Re: Benefits of 40% CR with 1% restriction

[Guest guest]

I've seen bits and pieces about the the methionin issue, but never in the analytical, well laid out way that Rodney presented his posting on the issue. Although he is careful to point out that the study he refers to is only on longevity biomarkers and not actual lifespan studies, it's hard not to ponder the merits of making a radical restructuring of protein sourcing and quantity. Looking thru my usual protein sources for methionin content for the first time, my tentative conclusion is that ALL meat and fish foods would have to be eliminated from a daily diet to even get close to the one gram of met daily that Rodney suggests. (If anyone knows of any animal protein that miraculously is dramatically lower in met, please let this be known. I realize the chance of this is small).

One piece of what Rodney wrote was:

"Also, since most of the Met we consume comes from animal products, if the primary route by which CR extends lifespan is Met restriction then why do we not see vegans living 30% longer than the rest of us? Some Seventh Day Adventist data does suggest longer lives for vegetarians. The number I have seen is a sizeable seven years. But not the 30% to 40 % seen in animal CR experiments. This is a piece of the puzzle that doesn´t seem quite to fit".

I wonder if this could tie in with the reasoning that the CR animal studies should not be extrapolated to humans (Aubrey de Gray). Being on CR will improve average life span significantly so it's still something very beneficial (and enough to on its own motivate me to continue CR) but not extend maximum life span by more than a few years, according to that reasoning. // Ulf

[Guest guest]

Is it clear whether 7th-Day Adventist vegetarians

are on very low methionine diets? --- And they're certainly

not practicing CRON, so I would be wary of

coming to any conclusions that CR may not work

very well in humans.

-Dave

>

> Calorie Restriction/Optimum NutritionI've seen bits and pieces

about the the methionin issue, but never in the analytical, well laid

out way that Rodney presented his posting on the issue. Although he

is careful to point out that the study he refers to is only on

longevity biomarkers and not actual lifespan studies, it's hard not

to ponder the merits of making a radical restructuring of protein

sourcing and quantity. Looking thru my usual protein sources for

methionin content for the first time, my tentative conclusion is that

ALL meat and fish foods would have to be eliminated from a daily diet

to even get close to the one gram of met daily that Rodney suggests.

(If anyone knows of any animal protein that miraculously is

dramatically lower in met, please let this be known. I realize the

chance of this is small).

>

> One piece of what Rodney wrote was:

> " Also, since most of the Met we consume comes from animal products,

if the primary route by which CR extends lifespan is Met restriction

then why do we not see vegans living 30% longer than the rest of us?

Some Seventh Day Adventist data does suggest longer lives for

vegetarians. The number I have seen is a sizeable seven years. But

not the 30% to 40 % seen in animal CR experiments. This is a piece of

the puzzle that doesn´t seem quite to fit " .

>

> I wonder if this could tie in with the reasoning that the CR animal

studies should not be extrapolated to humans (Aubrey de Gray). Being

on CR will improve average life span significantly so it's still

something very beneficial (and enough to on its own motivate me to

continue CR) but not extend maximum life span by more than a few

years, according to that reasoning. // Ulf

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

For me, the results from the rhesus monkey CR experiments represent

the trump card in this game.

One study has been going for nineteen years, and very preliminary

results are only now beginning to emerge. The data available so far

suggest that the monkeys on 30% CR are living 30% longer than the ad

lib controls.

These reports were posted here at the time - for a guess around the

middle of 2006.

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.

PS: However, as I have previously noted, that does not mean we can

take Jeanne Calment's age and multiply it by 1.4. [For a guess

Jeanne Calment probably didn't consume much methionine for example.

And did a lot of other things right too, purely by accident.] But I

do think it means that some of the people currently on a rational CR

diet may live to, or perhaps even exceed, Jeanne Calment's age in

good health.

> >

> > Calorie Restriction/Optimum NutritionI've seen bits and pieces

> about the the methionin issue, but never in the analytical, well

laid

> out way that Rodney presented his posting on the issue. Although he

> is careful to point out that the study he refers to is only on

> longevity biomarkers and not actual lifespan studies, it's hard not

> to ponder the merits of making a radical restructuring of protein

> sourcing and quantity. Looking thru my usual protein sources for

> methionin content for the first time, my tentative conclusion is

that

> ALL meat and fish foods would have to be eliminated from a daily

diet

> to even get close to the one gram of met daily that Rodney

suggests.

