Re: Re: Benefits of 40% CR with 1% restriction

[Guest guest]

Ok. I'll play devil's advocate. You yourself have been mystified that the one human " experiment " that we know of - the Okinawans - only live a few years longer (on average) than us in the western world.

(OTOH as I mentioned recently, those are healthy productive years and not to be sneezed at. That's good enough for me.)

on 1/29/2007 6:46 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

IMO, skeptics are gonna have to do handstands and cartwheels to come

up with plausible arguments as to why it is we should consider

monkeys so different from humans that the monkey results will not be

translatable to us.

I am all ears, waiting to hear what they have to say.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rod: I am quite surprised at your response. To say that these " Okinawa advocates " are on a marketing bandwagon (Walford being among them) without any explanation is not usually your style, and a bit flippant.

From what I have read, the Okinawans, (younger generation) becoming more westernized has shortened their lifespan. The older more traditional Okinawans are the longer lived ones who remain healthy all their lives and do not develop the chronic diseases that we do here in the west.

The methione theory is just a THEORY. And I hope everyone here understands that. A theory that does not even make complete sense.

In the meantime the Okinawans, as pointed to by so MANY researchers are the only peoples we have on earth who have been CR'd their entire life.

on 1/30/2007 7:15 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

Hi Francesca:

I wouldn't characterize myself as being " mystified " by it. Rather I

have just pointed out that the extravagant claims many people have

been making about the okinawans simply are not supported by the

facts. In most cases it seems to me that these Okinawa advocates are

on a marketing band wagon of one kind or another, with their own

special agenda.

In particular I have found it of interest that according to a chart

that can be accessed in the files here, it is only in the past ten to

twenty years that okinawan lifespans have become remarkable. So the

claim that it is the supposedly wonderful " traditional way of life "

in Okinawa that explains whatever is going on there in reality has

nothing to do with it. It is only since Okinawa has gradually been

becoming more westernized that there has been a large increase in

longevity.

As previously noted fish consumption almost certainly helps reduce

the incidence of CVD in Japan. But it may well be that it is the

methionine in the very same fish that accelerates their aging rate.

So their lifespan is extended only to the tune of the CVD benefit.

The monkeys are not fed fish, nor egg white omelettes as far as I

know. But of course the full story is still far from being

understood.

Rodney.

>

> IMO, skeptics are gonna have to do handstands and cartwheels to come

> up with plausible arguments as to why it is we should consider

> monkeys so different from humans that the monkey results will not be

> translatable to us.

>

> I am all ears, waiting to hear what they have to say.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

The Okinawa population is of interest because their longevity is better than ours which seems to correlate with a lower energy balance than ours.  Perhaps more of a data point than a model to emulate. Short term changes in life span may be difficult to make assumptions about. I too am suspicious of the potential for CR to deliver an incredible amount of life extension. It seems we would have stubled upon more than few 150 year olds in the many generations we've been walking upright who followed CR due to chance. There is much good science being applied to this field because it does show promise. CR for life extension based on our current understanding is still a gamble. Moderate CR for improved health here and now is pretty much a sure thing.  JR On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Rodney wrote:Hi Francesca:You will have noted that I said: "In most cases it seems to me that these Okinawa advocates are on a marketing band wagon". Note that I said "IN MOST CASES". Dr. Walford was simply repeating what he had seen reported. It would have been helpful, though, if he had noticed that the average okinawan male lives only a few years longer than the average american male, even while most of the latter are eating the SAD diet. Which should have raised questions, given that his restricted mice were living 40% longer.In addition you might like to check one of the links in the 'Links' file. This one:http://okinawaprogram.com/A chart there shows that since 1960 okinawan lifespans have increased a substantial ten years. That is a period during which, according to just about everyone, the okinawans have been becoming increasingly westernized.So it seems to me difficult to blame a westernization trend for a supposed deterioration in okinawan lifespan. Not only has the deterioration not happened, the opposite has happened during the period of westernization, at least according to that link you kindly provided for us. Similarly it seems implausible to me to credit the traditional way of life in okinawa for their longevity. If that were the case then why are they living a lot longer now than they were when they were following a more traditional way of life forty years ago?Clearly their traditional way of life does not seem to help explain much about the recent lifespan data in Okinawa. If that information in the okinawaprogram link is false then the accurate information needs to be supplied, but I assume it is correct. But any way you slice it the experience in Okinawa is far from providing clear support for the benefits of CR, as I have pointed out here a number of times in the past. But you would think the evidence was rock solid if you believed the books, websites etc. which I perceive to be an energetic effort to 'market' okinawa health issues. Even if the purpose of the 'marketing' is the raising of funds to enable further research into something that seems to me to be on shaky foundations. But your perception evidently is different.As for the methionine issue I welcome hearing alternative explanations that provide a better 'fit' for all the information related to CR that has come to light in recent years. Methionine may, or may not, turn out to be a key issue. I raised the subject because there is now one study claiming to show what looks like a sizeable lifespan extension with substantial methionine restriction. Of course, as usual, future studies may or may not confirm earlier ones. But the fish oil/methionine relationship is internally consistent with very low heart disease but not-much-extended lifespan in Japan. Internal consistency does not prove cause and effect of course.Rodney.> > > > IMO, skeptics are gonna have to do handstands and cartwheels to come> > up with plausible arguments as to why it is we should consider> > monkeys so different from humans that the monkey results will not be> > translatable to us.> > > > I am all ears, waiting to hear what they have to say.> > > > Rodney.> >> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

