Benefits of 40% CR with 1% restriction (????) Part 5. Conclusion

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

So, in brief: of course all these papers will need confirmation

before we can come to confident conclusions, and that will take

years. So just in case I have not made this entirely clear already,

I am NOT making the above-mentioned changes to my diet because I am

completely convinced they will be beneficial. It is conceivable that

when we know a lot more we may come to realize Met restriction is

harmful. Humans are not rats, for a start. I am making the changes

because it is beginning to look like they may confer appreciable

benefits and do not seem likely to result in harm. But we will not

know for sure for a long time.

Speaking for myself, and perhaps for some others here too, if the Met

story turns out to be correct then there is a new perspective to be

had. Previously I had been impressed with the CVD biomarker results

in CRON humans, and the data for cancer deaths in CRON rats, and the

insulin data as regards diabetes susceptibility, and also the overall

life expectancy improvements apparent from the pursuit of CR in the

animal experiments. But now, if we can avoid those issues, and it

looks like many of us probably can, there is an entirely new 'Met-

factor' which, it seems, may determine our **aging rate**. Some

people look old at the age of 50. Others look youngish at age 70.

Perhaps Met is a (the?) critical factor determining for each of us

our aging rate and therefore potential maximum lifespan?

So it seems we need to:

A) AVOID CVD.

AVOID CANCER.

C) AVOID DIABETES.

D) IMPROVE OUR IMMUNE RESPONSE

E) ........................................ , AND ........

F) SLOW DOWN OUR AGING RATE (Met-factor?)

That is a new perspective for me. Of course it may be wrong! As so

many pieces of nutritional advice have turned out to be over the past

century.

One final perspective. It seems from the above that something that

has for a VERY long time been considered a vital nutrient, Met, may

be shortening people's lives. Among all the various essential

nutrients we know about, for which there are published RDAs,

many/most of us try to maximize our intake of these nutrients within

our restricted daily allocation of calories. But are there other

nutrients, in addition to Met, higher amounts of which are

unhelpful? Is there reason to be confident that those we currently

know about (Cr, Ca, Fe, Se, for example) are the only ones? Fifty

years from now we will probably know.

Here is a final thought. There is a very good reason to consume some

animal foods because vitamin B12 is only available, as far as I know,

in animal products (or supplements). But animal products also tend

to contain relatively hefty amounts of Met. So, logically, for those

who wish to satisfy their B12 requirement from an animal product of

some kind, comparing foods by their ratios of Met/B12 would make a

lot of sense. A high ratio indicates a lot of Met compared with B12,

which would not be optimal, while a low ratio would be beneficial -

the B12 requirement could be satisfied while consuming the smallest

amount of Met. Consider three foods, beef liver, chicken breast and

egg whites. Calculating the ratio as mg of Met to mcg of B12 here

are the numbers: Beef liver: 9·2; chicken breast 1,598; egg white

4,845 (sic!). Food for thought?

For additional information on Met Wikipedia is one source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine

=======================

For anyone who has read this far, thank you! Correction of material

errors in the above will be especially welcome.

Rodney.