> (If anyone knows of any animal protein that miraculously is

> dramatically lower in met, please let this be known. I realize the

> chance of this is small).

> >

> > One piece of what Rodney wrote was:

> > " Also, since most of the Met we consume comes from animal

products,

> if the primary route by which CR extends lifespan is Met

restriction

> then why do we not see vegans living 30% longer than the rest of

us?

> Some Seventh Day Adventist data does suggest longer lives for

> vegetarians. The number I have seen is a sizeable seven years. But

> not the 30% to 40 % seen in animal CR experiments. This is a piece

of

> the puzzle that doesn´t seem quite to fit " .

> >

> > I wonder if this could tie in with the reasoning that the CR

animal

> studies should not be extrapolated to humans (Aubrey de Gray).

Being

> on CR will improve average life span significantly so it's still

> something very beneficial (and enough to on its own motivate me to

> continue CR) but not extend maximum life span by more than a few

> years, according to that reasoning. // Ulf

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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]

Here is what the more RECENT published paper says

" Okinawan septuagenarian population appeared to be in a relative " energy

deficit " consistent with CR until the late 1960s " " but only for half

their adult lives. " - Refering to their CR (they werent CR'd in their

entire life)

Americans were eating 2100k/cal in the 1960's, compared with okinawans

eating 1600k/cal. Thats 23% less than americans at that time period.

Okinawans then in 1993 had a calorie consumption that was 1927k/cal

per day, (probably too much for their stunted small frames) compared

to 2176 for americans! (They were eating ONLY ABOUT 10% FEWER

CALORIES). But also take into account the significant height

differences too. The average male american would require far more

calories than a tiny okinawan male, not just 10% more.

But still Okinawans only contribute a small 0.0002% to the worlds

population, yet they can boast 15% of the worlds documented

SUPER-CENTENARIANS. So still quite impressive.

The Okinawans are only a mild example of what CR can do, and the CR

effect is underestimated because they HAVE been De-CRing since the

1950's actually. When calorie intake was only 1539k/cal per day!

(1) Okinawa diet plan & Okinawa program

(2) Willcox DC, Willcox BJ, Todoriki H, Curb JD, Suzuki M.

Caloric restriction and human longevity: what can we learn from the

Okinawans?

Biogerontology. 2006 Jun 30; [Epub ahead of print]

PMID: 16810568

Matt

> >

> > 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]

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.

>

Francesca:

I believe this is one of the old posts which

presents one of the doubting researchers.

This old post included a video

of the scientist:

This http://tinyurl.com/ydhso5 video describing a

CRONiew named ph and the work being done in St.

Louis by Luigi Fontana and Weindruch in

Wisconsin appears to be worth the 9 minutes of our

time to watch. ph takes CR to fairly extreme

degrees, as does his wife. Dr. Phelan adds his less

optimistic examination of the prospects for human

aging extension, via CR.

-Josh

[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 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]

Hi Ulf:

You may find post #22545 of interest. And the post that prompted it

also. According to Dr. Hansen the monkeys, which were started on 30%

CR at human-equivalent age 50 appear, so far, based on very

preliminary data, to be living 30% longer than those eating ad lib.

I personally find this persuasive information. Everything from

yeasts at the bottom, all the way up to monkeys at the top see

dramatic improvements in lifespan in response to CR. It seems that

it would be very extraordinary, for me barely credible, that humans

would be the only species on the planet found not to benefit. But of

course, as with everything else in this field, we are nowhere close

to arriving at a definitive conclusion. Indeed, not all the

restricted monkeys live to be '100' either.

So, we each place our bets where we hope they will return the

greatest reward. But I wonder if some of the detractors may be

trying to defend their own unwillingness to make the necessary

sacrifices. Of course by the time it is known for sure both them and

us will all be dead.

Rodney.

> " The data available so far suggest that the monkeys on 30% CR are

living 30% longer than the ad

> lib controls " " 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 " .

>

> Francesca sent a link (Support Group message 24358) which included

the following: " For years, scientists financed by the National

Institute on Aging have closely monitored rhesus monkeys on

restricted and normal-calorie diets. At the University of Wisconsin,

where 50 animals survive from

> the original group of 76, the differences are just now becoming

> apparent in the older animals.

>

> Those on normal diets, like Matthias, are beginning to show signs of

> advancing age similar to those seen in humans. Three of them, for

> instance, have developed diabetes, and a fourth has died of the

> disease. Five have died of cancer.