I recall a few posts here about researchers in the field doubting that humans can live far beyond the current 100-115 or so. I would have searched our archives for these posts, but am not sure exactly how to weed them out. If anyone has a way to do this, please do.

I would be interested in understanding the rationale of why these researchers don't believe we will follow the CR models of mice and other animals.

Of course, we're not in a lab or in cages with controlled food. And confounding the lives of humans are social factors, mental outlook, and of course all kinds of accidents both avoidable and unavoidable.

on 1/30/2007 10:11 AM, at crjohnr@... wrote:

The Okinawa population is of interest because their longevity is better than ours which seems to correlate with a lower energy balance than ours.  Perhaps more of a data point than a model to emulate. Short term changes in life span may be difficult to make assumptions about. 

I too am suspicious of the potential for CR to deliver an incredible amount of life extension. (snipped)

[Guest guest]

I can't speak for them but one theory is that we have already evolved to a more optimized system to live as long as we do. While I agree the dog and monkey show is compelling that there is energy balance modulation of health..If I were going to study other life forms I'd be tempted to look at longer lived examples too, like turtles and whales to find what they are doing differently from us. Although swimming around 24x7 in cold water may be an even more difficult way to buy some extra years than CR. :-)The turtles being cold blooded may not be very good models for us but whales are warm blooded(?), air breathing, mammals and may also test the calories, calorie,calories mantra as presumably they consume a lot to be that massive.Again, more questions than answers.JROn Jan 30, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:I recall a few posts here about researchers in the field doubting that humans can live far beyond the current 100-115 or so.  I would have searched our archives for these posts, but am not sure exactly how to weed them out.  If anyone has a way to do this, please do.I would be interested in understanding the rationale of why these researchers don't believe we will follow the CR models of mice and other animals. Of course, we're not in a lab or in cages with controlled food.  And confounding the lives of humans  are social factors, mental outlook, and of course all kinds of accidents both avoidable and unavoidable.  on 1/30/2007 10:11 AM, at crjohnrbellsouth (DOT) net wrote:The Okinawa population is of interest because their longevity is better than ours which seems to correlate with a lower energy balance than ours.  Perhaps more of a data point than a model to emulate. Short term changes in life span may be difficult to make assumptions about. I too am suspicious of the potential for CR to deliver an incredible amount of life extension.  (snipped)

[Guest guest]

I found only one (although i think there have been other posts quoting other scientists):

/message/24358

in which he says this:

Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates, some

scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively in

humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at

University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,

Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie

restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,

the authors said, was 2 percent.

