Re: Which calories?

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

One particularly interesting aspect of Katrina'a posted study is the

following (I find it interesting because I had missed this detail in

the original Mair et al study referred to) - the part capitalized is

capitalized by me:

" In the study by Mair et al .................... the authors

observed that IN THE RESTRICTED SUGAR GROUP, as compared to the

controls, MAXIMAL LIFE SPAN WAS UNCHANGED and median life span was

increased by only 12%. On the other hand, both maximal and median

life spans were increased substantially in the restricted yeast group

and in the restricted yeast and sugar group. "

Of course the yeast contained the diet's protein and fat.

Wow. Message received loud and clear.

Rodney.

> I apologise if this has been posted and I missed it, but it's quite

> interesting:

>

> http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> tool=pubmed & pubmedid=16120010

>

> http://snipurl.com/hzrj

>

> Kat.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

One particularly interesting aspect of Katrina'a posted study is the

following (I find it interesting because I had missed this detail in

the original Mair et al study referred to) - the part capitalized is

capitalized by me:

" In the study by Mair et al .................... the authors

observed that IN THE RESTRICTED SUGAR GROUP, as compared to the

controls, MAXIMAL LIFE SPAN WAS UNCHANGED and median life span was

increased by only 12%. On the other hand, both maximal and median

life spans were increased substantially in the restricted yeast group

and in the restricted yeast and sugar group. "

Of course the yeast contained the diet's protein and fat.

Wow. Message received loud and clear.

Rodney.

> I apologise if this has been posted and I missed it, but it's quite

> interesting:

>

> http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> tool=pubmed & pubmedid=16120010

>

> http://snipurl.com/hzrj

>

> Kat.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

This is doubly interesting, perhaps, if we consider how we might

decide to react to whatever the results turn out to be of the

currently-underway, due around year end, Mair/Partridge study. The

issue is the lifespan effects, in drosophila, of restriction of

protein and fat.

If it turns out that it is restriction of fat that is critical then

it is not too complicated to adapt to that lifestyle since Pritikin

(and later Ornish) have laid out comprehensive guidelines for how to

go about it.

But suppose it turns out that protein restriction is the key issue.

How would we go about restricting protein? And how far would we dare

restrict? And how would we be able to know if we have restricted too

much? (And how will the Atkins enthusiasts react? lol)

There might be an even greater degree of confusion **IF** it turns

out (as I hypothesize - fwiw wmnbm) that marked restriction of fat OR

marked restriction of protein each result in a substantial extension

of maximal lifespan - while moderate restriction of both at the same

time, amounting to the same total number of calories, has only a

minor effect. In this case should we choose to restrict protein, or

fat?

Of course, we have no guarantee that, whatever its findings, the next

Mair/Partridge study will be applicable to humans. But it will be at

least fifty years before we have good data of this kind for humans,

and many of us will be dead before the results are published if we do

not grab the bull (or what we think may be the bull) by the horns now.

Any input on the effects of protein restriction would be interesting

to see, if anyone knows of any references.

Rodney.

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

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> One particularly interesting aspect of Katrina'a posted study is

the

> following (I find it interesting because I had missed this detail

in

> the original Mair et al study referred to) - the part capitalized

is

> capitalized by me:

>

> " In the study by Mair et al .................... the authors

> observed that IN THE RESTRICTED SUGAR GROUP, as compared to the

> controls, MAXIMAL LIFE SPAN WAS UNCHANGED and median life span was

> increased by only 12%. On the other hand, both maximal and median

> life spans were increased substantially in the restricted yeast

group

> and in the restricted yeast and sugar group. "

>

> Of course the yeast contained the diet's protein and fat.

>

> Wow. Message received loud and clear.

>

> Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Katrina " <katnap@f...>

wrote:

> > I apologise if this has been posted and I missed it, but it's

quite

> > interesting:

> >

> > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> > tool=pubmed & pubmedid=16120010

> >

> > http://snipurl.com/hzrj

> >

> > Kat.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

This is doubly interesting, perhaps, if we consider how we might

decide to react to whatever the results turn out to be of the

currently-underway, due around year end, Mair/Partridge study. The

issue is the lifespan effects, in drosophila, of restriction of

protein and fat.

