Re: Pills for longevity in the next decades

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Yes. One thought:

If they come up with a 'treatment' that has the same effect as

caloric restriction (and preventing fat from being stored, it seems),

and if the people taking the treatment continue to eat the same

number of calories as before, then what is going to be happening to

the energy they take in that will be neither burned nor stored?

Rodney.

> Anyone have thoughts concerning the below article:

>

> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/scanlon1004.asp?p=1

>

> The biologists believe they have singled out the gene that might be

> getting actived from being on a reduced calorie lifestyle and that

> drugs are a possibility in the coming decades.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have a feeling it will go the same place excess goes now - in the feces processed by bacteria or not. I don't think the discussion about excess excreted calories ever decided if the lifespan is effected.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:39 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Pills for longevity in the next decades

Hi :Yes. One thought:If they come up with a 'treatment' that has the same effect as caloric restriction (and preventing fat from being stored, it seems), and if the people taking the treatment continue to eat the same number of calories as before, then what is going to be happening to the energy they take in that will be neither burned nor stored?Rodney.> Anyone have thoughts concerning the below article:> > http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/scanlon1004.asp?p=1> > The biologists believe they have singled out the gene that might be > getting actived from being on a reduced calorie lifestyle and that > drugs are a possibility in the coming decades.> >

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Then are you saying that the pill to mimic caloric restriction may

act largely by causing a considerable reduction in the efficiency of

absorption in the intestine? If so, that would certainly work to

restrict calories. But hopefully it would be selective only for

calories, and not for micronutrients.

Rodney.

> > Anyone have thoughts concerning the below article:

> >

> > http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/scanlon1004.asp?

p=1

> >

> > The biologists believe they have singled out the gene that

might be

> > getting actived from being on a reduced calorie lifestyle and

that

> > drugs are a possibility in the coming decades.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I have no idea what a pill might do, but if it is accepted as well as the statins have been accepted, the effect may not be great. And if it works, it will be extra expensive. CR is here and now and folks don't accept it all that well. Odd how much control the urge to eat has on our bodies. I saw a Morey Safer review of the Duke rice diet on TV. Several of the subjects weighed in excess of 600 #, yet 2 dropped out after losing 150# and went back to their eating habits and regrew to 600#.

WHY would they do that?

Granted they were eating maybe the dullest diet possible - rice and fruit. But any diet that gave them 1800 kcals or maybe even 3000 kcals for their size would eventually lose them weight. All they have to do is eat less, even slightly less than the burn.

But one farmer exited the program at 270# and continued to lose. The program works for some.

Maybe a gene that can be manipulated to regulate the weight. Next year.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:58 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Pills for longevity in the next decades

Hi JW:Then are you saying that the pill to mimic caloric restriction may act largely by causing a considerable reduction in the efficiency of absorption in the intestine? If so, that would certainly work to restrict calories. But hopefully it would be selective only for calories, and not for micronutrients. Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Why do people do that, you ask? Well, why do people smoke?

People are self-destructive, sometimes seem to have no ability to plan ahead

(in any area not just food), want to enjoy the moment, are too busy with

other pursuits, etc etc. Witness the obesity epidemic.

I think a pill in the next 10 years is overly optimistic. We've heard that

before. Humans are a lot more complicated than lower animals. I can also

picture a radical right wing (the same people that won't allow stem cell

research in the US) proclaiming that this is interference with providence.

on 9/24/2004 9:39 AM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> I have no idea what a pill might do, but if it is accepted as well as the

> statins have been accepted, the effect may not be great. And if it works, it

> will be extra expensive. CR is here and now and folks don't accept it all that

> well. Odd how much control the urge to eat has on our bodies. I saw a Morey

> Safer review of the Duke rice diet on TV. Several of the subjects weighed in

> excess of 600 #, yet 2 dropped out after losing 150# and went back to their

> eating habits and regrew to 600#.

>

> WHY would they do that?

> Granted they were eating maybe the dullest diet possible - rice and fruit. But

> any diet that gave them 1800 kcals or maybe even 3000 kcals for their size

> would eventually lose them weight. All they have to do is eat less, even

> slightly less than the burn.

>

> But one farmer exited the program at 270# and continued to lose. The program

> works for some.

>

> Maybe a gene that can be manipulated to regulate the weight. Next year.

>

> Regards.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Rodney

>

> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:58 AM

> Subject: [ ] Re: Pills for longevity in the next decades

>

>

> Hi JW:

>

> Then are you saying that the pill to mimic caloric restriction may

> act largely by causing a considerable reduction in the efficiency of

> absorption in the intestine? If so, that would certainly work to

> restrict calories. But hopefully it would be selective only for

> calories, and not for micronutrients.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

If the fat people realized (i.e. if it was explained to them) that

most (not quite all) people get to be as huge as they are because

they eat the equivalent of half a banana a day too much, perhaps they

might be more motivated to do something about it. Like eat one

banana a day less than they have been, i.e. half a banana a day too

little, instead.

