Re: 'Dr. Mercola' refers to those practicing CR as foolish

[Guest guest]

Dave,

Dr. Mercola may be right. It may be foolish to constantly starve

yourself in the hope of living longer. The fact that Intermittent

Fasting (IF) increases longevity without reducing calories compared to

ad libitum diets is a very powerful counter-example to CR.

Intermittent Fasting is accomplished by eating nothing for 24 hours

(except water and electrolytes) and everything you want for 24 hours

(nutritious food, of course). If you set the cut-off time as 9AM,

then you can always have breakfast on fasting days *before* 9AM and

nothing until 9AM the next day. On non-fasting days, you can eat

anything *after* 9AM. In animal experiments, Intermittent Fasting

does not cause the stunting in body size caused by CR.

Also, don't forget that studies such as [1] show the minimum mortality

mortality at a BMI of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

This was hotly debated and dismissed by many people on this list and

on the CRS. Some people on CR have started reporting low bone density

which may be caused by severe CR, inadequate nutrition, or fast weight

loss[2]. Are people on CR with osteopenia likely to live longer?

Let's wait and see.

Tony

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/crondiet.html

[1] Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, C, Heath CW Jr.

Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults.

N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7;341(15):1097-105. PMID: 10511607

[2] CRS September 2007 Archives

http://lists.calorierestriction.org/pipermail/crcomm_lists.calorierestriction.or\

g/2007-September/date.html

>

> Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe annoying):

> As some of the greatest minds active in researching

> anti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy of CR,

> 'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convinced

> himself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and that

> calorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!

> He states:

>

> " You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your caloric

> intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the majority of

> the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its influence on

> insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is bulk of

> new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture

> yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway as

> they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but there are

> quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live longer.

>

> They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your

> calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your

> insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this, but it

> does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and

> physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue and

> when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key micronutriients. "

>

> -Dave

>

[Guest guest]

I am not a fan of Mercola, but there is a hard to dispute benefit from reduced insulin stress (per Dr. Rosedale et al). I don't buy the whole Atkin's diet, that you can pig out on high fat foods, but have personally experimented with carbohydrate fasts and a weekly cycle of depleted glycogen stores (due to exercise pattern). There is a negative association with high sugar consumption and excessive fat mass. CRON reduces both so perhaps there is a link. This is still a work in process so we don't really know.JR On Sep 9, 2007, at 11:51 PM, orb85750 wrote:Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe annoying):As some of the greatest minds active in researchinganti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy of CR,'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convincedhimself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and thatcalorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!He states:"You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your caloric intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the majority of the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its influence on insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is bulk of new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway as they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but there are quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live longer.They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this, but it does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue and when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key micronutriients."-Dave

[Guest guest]

We have had many posts about Mercola’s non-standing in the scientific/nutritional community. He’s listed on “quackwatch”. See /message/25099

IIRC his training is in dentistry. Better to cite the studies about insulin (which I am aware do exist) than to mention Mercola as some sort of authority.

From: <crjohnr@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:17:54 -0500

< >

Subject: Re: [ ] 'Dr. Mercola' refers to those practicing CR as " foolish "

I am not a fan of Mercola, but there is a hard to dispute benefit from reduced insulin stress (per Dr. Rosedale et al). I don't buy the whole Atkin's diet, that you can pig out on high fat foods, but have personally experimented with carbohydrate fasts and a weekly cycle of depleted glycogen stores (due to exercise pattern). 

There is a negative association with high sugar consumption and excessive fat mass. CRON reduces both so perhaps there is a link. This is still a work in process so we don't really know.

JR 

On Sep 9, 2007, at 11:51 PM, orb85750 wrote:

Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe annoying):

As some of the greatest minds active in researching

anti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy of CR,

'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convinced

himself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and that

calorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!

He states:

" You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your caloric

intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the majority of

the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its influence on

insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is bulk of

new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture

yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway as

they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but there are

quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live longer.

They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your

calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your

insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this, but it

does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and

physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue and

when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key micronutriients. "

-Dave

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

I am open-minded, so two questions:

1. What is Mercola's *evidence* that it is purely the lower insulin

level that confers the extraordinary longevity benefits of CR?

2. What is the method Mercola recommends to provide a reduction in

insulin comparable to that seen by practitioners of CR? And what is

the evidence that it does so?

These are NOT rhetorical questions. I would like to know the answers.

Rodney.

>

> > Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe annoying):

> > As some of the greatest minds active in researching

> > anti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy of

CR,

> > 'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convinced

> > himself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and that

> > calorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!

> > He states:

> >

> > " You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your

caloric

> > intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the majority

of

> > the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its

influence on

> > insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is bulk

of

> > new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture

> > yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway as

> > they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but there

are

> > quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live

longer.

> >

> > They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your

> > calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your

> > insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this, but

it

> > does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and

> > physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue and

> > when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key

micronutriients. "

> >

> > -Dave

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony.

Mercola made no mention of fasting.

Rather, he believes that simply eating low on the glycemic scale will

produce the same dramatic life extension as CR (without providing any

evidence, of course). The IF vs. CR debate has little to do with

this idea. Furthermore, we know that those practicing CR properly

certainly are not " starving themselves. " I very much enjoy this

diet, actually, and with ample satiety.

-Dave

> >

> > Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe annoying):

> > As some of the greatest minds active in researching

> > anti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy of

CR,

> > 'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convinced

> > himself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and that

> > calorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!