>

> But Rudy and his colleagues on low-calorie meal plans are faring

> better. None have diabetes, and only three have died of cancer. It

is

> too early to know if they will outlive their lab mates, but the

> dieters here and at the other labs also have lower blood pressure

and

> lower blood levels of certain dangerous fats, glucose and insulin.

>

> " The preliminary indicators are that we're looking at a robust life

> extension in the restricted animals, " Dr. Weindruch said " .

>

> As I look thru the archives of the Support Group, I find it hard to

get a grip on what conclusions to draw from the snipets I find from

the monkey studies. Indications are that average life span is

increased with CR/DR, but maximum life span, as that is defined, will

only be known 25 years from now, from what I can glean. I can't find

the 30% figures Rodney allude to, but of course I have only seen a

minute part of the study results.

> I suppose Weindruch is referring to average and not maximum life

span in his assertion above.

> // Ulf

>

[Guest guest]

According to Dr. Hansen the monkeys, which were started on 30%

> CR at human-equivalent age 50 appear, so far, based on very

> preliminary data, to be living 30% longer than those eating ad lib.

>

> I personally find this persuasive information. Everything from

> yeasts at the bottom, all the way up to monkeys at the top see

> dramatic improvements in lifespan in response to CR.

Rodney:

I am somewhat confused on this issue raised by your post.

How does one explain Spindler's points which he

raises about 8 minutes into the following video. The first

part of the video does support CR. However, at about the

8 minute point, he starts to point out various

issues which suggest that although CR does work in many

animals, some evidence suggests that it might not work

in humans. I would be very much interested in your

viewpoint on theses issues raised by the video.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?

docid=3922362967047270371 & q=Calorie+restriction

Josh

[Guest guest]

Hi Josh:

Unfortunately, I get the video, but not the audio. So I see the

diagrams, with his light-pointer highlighting various issues, but I

do not hear what he is saying.

Can you summarize what it is he thinks is so different about monkeys

compared with humans (but apparently is not different about yeasts

compared with monkeys) that cause him to suspect CR life extension

may not apply to humans?

Understand, as I have said a number of times previously, I do not

suggest we multiply Jeanne Calment's age by 1.4 and then assume

everyone on CR will live that long. Clearly Jeanne Calment, by

accident, was already doing *** a lot *** of things right including,

no doubt, choosing the right parents. She is a very rare one

individual in the planet's most recent ten billion individuals.

But I do think multiplying the current US life expectancy by 1.4 may

realistically be doable for those of us here who are still basicly

healthy; have luckier sets of genes; and the determination to adopt

measures that serious evidence suggests are likely to be beneficial.

But that is just my opinion based on trying to make what I believe to

be sensible manipulations of the grossly insufficient data we

currently have on the matter.

If anyone has better data, or a better way to manipulate it, please

post!

Rodney.

>

> According to Dr. Hansen the monkeys, which were started on 30%

> > CR at human-equivalent age 50 appear, so far, based on very

> > preliminary data, to be living 30% longer than those eating ad

lib.

> >

> > I personally find this persuasive information. Everything from

> > yeasts at the bottom, all the way up to monkeys at the top see

> > dramatic improvements in lifespan in response to CR.

>

> Rodney:

>

> I am somewhat confused on this issue raised by your post.

> How does one explain Spindler's points which he

> raises about 8 minutes into the following video. The first

> part of the video does support CR. However, at about the

> 8 minute point, he starts to point out various

> issues which suggest that although CR does work in many

> animals, some evidence suggests that it might not work

> in humans. I would be very much interested in your

> viewpoint on theses issues raised by the video.

>

> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?

> docid=3922362967047270371 & q=Calorie+restriction

>

> Josh

>

[Guest guest]

> Unfortunately, I get the video, but not the audio. So I see the

> diagrams, with his light-pointer highlighting various issues, but

I

> do not hear what he is saying.

>

> Can you summarize

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]

Hi Josh:

This is the paper, referenced in the files here, published in 2003,

done by the people who, about six months ago, announced at a

conference that preliminary indications are that their 30% CR monkeys

appear to be living 30% longer than their ad lib monkeys:

" Mortality and morbidity in laboratory-maintained Rhesus monkeys and

effects of long-term dietary restriction.Bodkin NL, TM,

Ortmeyer HK, E, Hansen BC. "

Obesity and Diabetes Research Center, Department of Physiology,

School of Medicine, University of land, Baltimore 21201, USA.