'Rodney's Rule' ;; ^ ))) states that: " pounds of weight added per

year roughly approximates one tenth the excess of calories eaten each

day " . For example, half a banana a day is ~50 calories. Divide

fifty by ten and you get five, which means that half a banana a day

extra, above caloric expenditure, every day on average, will add five

pounds of extra weight per year.

If you keep doing this - half a banana a day too much - for twenty

years, as many people do (perhaps because you are too distracted by

the hassles of everyday life to notice) you suddenly, magically,

realize you are 100 pounds overweight, even if you started out

(unlikely) at a sensible weight.

IF ONLY they had realized such a trivial adjustment - one banana a

day - could have made the difference between being slim and obese;

between good health and poor health, might some of them have done

something about it?

Does it really take super-human determination to exercise the

restraint necessary to forego that last half a banana a day? If it

does, then congratulations to the members here! But perhaps they

just don't care, as Francesca seems to be suggesting?

Rodney.

[Of course I realize that the above is something of a simplification,

since equilibrium caloric intake varies with body weight. But

the 'incremental calories above, or below, caloric expenditure'

argument still holds, even though caloric expenditure varies with

body weight.]

>

> > I have no idea what a pill might do, but if it is accepted as

well as the

> > statins have been accepted, the effect may not be great. And if

it works, it

> > will be extra expensive. CR is here and now and folks don't

accept it all that

> > well. Odd how much control the urge to eat has on our bodies. I

saw a Morey

> > Safer review of the Duke rice diet on TV. Several of the subjects

weighed in

> > excess of 600 #, yet 2 dropped out after losing 150# and went

back to their

> > eating habits and regrew to 600#.

> >

> > WHY would they do that?

> > Granted they were eating maybe the dullest diet possible - rice

and fruit. But

> > any diet that gave them 1800 kcals or maybe even 3000 kcals for

their size

> > would eventually lose them weight. All they have to do is eat

less, even

> > slightly less than the burn.

> >

> > But one farmer exited the program at 270# and continued to lose.

The program

> > works for some.

> >

> > Maybe a gene that can be manipulated to regulate the weight. Next

year.

> >

> > Regards.

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: Rodney

> >

> > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:58 AM

> > Subject: [ ] Re: Pills for longevity in the next

decades

> >

> >

> > Hi JW:

> >

> > Then are you saying that the pill to mimic caloric restriction may

> > act largely by causing a considerable reduction in the efficiency

of

> > absorption in the intestine? If so, that would certainly work to

> > restrict calories. But hopefully it would be selective only for

> > calories, and not for micronutrients.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Having been overweight most of my life with periods of obesity, weight

gain/loss is not that simple.

I recall periods as a young adult when I consumed easily 3x my current

energy intake while being reasonably stable, albeit heavier.

When you consume large amounts of food your body doesn't capture every

calorie. While I believe it is possible to master the beast, it's not as

trivial as eating one less banana. Perhaps in the margin but severely

overweight eaters are far from the margin.

JR

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

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

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 9:58 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Pills for longevity in the next decades

Hi folks:

If the fat people realized (i.e. if it was explained to them) that

most (not quite all) people get to be as huge as they are because

they eat the equivalent of half a banana a day too much, perhaps they

might be more motivated to do something about it. Like eat one

banana a day less than they have been, i.e. half a banana a day too

little, instead.

'Rodney's Rule' ;; ^ ))) states that: " pounds of weight added per

year roughly approximates one tenth the excess of calories eaten each

day " . For example, half a banana a day is ~50 calories. Divide

fifty by ten and you get five, which means that half a banana a day

extra, above caloric expenditure, every day on average, will add five

pounds of extra weight per year.

If you keep doing this - half a banana a day too much - for twenty

years, as many people do (perhaps because you are too distracted by

the hassles of everyday life to notice) you suddenly, magically,

realize you are 100 pounds overweight, even if you started out

(unlikely) at a sensible weight.

IF ONLY they had realized such a trivial adjustment - one banana a

day - could have made the difference between being slim and obese;

between good health and poor health, might some of them have done

something about it?

Does it really take super-human determination to exercise the

restraint necessary to forego that last half a banana a day? If it

does, then congratulations to the members here! But perhaps they

just don't care, as Francesca seems to be suggesting?

Rodney.

[O

[Guest guest]

It's not that simple. There are other factors at play that override

what should be a normal desire to only eat up to energy maintenance

needs, as I'm sure we're all familiar with on CRON. Here's a list,

in order of priority, that I believe are factors:

1. High II carbohydrates storing the energy ingested to fat cells

after the normal cells are stuffed full of glucose ( " insulin

resistance " ). Most of the food that overweight people eat seem to

be " evil combinations " of protein/fat and high II carbohydrates in

the same meal, like fried chicken or cheeseburge and bun, which is

essentially a bee line for the energy to go straight to the fat

cells. I've eaten a 2500-3000kcal low II diet before and all I saw

happening was my metabolism continually upshifting to burn off the

excess energy. No weight gain at all and no free fat mass increase.