If it turns out that it is restriction of fat that is critical then

it is not too complicated to adapt to that lifestyle since Pritikin

(and later Ornish) have laid out comprehensive guidelines for how to

go about it.

But suppose it turns out that protein restriction is the key issue.

How would we go about restricting protein? And how far would we dare

restrict? And how would we be able to know if we have restricted too

much? (And how will the Atkins enthusiasts react? lol)

There might be an even greater degree of confusion **IF** it turns

out (as I hypothesize - fwiw wmnbm) that marked restriction of fat OR

marked restriction of protein each result in a substantial extension

of maximal lifespan - while moderate restriction of both at the same

time, amounting to the same total number of calories, has only a

minor effect. In this case should we choose to restrict protein, or

fat?

Of course, we have no guarantee that, whatever its findings, the next

Mair/Partridge study will be applicable to humans. But it will be at

least fifty years before we have good data of this kind for humans,

and many of us will be dead before the results are published if we do

not grab the bull (or what we think may be the bull) by the horns now.

Any input on the effects of protein restriction would be interesting

to see, if anyone knows of any references.

Rodney.

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

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> One particularly interesting aspect of Katrina'a posted study is

the

> following (I find it interesting because I had missed this detail

in

> the original Mair et al study referred to) - the part capitalized

is

> capitalized by me:

>

> " In the study by Mair et al .................... the authors

> observed that IN THE RESTRICTED SUGAR GROUP, as compared to the

> controls, MAXIMAL LIFE SPAN WAS UNCHANGED and median life span was

> increased by only 12%. On the other hand, both maximal and median

> life spans were increased substantially in the restricted yeast

group

> and in the restricted yeast and sugar group. "

>

> Of course the yeast contained the diet's protein and fat.

>

> Wow. Message received loud and clear.

>

> Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Katrina " <katnap@f...>

wrote:

> > I apologise if this has been posted and I missed it, but it's

quite

> > interesting:

> >

> > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> > tool=pubmed & pubmedid=16120010

> >

> > http://snipurl.com/hzrj

> >

> > Kat.

[Guest guest]

Wow.  Message received loud and clear.However, it then said:"It is of concern that the authors did not directly measure the flies' total food intake but only estimated intake by examining their feeding behavior. This method may not take into account possible differences in the rate of food uptake of restricted flies, which could affect the results."Consequently, I think the resulting conclusions have a fairly large associated uncertainty.Tom

[Guest guest]

Wow.  Message received loud and clear.However, it then said:"It is of concern that the authors did not directly measure the flies' total food intake but only estimated intake by examining their feeding behavior. This method may not take into account possible differences in the rate of food uptake of restricted flies, which could affect the results."Consequently, I think the resulting conclusions have a fairly large associated uncertainty.Tom

[Guest guest]

Early studies showing lifespan increase with protein restriction

created controversy concerning whether these benefits were simply

another example of CRAN. This issue was apparently resolved by a paper

that appeared in the JOURNAL OF NUTRITION Vol.116, p.641-654 (1986),

authored by Weindruch, Roy Walford, Suzzane Fligiel and

Guthrie. Since Weindruch (who got his Ph.D. under Walford) is listed

first, he may deserve the most responsibility for this study. These

data illustrate a study of the effect of combining protein restriction

with CRAN.

Mean and maximum lifespan for 6 cohorts of mice under 6 dietary

protocols can be summarized by the following table (RES = Restriction):

MEAN MAXIMUM

(months) (months)

(1) ad lib diet 27 35

(2) 25% RES after weaning (day 21) 33 40

(3) 55% RES after weaning (day 21) 42-43 51

(4) 55% RES before weaning (day 7) 42-43 51

(5) 55% RES after weaning (day 21) 40 48-49

with gradual protein RES

(6) 65% RES after weaning (day 21) 45 53

Maximum lifespan was taken as the mean life span of the longest-lived

10% in each group.

Mice in cohorts (3), (4), (5) and (6) all had 35% casein (milk

protein) in their diets. But the mice on gradual protein restriction

received 35% casein from weaning until 4 months, 25% casein at 4-12

months, 20% casein at 12-24 months and 15% casein from 24 months until

death. Calories lost from protein restriction were compensated for by

carbohydrate in an equal mixture of sucrose and corn starch. The

authors make the statement that " Mice restricted in both calorie and

protein intake exhibited shorter mean and maximum lifespans (~5%) than

did mice fed the same number of calories of a high protein diet. "

http://www.benbest.com/calories/cran95.html

Thanks,

Kat.

