Monkeys and Humans (was Intermittent Fasting may be better than CR (was Mercola ...)

[Guest guest]

Please note the change in the subject heading of this thread.

We may be falsely equating monkeys in cages whose every need is attended to, and who seemingly lead uncomplicated lives with the highly stressful lives that humans lead. We’ve had postings here about stress and shortened telomeres, which some studies seem to indicate means shorter life. No matter how good you may think you have it, you probably have stress in your life just by virtue of being a human being rather than a laboratory mondey. And if our lives are not stressful/complicated enough, we usually manage to manufacture stress and problems (just look at the problems of many celebrities and/or the very wealthy). Difficult family members, stressful jobs, bosses, drugs, alcohol, financial problems, divorce, in-laws, ad infinitum – the list is endless.

Also, the monkeys have limited exposure to microbes and other dangers such as environmental toxins that we face regularly simply by being out in the world. Take Dr W: He didn’t forsee the poisonous gases in the biosphere that may have led to his own demise (see our Dr W file for details if you don’t know what I’m talking about).

From: citpeks <citpeks@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:27:29 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Intermittent Fasting may be better than CR (was Mercola ...)

Hello Dave,

The six-month semistarvation study by Keys[1] performed on human

volunteers showed that severe energy restriction decreased BMR in

absolute terms by 39% and also relative to the weight of metabolically

active tissue by 16%. There was a recent posting to a description of

that work[2]. The reports of the Biosphere experiment also mention a

less dramatic decrease of BMR.

I think that, once that you are at a normal weight, reducing your

calories below what your active tissue needs can result in loss of

essential tissues.

You say that you " restrict beyond 15% " . How do you measure this?

Try my CR calculator to see what it says:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cron1.html

Tony

[1] Keys A, Brozek J, Henschel A, Mickelsen O, HL. " The biology

of human starvation " , Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1950.

[2] They Starved So That Others Be Better Fed: Remembering Ancel Keys

and the Minnesota Experiment

Leah M. Kalm and D. Semba

The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 135:1347-1352,

June 2005

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/6/1347

===

> > >

> > > Hi Tony:

> > >

> > > OK. Thank you. But you didn't answer as to whether you believe

> your

> > > references to " stunting " in mice put on CR not long after weaning

> > > have any relevance to a discussion of CR adopted by fully grown

> > > adults. My opinion is that they do not, so I wonder what the

> reason

> > > is that you raise the issue in a manner suggesting you believe it

> to

> > > be important.

> > >

> >

> > I think that the stunting effects of CR are important for adults.

> They

> > teach us the maximum adult sizes that can be achieved with certain

> > levels of CR. For example, we know that 40% CR results in body

> > weights which are only 50% of the normal adult size.

> >

> > Thus, a 40% CR diet for humans applied during adulthood would be

> more

> > likely to reduce life span than increase it. If a 150-pound adult

> > eats a 40% CR diet that can only sustain a human of half the weight

> > when implemented after weaning, the adult body will have to undergo

> > some serious shrinking if it is to survive. Such an adult would

> > likely have to lose half of the weight. Where will this come from?

> > From the muscles, the bones, or the brain?

> >

> > I know that there have been some CR studies done an adult monkeys

> > which showed no ill effects for substantial degrees of CR. But

> these

> > monkeys just had to sit in a cage. They did not have to do the

> chores

> > that humans need to do on a daily basis or adapt and compete within

> a

> > social environment.

> >

> > I believe that people should not practice more than 15% CR in

> > adulthood because this is the about the upper limit to which

> > metabolism can adapt. I consider higher levels of CR " extreme CR "

> and

> > it is not up to me to prove that extreme CR can be dangerous. The

> > advocates of CR are the ones who have to prove that severe CR is

> safe

> > and beneficial for health and longevity.

> >

> > I think that the anecdotal reports of osteopenia and visual evidence

> > of decreased facial collagen

> > (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/ads/lisa.html) are giving us an

> > early warning that severe CR can be dangerous. You can ignore this

> at

> > your own peril.

> >

> > Tony

> >

>