" Calorie restriction is doomed to fail, and will make people miserable

in the process of attempting it, " said Dr. Jay Phelan, an evolutionary

biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a

co-author of the paper. " We do see benefits, but not an increase in

life span.

on 1/30/2007 7:29 PM, j_millsingh at j_millsingh@... wrote:

I recall a few posts here about researchers in the field doubting

that

> humans can live far beyond the current 100-115 or so. I would

have searched

> our archives for these posts, but am not sure exactly how to weed

them out.

> If anyone has a way to do this, please do.

>

> I would be interested in understanding the rationale of why these

> researchers don't believe we will follow the CR models of mice in

> life span may be difficult to make assumptions about. 

Francesca:

This quote seems to more accurately represent the concerns

of Jay Phelan. He doubts that CR has any life extension

value at all....maybe 2 or 7 %. If you do a search on his

last name, you will get a number of posts. He does not sound

too hopeful....a lot of suffering for little reward seems

to be his perspective:

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

Despite the initially promising results from studies of primates,

some

scientists doubt that calorie restriction can ever work effectively

in

humans. A mathematical model published last year by researchers at

University of California, Los Angeles, and University of California,

Irvine, predicted that the maximum life span gain from calorie

restriction for humans would be just 7 percent. A more likely figure,

the authors said, was 2 percent.

" Calorie restriction is doomed to fail, and will make people

miserable

in the process of attempting it, " said Dr. Jay Phelan, an

evolutionary

biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a

co-author of the paper. " We do see benefits, but not an increase in

life span. "

Mice who must scratch for food for a couple of years would be

analogous, in terms of natural selection, to humans who must survive

20-year famines, Dr. Phelan said. But nature seldom demands that

humans endure such conditions.

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

If I understand him correctly ---and please correct me!!!-----,

he believes that we have not been evolutionarily selected

to benefit from CR, while mice, for example, have been. Our

distant ancestors did not suffer sufficiently selective

pressures to require us to survive for long periods of time

without food or diminished supplies of food. That is the

best I can do at this time. I would like to hear his full

reasoning from anybody in the know!

Josh

[Guest guest]

Josh: can you summarize some of the more important points?

on 1/31/2007 10:51 PM, j_millsingh at j_millsingh@... wrote:

Rodney:

That is unfortunate. So many points are made by

Spindler and I would have welcomed your

responses.

Of the many points he makes, one does stand out.

In the NIA rhesus lifespan study group, the CR

group had higher mortality than the controls.

The charts are pretty detailed, so even if the

sound is not working you can probably read the

details if you so desire. It starts at about

6 minutes, 30 seconds. Other related material

comes on at about 8 minutes into the video.

Josh

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure that by living to 115 we aren't already following the CR model of the mice. I mean, if we call 80 years old an average ad lib baseline, 30% more is only 104.

Also, while we're not in cages with controlled food, mice don't get stents or bypass surgery or use tiny defibrillator paddles. It might just balance out. Both my grandparents (if they were mice) would have been dead in their late sixties from heart attack. They got bypasses and lived another 20 years. Of course, someone on CR probably wouldn't ever need this type of procedure, and therefore wouldn't benefit.

chris

Francesca wrote:

I recall a few posts here about researchers in the field doubting that humans can live far beyond the current 100-115 or so. I would have searched our archives for these posts, but am not sure exactly how to weed them out. If anyone has a way to do this, please do.I would be interested in understanding the rationale of why these researchers don't believe we will follow the CR models of mice and other animals. Of course, we're not in a lab or in cages with controlled food. And confounding the lives of humans are social factors, mental outlook, and of course all kinds of accidents both avoidable and unavoidable. on 1/30/2007 10:11 AM, at crjohnrbellsouth (DOT) net wrote:

The Okinawa population is of interest because their longevity is better than ours which seems to correlate with a lower energy balance than ours. Perhaps more of a data point than a model to emulate. Short term changes in life span may be difficult to make assumptions about. I too am suspicious of the potential for CR to deliver an incredible amount of life extension. (snipped)