> There might be an even greater degree of confusion **IF** it turns

> out (as I hypothesize - fwiw wmnbm) that marked restriction of fat OR

> marked restriction of protein each result in a substantial extension

> of maximal lifespan - while moderate restriction of both at the same

> time, amounting to the same total number of calories, has only a

> minor effect. In this case should we choose to restrict protein, or

> fat?

[Guest guest]

Early studies showing lifespan increase with protein restriction

created controversy concerning whether these benefits were simply

another example of CRAN. This issue was apparently resolved by a paper

that appeared in the JOURNAL OF NUTRITION Vol.116, p.641-654 (1986),

authored by Weindruch, Roy Walford, Suzzane Fligiel and

Guthrie. Since Weindruch (who got his Ph.D. under Walford) is listed

first, he may deserve the most responsibility for this study. These

data illustrate a study of the effect of combining protein restriction

with CRAN.

Mean and maximum lifespan for 6 cohorts of mice under 6 dietary

protocols can be summarized by the following table (RES = Restriction):

MEAN MAXIMUM

(months) (months)

(1) ad lib diet 27 35

(2) 25% RES after weaning (day 21) 33 40

(3) 55% RES after weaning (day 21) 42-43 51

(4) 55% RES before weaning (day 7) 42-43 51

(5) 55% RES after weaning (day 21) 40 48-49

with gradual protein RES

(6) 65% RES after weaning (day 21) 45 53

Maximum lifespan was taken as the mean life span of the longest-lived

10% in each group.

Mice in cohorts (3), (4), (5) and (6) all had 35% casein (milk

protein) in their diets. But the mice on gradual protein restriction

received 35% casein from weaning until 4 months, 25% casein at 4-12

months, 20% casein at 12-24 months and 15% casein from 24 months until

death. Calories lost from protein restriction were compensated for by

carbohydrate in an equal mixture of sucrose and corn starch. The

authors make the statement that " Mice restricted in both calorie and

protein intake exhibited shorter mean and maximum lifespans (~5%) than

did mice fed the same number of calories of a high protein diet. "

http://www.benbest.com/calories/cran95.html

Thanks,

Kat.

> There might be an even greater degree of confusion **IF** it turns

> out (as I hypothesize - fwiw wmnbm) that marked restriction of fat OR

> marked restriction of protein each result in a substantial extension

> of maximal lifespan - while moderate restriction of both at the same

> time, amounting to the same total number of calories, has only a

> minor effect. In this case should we choose to restrict protein, or

> fat?

[Guest guest]

Protein restriction in early monkey life can have an effect on behaviour:

Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth and

behavioral development during deprivation and rehabilitation

MF Elias and KW Samonds

The growth and development of 32 cebus monkeys were studied during a

period of insult in nutritional or rearing conditions and after

rehabilitation. Eight experimental groups of four animals each were

subjected to one of four diets--control, protein restricted, calorie

restricted, and protein-calorie restricted, and one of two rearing

conditions-partial isolation or a comparatively enriched condition-in

a 4 x 2 factorial design. The period of insult from 2 to 6 months of

age was followed by 6 months of rehabilitation in both diet and

rearing conditions. It was found that only diet affected physical

growth, but both diet and rearing affected behavioral development and

exploratory behavior. Whereas calorie deficiency produced a direct

effect on behavior independent of rearing conditions, protein

deficiency produced an effect only in combination with rearing

restriction. The effect of protein-calorie deficiency had some

characteristics in common with each of the other deficiencies.

Retardation in rate of behavioral development was less severe than

retardation in growth, most notably in the protein-restricted,

enriched-rearing group, producing animals who were behaviorally mature

for their size. All groups caught up in physical growth during

rehabilitation but the protein-calorie restricted groups failed to

recuperate completely in exploratory behavior.

> However, the study showing that for fruit flies, omnivores,

> restricting carbohydrates didn't make much difference, while

> restricting both fat and protein simultaneously had a considerable

> impact, raises the question about fat and protein restriction in

> humans. As far as I know, we do not have any good answers yet. As

> time goes by the evidence will trickle in.