> > He states:

> >

> > " You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your

caloric

> > intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the majority

of

> > the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its

influence on

> > insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is bulk

of

> > new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture

> > yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway as

> > they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but there

are

> > quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live

longer.

> >

> > They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your

> > calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your

> > insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this, but

it

> > does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and

> > physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue

and

> > when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key

micronutriients. "

> >

> > -Dave

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Couple questions about IF..

1) If nutritional orthodoxy advises consuming the RDA's or DRI's of

protein, vitamins, minerals EVERY day how does one that eats only

'every other day' avoid eventual malnutrition or developing a

deficiency in one or more essential nutrients?

2) Finishing my breakfast @8:59am on a 'fasting day', am i truly in a

fasting state for 24 hours till next 9am day. How can this be

considered 'fasting' with recently consumed food in the digestive

system? Seems to me the fasting state would begin after complete

digestion and assimilation of this meal, perhaps several hours or more

later? However long digestion takes, i don't know the answer, but

seems to me we're fasting in true sense only 21 hours or less.

Or am i missing the point that this 24 hour 'fasting' period is chosen

simply for easy application?

bill4cr

> >

> > Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe annoying):

> > As some of the greatest minds active in researching

> > anti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy of CR,

> > 'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convinced

> > himself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and that

> > calorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!

> > He states:

> >

> > " You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your caloric

> > intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the majority of

> > the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its influence on

> > insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is bulk of

> > new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture

> > yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway as

> > they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but there are

> > quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live longer.

> >

> > They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your

> > calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your

> > insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this, but it

> > does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and

> > physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue and

> > when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key micronutriients. "

> >

> > -Dave

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill:

I think we do know that in some of the successful CRON experiments in

mice they were fed, purely for logistical reasons, at 9 am Monday,

Wednesday and Friday. And since they were restricted, they ate their

food quickly after receiving it.

This means that on weekends they were fasted on a substantially

restricted diet from ~noon Friday to 9 am Monday, yet still lived

much longer than the fully fed mice.

From this I conclude that one 69-hour fast and two other 45-hour

fasts per week do not measurably harm mice. So the idea that all, or

any, nutrients are required daily seems to be disproved by this. Or,

if there is a benefit to daily intake, it is small.

The reason of course is that for almost all nutrients the body has

storage capacity of varying duration ...... water perhaps one week,

vitamin C about two months, B-12 a year or two, amino acids ????).

Oxygen is an obvious exception.

Rodney.

> >

> > Dave,

> >

> > Dr. Mercola may be right. It may be foolish to constantly starve

> > yourself in the hope of living longer. The fact that Intermittent

> > Fasting (IF) increases longevity without reducing calories

compared to

> > ad libitum diets is a very powerful counter-example to CR.

> > Intermittent Fasting is accomplished by eating nothing for 24

hours

> > (except water and electrolytes) and everything you want for 24

hours

> > (nutritious food, of course). If you set the cut-off time as 9AM,

> > then you can always have breakfast on fasting days *before* 9AM

and

> > nothing until 9AM the next day. On non-fasting days, you can eat

> > anything *after* 9AM. In animal experiments, Intermittent Fasting

> > does not cause the stunting in body size caused by CR.

> >

> > Also, don't forget that studies such as [1] show the minimum

mortality

> > mortality at a BMI of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in

women.

> > This was hotly debated and dismissed by many people on this list

and

> > on the CRS. Some people on CR have started reporting low bone

density

> > which may be caused by severe CR, inadequate nutrition, or fast

weight

> > loss[2]. Are people on CR with osteopenia likely to live longer?

> > Let's wait and see.

> >

> > Tony

> > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/crondiet.html

> >

> >

> > [1] Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, C, Heath CW Jr.

> > Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S.

adults.

> > N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7;341(15):1097-105. PMID: 10511607

> >

> > [2] CRS September 2007 Archives

> >

>

http://lists.calorierestriction.org/pipermail/crcomm_lists.calorierest

riction.org/2007-September/date.html

> >

> >

> > --- In , " orb85750 " <orb85750@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Thought you might find this somewhat amusing (or maybe

annoying):

> > > As some of the greatest minds active in researching

> > > anti-aging are painstakingly trying to understand the efficacy

of CR,

> > > 'Dr. Mercola,' a widely followed health guru, has convinced

> > > himself that it's simply due to reducing insulin, and that

> > > calorie restriction is unnecessary -- even a foolish approach!

> > > He states:

> > >

> > > " You may have also heard of studies that show lowering your

caloric

> > > intake can slow aging and extend lifespan. I suspect the

majority of

> > > the benefits from calorie restriction are related to its

influence on

> > > insulin, as reducing calories also reduces insulin. There is

bulk of

> > > new evidence that supports this. So you don't have to torture

> > > yourself to live longer. Most people would never do it anyway

as

> > > they would wisely realize this was a foolish endeavor, but

there are

> > > quite a few extremists who have chosen to eat far less to live

longer.

> > >

> > > They have made a foolish choice because it is not lowering your

> > > calories that causes you to live longer, it is optimizing your

> > > insulin and leptin levels. Calorie restriction will do this,

but it

> > > does it at an enormous price, both psychologically and

> > > physiologically. Removing the joy from eating is a major issue

and

> > > when you don't eat enough you will miss certain key

micronutriients. "

> > >

> > > -Dave

> > >

> >

>