2. Low serotonin (the " feel good " hormone) brought about by blood

sugar troughs (see #1 above), alleviated by caffeine and/or high II

foods, both which raise insulin levels (indirectly in the case of

caffeine) and thus, serotonin.

3. Cravings due to nutritional inadequency. I suspect most people,

not knowing any better, eat high II carbs to blunt the cravings,

unless the craving is really specific enough not to generalize.

4. Thermodynamic effect of foods.

5. Downshifting of metabolism when energy intake is decreased. This

is far more of a genetic problem for women due to childbirth needs

than men. This is also responsible for the yo-yo effect: it takes

less calories than before to get back to the pervious overweight

point because the metabolism " set point " has been lowered.

5. And then, and only then, is a calorie actually a calorie. ;-)

Logan

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

wrote:

> Does it really take super-human determination to exercise the

> restraint necessary to forego that last half a banana a day? If it

> does, then congratulations to the members here! But perhaps they

> just don't care, as Francesca seems to be suggesting?

[Guest guest]

Right, it's not simple. And that complication leads top articles like:

Caloric restriction, body fat and ageing in experimental models.[Review]

Source

Obesity Reviews. 5(1):13-19, February 2004.

Abstract

Summary: Caloric restriction in animal models delays many age-related pathological conditions. Ageing rats have characteristically increased body weight, fat mass and a specific body fat distribution. This report will focus on the potential cause-effect relationship between increased fat mass and accelerated ageing. In humans, increased fat mass (obesity), and in particular increases in abdominal obesity as a result of deposition of visceral fat, are associated with the metabolic syndrome of ageing. This syndrome is associated with hyperinsulinaemia, dyslipidaemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, hypercoagulability and hypertension. Fat tissue, however, plays a major role by secreting multiple metabolically active factors, which are potentially responsible for the development of insulin resistance. This article will review various experimental models (in animals) used to prevent insulin resistance of ageing by decreasing fat mass, and in particular, decreasing visceral fat. We suggest that this decrease in fat mass and its beneficial repercussions observed in ageing animal models may apply also to human ageing and its related pathology.

Here I must point out that not all "fat" people have "hyperinsulinaemia, dyslipidaemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, hypercoagulability and hypertension".

They MAY have one or all of those and they may not. In fact there are people very obese who do not have hypertension. And there are people with HTN that exercise and are normal weight. The subject is metabolic syndrome and, IMO, they call things a syndrome when they don't know what it is. So to put the blame on a high fat diet or low fat diet or any specific food is an error.

We can describe the problem, endlessly and pointlessly, but it doesn't explain what causes it. All I know is the way to help it.

For sure, the way out of X is to eat less calories. But you can make this as clear as you please to a patient and they will not eat less food. They will use the excuse they have a "hormonal" problem, diabetes, etc. I knew a 500# guy. His arm was covered with yellow dye from digging in the cheetos (literally). His keyboard was yellow. He couldn't walk more than 50 feet without resting.

Something drives these people to eat.

Regards.

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

From: loganruns73

Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:58 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Pills for longevity in the next decades

It's not that simple. There are other factors at play that override what should be a normal desire to only eat up to energy maintenance needs, as I'm sure we're all familiar with on CRON. Here's a list, in order of priority, that I believe are factors:1. High II carbohydrates storing the energy ingested to fat cells after the normal cells are stuffed full of glucose ("insulin resistance"). Most of the food that overweight people eat seem to be "evil combinations" of protein/fat and high II carbohydrates in the same meal, like fried chicken or cheeseburge and bun, which is essentially a bee line for the energy to go straight to the fat cells. I've eaten a 2500-3000kcal low II diet before and all I saw happening was my metabolism continually upshifting to burn off the excess energy. No weight gain at all and no free fat mass increase.2. Low serotonin (the "feel good" hormone) brought about by blood sugar troughs (see #1 above), alleviated by caffeine and/or high II foods, both which raise insulin levels (indirectly in the case of caffeine) and thus, serotonin.3. Cravings due to nutritional inadequency. I suspect most people, not knowing any better, eat high II carbs to blunt the cravings, unless the craving is really specific enough not to generalize.4. Thermodynamic effect of foods.5. Downshifting of metabolism when energy intake is decreased. This is far more of a genetic problem for women due to childbirth needs than men. This is also responsible for the yo-yo effect: it takes less calories than before to get back to the pervious overweight point because the metabolism "set point" has been lowered.5. And then, and only then, is a calorie actually a calorie. ;-)Logan

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

LOL

Crossed posts!

Rodney.

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

wrote:

>

> Something drives these people to eat.

>

> Regards.