[Guest guest]

Protein restriction in early monkey life can have an effect on behaviour:

Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth and

behavioral development during deprivation and rehabilitation

MF Elias and KW Samonds

The growth and development of 32 cebus monkeys were studied during a

period of insult in nutritional or rearing conditions and after

rehabilitation. Eight experimental groups of four animals each were

subjected to one of four diets--control, protein restricted, calorie

restricted, and protein-calorie restricted, and one of two rearing

conditions-partial isolation or a comparatively enriched condition-in

a 4 x 2 factorial design. The period of insult from 2 to 6 months of

age was followed by 6 months of rehabilitation in both diet and

rearing conditions. It was found that only diet affected physical

growth, but both diet and rearing affected behavioral development and

exploratory behavior. Whereas calorie deficiency produced a direct

effect on behavior independent of rearing conditions, protein

deficiency produced an effect only in combination with rearing

restriction. The effect of protein-calorie deficiency had some

characteristics in common with each of the other deficiencies.

Retardation in rate of behavioral development was less severe than

retardation in growth, most notably in the protein-restricted,

enriched-rearing group, producing animals who were behaviorally mature

for their size. All groups caught up in physical growth during

rehabilitation but the protein-calorie restricted groups failed to

recuperate completely in exploratory behavior.

> However, the study showing that for fruit flies, omnivores,

> restricting carbohydrates didn't make much difference, while

> restricting both fat and protein simultaneously had a considerable

> impact, raises the question about fat and protein restriction in

> humans. As far as I know, we do not have any good answers yet. As

> time goes by the evidence will trickle in.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Maybe more relavent than:

Elias MF, Samonds KW.

Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth and behavioral

development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

PMID: 402808

is:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.

Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

Infant cebus monkeys (Cebus albifrons) were fed liquid formulas that were

limited in

protein, energy, or a combination of the two restrictions. Weight gain, food

intake,

hematological development, and plasma protein and cholesterol levels were

monitored

over a 20-week period. The animals restricted in protein developed the classical

signs of protein deficiency--reductions in plasma albumin, a mild anemia,

accumulation of fat in the liver, and, in a few cases, facial edema. These

animals

maintained a relatively high energy intake, and apparently wasted energy when

compared to similarly non-growing energy-restricted animals. Energy-restricted

animals did not exhibit these symptoms, even when their daily protein intake was

reduced to match that of protein-restricted monkeys. It is concluded that an

energy

restriction superimposed upon a limited protein intake did not increase protein

requirements or precipitate protein deficiency. PMID: 418417

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Maybe more relavent than:

Elias MF, Samonds KW.

Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth and behavioral

development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

PMID: 402808

is:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.

Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

Infant cebus monkeys (Cebus albifrons) were fed liquid formulas that were

limited in

protein, energy, or a combination of the two restrictions. Weight gain, food

intake,

hematological development, and plasma protein and cholesterol levels were

monitored

over a 20-week period. The animals restricted in protein developed the classical

signs of protein deficiency--reductions in plasma albumin, a mild anemia,

accumulation of fat in the liver, and, in a few cases, facial edema. These

animals

maintained a relatively high energy intake, and apparently wasted energy when

compared to similarly non-growing energy-restricted animals. Energy-restricted

animals did not exhibit these symptoms, even when their daily protein intake was

reduced to match that of protein-restricted monkeys. It is concluded that an

energy

restriction superimposed upon a limited protein intake did not increase protein

requirements or precipitate protein deficiency. PMID: 418417

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Do I understand this correctly? That monkeys that are calorically

restricted have an appreciably diminished requirement for protein?

If so then are the protein requirements we might calculate for

ourselves, based on conventional criteria, higher than we really need?

Also, it is useful for restrictors to know that mild anemia and

reduced plasma albumin are typical symptoms of protein deficiency.

But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR too?

(So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal ranges)

Rodney.

--- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...>

wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> Maybe more relavent than:

>

> Elias MF, Samonds KW.

> Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth

and behavioral

> development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

> Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

> PMID: 402808

>

> is:

>

> Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

> Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.

> Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

>

> Infant cebus monkeys (Cebus albifrons) were fed liquid formulas

that were limited in

> protein, energy, or a combination of the two restrictions. Weight

gain, food intake,

> hematological development, and plasma protein and cholesterol

levels were monitored

> over a 20-week period. The animals restricted in protein developed

the classical

> signs of protein deficiency--reductions in plasma albumin, a mild

anemia,

> accumulation of fat in the liver, and, in a few cases, facial

edema. These animals

> maintained a relatively high energy intake, and apparently wasted

energy when

> compared to similarly non-growing energy-restricted animals. Energy-

restricted

> animals did not exhibit these symptoms, even when their daily

protein intake was

> reduced to match that of protein-restricted monkeys. It is

concluded that an energy

> restriction superimposed upon a limited protein intake did not

increase protein

> requirements or precipitate protein deficiency. PMID: 418417

>

> http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

>

> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

> http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Do I understand this correctly? That monkeys that are calorically

restricted have an appreciably diminished requirement for protein?

If so then are the protein requirements we might calculate for

ourselves, based on conventional criteria, higher than we really need?

Also, it is useful for restrictors to know that mild anemia and

reduced plasma albumin are typical symptoms of protein deficiency.

But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR too?

(So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal ranges)

Rodney.

--- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...>

wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> Maybe more relavent than:

>

> Elias MF, Samonds KW.

> Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth

and behavioral

> development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

> Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

> PMID: 402808

>

> is:

>

> Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

> Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.

> Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

>

> Infant cebus monkeys (Cebus albifrons) were fed liquid formulas

that were limited in

> protein, energy, or a combination of the two restrictions. Weight

gain, food intake,

> hematological development, and plasma protein and cholesterol

levels were monitored

> over a 20-week period. The animals restricted in protein developed

the classical

> signs of protein deficiency--reductions in plasma albumin, a mild

anemia,

> accumulation of fat in the liver, and, in a few cases, facial

edema. These animals

> maintained a relatively high energy intake, and apparently wasted

energy when

> compared to similarly non-growing energy-restricted animals. Energy-

restricted

> animals did not exhibit these symptoms, even when their daily

protein intake was

> reduced to match that of protein-restricted monkeys. It is

concluded that an energy

> restriction superimposed upon a limited protein intake did not

increase protein

> requirements or precipitate protein deficiency. PMID: 418417

>

> http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

>

> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

> http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Albumin levels in CRer blood samples are usually not below the normal range.

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR too?

> (So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal ranges)

>

> > Elias MF, Samonds KW.

> > Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth

> and behavioral

> > development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

> > Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

> > PMID: 402808

> >

> > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

> > Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.

> > Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

> > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Albumin levels in CRer blood samples are usually not below the normal range.

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR too?

> (So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal ranges)

>

> > Elias MF, Samonds KW.

> > Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth

> and behavioral

> > development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

> > Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

> > PMID: 402808

> >

> > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

> > Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.

> > Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

> > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Excellent. Thank you.

So now we know that, **IF** it turns out to be that protein

restriction is desirable to obtain the greatest CR benefits, we have

two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia

and low plasma albumin.

Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their

most recent results?

Rodney.

>

>

> > But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR

too?

> > (So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal

ranges)

> >

>

> > > Elias MF, Samonds KW.

> > > Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys:

growth

> > and behavioral

> > > development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

> > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

> > > PMID: 402808

> > >

> > > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

> > > Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus

monkeys.

> > > Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

> > > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> > tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

>

> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

> http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Excellent. Thank you.

So now we know that, **IF** it turns out to be that protein

restriction is desirable to obtain the greatest CR benefits, we have

two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia

and low plasma albumin.

Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their

most recent results?

Rodney.

>

>

> > But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR

too?

> > (So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal

ranges)

> >

>

> > > Elias MF, Samonds KW.

> > > Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys:

growth

> > and behavioral

> > > development during deprivation and rehabilitation.

> > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66.

> > > PMID: 402808

> > >

> > > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4.

> > > Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus

monkeys.

> > > Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.

> > > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> > tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417

>

> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

> http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I used 56 gms Protein, as my guide for 5+ yrs and have never seen ANY blood test measurement out, except PSA. I exist at higher end of Ca+ due to low sodium intake and I think the blood test people might investigate the deltas due to a low sodium diet, ie, low blood volume. It does effect my PSA values slightly. One time I had a high creatinine and repeat was normal, so allow some for errors.