" Mortality and morbidity were examined in 117 laboratory-maintained

rhesus monkeys studied over approximately 25 years (8 dietary-

restricted [DR] and 109 ad libitum-fed [AL] monkeys). During the

study, 49 AL monkeys and 3 DR monkeys died. Compared with the DR

monkeys, the AL monkeys had a 2.6-fold increased risk of death.

Hyperinsulinemia led to a 3.7-fold increased risk of death (p <.05);

concordantly, the risk of death decreased by 7%, per unit increase in

insulin sensitivity (M). There was significant organ pathology in the

AL at death. The age at median survival in the AL was approximately

25 years compared with 32 years in the DR. The oldest monkey was a

diabetic female (AL) that lived to be 40 years of age. These results

suggest that dietary restriction leads to an increased average age of

death in primates, associated with the prevention of hyperinsulinemia

and the mitigation of age-related disease. "

PMID: 12634286.

And, at the time they made that announcement, it was posted here.

If there are good data available from the same, or a different, group

of monkeys then it would, of course, be great to see them.

Rodney.

>

> 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]

> This is the paper, referenced in the files here, published in 2003,

> done by the people who, about six months ago, announced at a

> conference that preliminary indications are that their 30% CR

monkeys

> appear to be living 30% longer than their ad lib monkeys:

>

> " Mortality and morbidity in laboratory-maintained Rhesus monkeys and

>

Hi Rodney:

Thank you for clarifying the issue. I think I understand

a bit better the paper you are referring to. That is a

different study from the one Spindler is commenting

on. Both of them are rhesus monkey studies but one is by

Hansen and has been showing largely beneficial results.

Spindler is pointing out that the rhesus study

at the NIA is having some problems. In the NIA study,

as of April 2006, the mortality curves for the CR group

and control group are converging. I take that to mean

that the CR group has, at this time, a higher accrued

mortality. Since we are talking about 2 different

studies, that explains my misunderstanding. Thanks

for your help and you information.

Josh

[Guest guest]

Hi Josh:

If they are having 'difficulties' with the CRON monkeys in the NIA

study then that is incredibly interesting. Clearly they need to take

a look at what is different about the ways the monkeys are being

treated in the two groups.

It may mean that there are good ways and bad ways to do CRON in

primates, and for sure(!!!) we would want to know which way lengthens

lifespan and which does not.

If anyone is able to find more information about this it might be

extraordinarily important.

Rodney.

>

>

> > This is the paper, referenced in the files here, published in

2003,

> > done by the people who, about six months ago, announced at a

> > conference that preliminary indications are that their 30% CR

> monkeys

> > appear to be living 30% longer than their ad lib monkeys:

> >

> > " Mortality and morbidity in laboratory-maintained Rhesus monkeys

and

> >

>

> Hi Rodney:

>

> Thank you for clarifying the issue. I think I understand

> a bit better the paper you are referring to. That is a

> different study from the one Spindler is commenting

> on. Both of them are rhesus monkey studies but one is by

> Hansen and has been showing largely beneficial results.

> Spindler is pointing out that the rhesus study

> at the NIA is having some problems. In the NIA study,

> as of April 2006, the mortality curves for the CR group

> and control group are converging. I take that to mean

> that the CR group has, at this time, a higher accrued

> mortality. Since we are talking about 2 different

> studies, that explains my misunderstanding. Thanks

> for your help and you information.

>

> Josh

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " j_millsingh " <j_millsingh@...>

wrote:

[...snip...]

> Spindler is pointing out that the rhesus study

> at the NIA is having some problems. In the NIA study,

> as of April 2006, the mortality curves for the CR group

> and control group are converging. I take that to mean

> that the CR group has, at this time, a higher accrued

> mortality.

[...snip...]

Converge doesn't necessarily mean cross-over though, right?

-

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris:

It is easy to agree with numbers like those.

But given there is now some evidence suggesting that CR may act

primarily through the restriction of just a couple of amino acids,

then it may be comparatively easy to restrict them by a lot more than

30%. How much they can be restricted depends on what is found to be

optimal, since they are essential nutrients also. But 50% or more

restriction seems very doable if the issue does turn out to be

primarily a couple of aminos.

It will, of course, be quite some time before it can be confirmed

that that really is what is important.

In the meantime we place our bets.

Rodney.

>

>

> 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)

>