grass and in there is a lot of stuff we literally know nothing (as in <1%) about. Some chemicals are so minute that we tend to think they are not hazardous, BUT I know of some drugs we take in doses of micrograms.

I eat what veggies I can eat, maybe a pound and maybe a pound of fruit per day, but I still need more energy and that has to be grain or oil. Funny. I never hear of a high density oil being bad. Like someone thinks there aren't micrograms of stuff in the oils that we don't know about.

Some are biased against carbs because of type 2, I'm biased against fats because of BP. How do I CRON that?

I think it is a contest and I'm gonna live longer than yall, because I also listen very carefully what my wife says. She needs the SS money as long as possible.(ha)

Regards.

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

From: john roberts

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:03 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners

I believe that energy restriction is far more powerful than "optimizing"nutrition, but I am also pretty confident that any nutritional deficiencieswill trump the benefits from energy restriction. If you consume massiveamounts of fiber, don't ignore that you may be thwarting your bodies abilityto absorb essential nutrients, etc. Also many mass market foods aresupplemented (vit D milk, iodized salt, etc etc). Once you withdraw fromthat food chain you are on your own.My personal philosophy is to focus on what is more likely to kill me orreduce my QOL. I have already buried one sibling and several close relativesfrom my generation so I can guess what my genetic weakness may be. I suspectyours will be different.I would suggest you study your family tree and then select the rat or housefly CR studies that promise to modulate what is likely to kill you. Sincerats don't drive cars, remember to wear seat your belt too.This following comment is not directed at anybody in particular, but IMOlife is not a contest to see who lives the most hours. The goal if there isone, might be to actually accomplish something. More hours should help usaccomplish more as long as we don't spend too many of those hours justtrying to get more hours.JR

[Guest guest]

Of course. Lots of research backs up, say, echinacea or garlic. But

you will notice the meaningful studies use high quality

pharmaceutical-grade extracts. So the snake oil in America is in the

sourcing, manufacturing and marketing of overpriced, low-quality

products that have little to no efficacy. That rules out 99% of what

you can buy from a health store. I'm no fan of the anarchronistic

FDA, but the proposed Good Manufacturing regulations for supplement

manufacturers may actually force a general improvement in quality.

Logan

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

> Nutrition quality is no doubt a very important aspect of this.

Have

> any of the claims made for herbal supplements been genuinely shown

to

> strengthen the immune system? Lots of claims are made. I have

> always assumed they are snake oil remedies. It has been

demonstrated

> that tea drinkers have a much stronger immune response to bacterial

> infection.

[Guest guest]

Eat more protein. :-) If cost is a concern, caseine is very dense on

an ounce per ounce basis compared to meat. For my target body fat

percentage and weight at 1500 calories, I eat 139 grams of protein a

day. I keep net carbs at the 130 grams minimal for brain function,

so the fat suffers a 50% reduction which is not fun at all. :-[

Logan

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...

> Some are biased against carbs because of type 2, I'm biased against

fats because of BP. How do I CRON that?

[Guest guest]

CRON cannot be about wasting calories, because CR is about using the least calories. I can't use that much protein. In fact, I think I'm wasting calories at 92 grams (1800 kcals).

Hafta balance the macronutrients for their individual purposes. The least calories has to be somewhere that uses more carbs for energy - energy is the largest nutrient requirement. I'm thinking 20% Protein, 30% fat, 50% carbs.

Regards.

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

From: beneathremains

Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:19 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners

Eat more protein. :-) If cost is a concern, caseine is very dense on an ounce per ounce basis compared to meat. For my target body fat percentage and weight at 1500 calories, I eat 139 grams of protein a day. I keep net carbs at the 130 grams minimal for brain function, so the fat suffers a 50% reduction which is not fun at all. :-[Logan--- In , "jwwright" <jwwright@e...> Some are biased against carbs because of type 2, I'm biased against fats because of BP. How do I CRON that?