When I want to lose weight, I use 44 grams Protein as a guide. That is total protein calculated from everything I eat - veggies and all.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Which calories?

Hi Al:Excellent. Thank you.So now we know that, **IF** it turns out to be that protein restriction is desirable to obtain the greatest CR benefits, we have two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia and low plasma albumin.Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their most recent results?Rodney.> > > > But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR too? > > (So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal ranges)> > > > > > Elias MF, Samonds KW.> > > Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth > > and behavioral> > > development during deprivation and rehabilitation.> > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66. > > > PMID: 402808 > > > > > > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4. > > > Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.> > > Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.> > > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?> > tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I used 56 gms Protein, as my guide for 5+ yrs and have never seen ANY blood test measurement out, except PSA. I exist at higher end of Ca+ due to low sodium intake and I think the blood test people might investigate the deltas due to a low sodium diet, ie, low blood volume. It does effect my PSA values slightly. One time I had a high creatinine and repeat was normal, so allow some for errors.

When I want to lose weight, I use 44 grams Protein as a guide. That is total protein calculated from everything I eat - veggies and all.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Which calories?

Hi Al:Excellent. Thank you.So now we know that, **IF** it turns out to be that protein restriction is desirable to obtain the greatest CR benefits, we have two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia and low plasma albumin.Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their most recent results?Rodney.> > > > But is reduced plasma albumin a typical sign of people on CR too? > > (So many CR numbers are on the low side of the supposed-normal ranges)> > > > > > Elias MF, Samonds KW.> > > Protein and calorie malnutrition in infant cebus monkeys: growth > > and behavioral> > > development during deprivation and rehabilitation.> > > Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Mar;30(3):355-66. > > > PMID: 402808 > > > > > > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1600-4. > > > Protein deficiency and energy restriction in young cebus monkeys.> > > Samonds KW, Hegsted DM.> > > http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?> > tool=pubmed & pubmedid=418417> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...

[Guest guest]

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> we have

> two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia

> and low plasma albumin.

>

> Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their

> most recent results?

Hi All,

Yes.

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

Date 2005 Aug 24 May2(10) Mar2/05 Ref. Units

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

Hemoglobin 103 111 111 140-180 g/l

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

Date May2/05 Mar2/05 Ref. range Units

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

Albumin 31 32(Jan/05) 35-50 g/l

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> we have

> two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia

> and low plasma albumin.

>

> Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their

> most recent results?

Hi All,

Yes.

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

Date 2005 Aug 24 May2(10) Mar2/05 Ref. Units

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

Hemoglobin 103 111 111 140-180 g/l

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

Date May2/05 Mar2/05 Ref. range Units

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

Albumin 31 32(Jan/05) 35-50 g/l

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Kindly, Alan,

you do have a medical problem, right?

We can't say for sure if CR should produce a different scale, indeed it has been my assumption we would be like the healthy old CRed rats, not the aged ad libitum rats.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Which calories?

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:> we have > two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia > and low plasma albumin.> > Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their > most recent results?Hi All,Yes.----------------------------------Date 2005 Aug 24 May2(10) Mar2/05 Ref. Units-------------------------------------------------Hemoglobin 103 111 111 140-180 g/l----------------------------------Date May2/05 Mar2/05 Ref. range Units-------------------------------------------------Albumin 31 32(Jan/05) 35-50 g/lAl Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

[Guest guest]

Kindly, Alan,

you do have a medical problem, right?

We can't say for sure if CR should produce a different scale, indeed it has been my assumption we would be like the healthy old CRed rats, not the aged ad libitum rats.

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Which calories?

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:> we have > two good measures that would warn us of protein deficiency - anemia > and low plasma albumin.> > Check yer latest tests, folks! Anyone see both of those on their > most recent results?Hi All,Yes.----------------------------------Date 2005 Aug 24 May2(10) Mar2/05 Ref. Units-------------------------------------------------Hemoglobin 103 111 111 140-180 g/l----------------------------------Date May2/05 Mar2/05 Ref. range Units-------------------------------------------------Albumin 31 32(Jan/05) 35-50 g/lAl Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I have osteoporosis and a current lung infection from which I hopefully am

recovering.

--- jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

> Kindly, Alan,

> you do have a medical problem, right?

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.