CR + ON + Exercise ......... Was Re: 2 CR videos

[Guest guest]

Rod: FWIW I got somehing entirely different from this. We've been kicking

around the " evidence " that exercise beyond fitness is not useful for LE in

the group almost since inception (however some feel it is important for

QofL), and Walford talks about this too. So nothing new there AFAICS.

The 8% restriction amounting to nada though- that's a contradiction from a

later study posted here that almost the same amount of restriction (10%)

yielded gains in LE. If I'm not mistaken, that's posted in our files.

Also from how I read this, it doesn't pay to go to 50% restriction - that a

moderate 30% is about the maximum gain in LE one can get.

I prefer to assume that the later research (showing a gain with as little as

10% restriction) is correct. It just makes sense to me and the research is

more up to date. I look forward to comments from our other members.

> From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

> Reply-< >

> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:37:40 -0000

> < >

> Subject: [ ] CR + ON + Exercise ......... Was Re: 2 CR videos

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Once again Al hits the bull's eye, at least from my point of view,

> with this post. And not only because of the videos.

>

> For what it is worth, here is what I think I got out of the Holloszy

> paper Al linked.

>

> I had seen this paper previously - it is dated 1997 - but I got a lot

> more out of it this time than the last time I read it. This was

> largely, I think, because I am searching for different information

> now than I was years ago. Then, given very limited knowledge of CR,

> I was anxious to find information that justified CR in principle, and

> was looking for material that would help me decide the degree of CR I

> should pursue. (Also a factor, perhaps, was that I had, and still

> have, difficulty getting my brain around the wording used in the

> abstract of this paper. I had to read each section five times to be

> reasonably sure I grasped what it was it was trying to say!)

>

> Now I am interested in different issues. Here are a few of what I

> see as some of the more important points of this paper:

>

> They had four groups of rats. A) Runners on 8%* CR; Sedentary on

> 8%* CR; C) Runners on 30%* CR; D) Sedentary on 47%* CR (the level

> that turned out to be the intake that resulted in body weights equal

> to the exercisers of group C). For all groups CR was initiated in

> these Long- rats at three months of age. (Can anyone help

> clarify what the comparable age would be for humans? Is it after the

> attainment of full growth? I have ascertained that it *is* after

> puberty for these rats.)

>

> * NOTE: Percentage CR is defined as the amount consumed relative to

> ad lib intake.

>

> When I saw the above list of groups I was very disappointed they did

> not have a fifth group of sedentary rats on 30% CR, so that we could

> also compare the survival curves of sedentary and exercising groups

> with identical restricted caloric intakes. As it turned out I didn't

> need to be concerned.

>

> Here are some quotes from the paper that seem relevant to me, many of

> which will be no surprise to those generally familiar with CR

> literature:

>

> " Our research on rats is done with the assumption that it has

> relevance to humans. "

>

> " ........ [a] mild [8%] degree of food restriction ......... does

> not affect longevity of sedentary rats. "

>

> " [30%] Food restriction increased both the average and maximal life

> spans of sedentary rats. "

>

> " Wheel running alone improved the average survival of the [8% CR]

> group A rats, but did not result in an extension of maximal life

> span. "

>

> " [30%] Food restriction [plus running] caused a significant increase

> in maximal longevity. "

>

> " The [30%] food-restricted runners in group C .......... had a

> survival curve that was virtually identical to that of the [47%

> restricted] sedentary control animals. " [but unfortunately the

> different degrees of restriction make this a not entirely fair

> comparison of restricted runners with restricted sedentaries.]

>

> " The [30%] food-restricted runners in group C had a significantly

> longer average survival than the [8% restricted] runners in group A. "

>

> But for me the most notable aspect of this paper, which had gone over

> my head previously (and which I do not remember seeing discussed

> here), relates to a comparison of the survival curve of CR+exercise

> with that of CR alone. Here are some, in some cases poorly worded

> imo, quotes about this:

>

> " A decrease in the availability of energy for growth and cell

> proliferation that induces an increase in maximal longevity in

> sedentary rats only results in an improvement in average survival,

> with no extension of maximal life span, when caused by

> exercise. " ...... and:

>

> " Our previous study included both ~30% and ~50% food-restricted

> sedentary groups, and their survival times were also not

> statistically significantly different. "

>

> MY CONCLUSION: If sedentary 30% restricted animals experience

> survival curves similar to 50% restricted sedentaries; and 47% CR

> sedentaries experience survival similar to the 30% CR runners (see

> above); then it would appear the inescapable conclusion must be that:

>

> **** exercise does not help rectangularize the survival curve of

> animals on CR **** .....

>

> ..... let alone further extend maximum lifespan.

>

> This has been briefly discussed here previously. An important

> logical conclusion that it seems to me must be drawn from this paper

> is that the rectangularization benefits observed in exercising, fully

> fed, animals only solves the kinds of problems that are already

> solved by CRON. So there is no additional benefit to be derived from

> exercise for an animal already experiencing the benefits of CRON -

> since CRON itself has already provided those benefits. Indeed, in

> the paper this is explicitly stated:

>

> " The beneficial effects of food restriction and exercise on survival

> are not additive or synergistic. "

>

> If anyone knows of any studies where it was found that, contrary to

> what was found in this study, exercise did help rectangularize the

> survival curve in ***CRON*** animals, PLEASE post it. TIA. We all

> recognize there is little that is known for absolutely certain about

> these things - beyond the fact that CRON extends average and maximum

> lifespan.

>

> Granted, rats are not humans, but remember the: " Our research on

> rats is done with the assumption that it has relevance to humans " .

> Granted also, future studies may arrive at different conclusions from

> this one. But one unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this paper

> seems to be that if these results are applicable to humans, those

> pursuing CRON will derive no additional longevity benefit from

> exercise beyond the rather minimal threshold level we all agree is

> necessary to maintain health (bed-ridden little old ladies generally

> do not survive for long, etc..) such as that expended by a sedentary

> rat while ambling around a cage not equipped with exercise facilities.

>

> In one sense this item was big news to me, as I had not previously

> been aware that there were any papers addressing the issue. But on

> another level it fits in very nicely with the findings of the New

> England Centenarian Study. It found no consistent patterns in the

> exercise habits of their centenarian subjects. Some had exercised

> extensively. Many, not at all.

>

> Alternative perspectives, backed by supporting evidence, are, of

> course, as always, more than welcome. And it is acknowledged that

> there is presumably an exception to be made regarding the

> desirability of types of exercise appropriate for prevention of

> osteoporosis.

>

> Rodney.

>

> =============================================

>

>

>>

>> Hi All,

>>

>> Below, are two CR videos. I also include the reference in the

> first video (presented at the symposium) of the free-full text paper

> by Holloszy JO.

>>

>> The data on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUNEL_assay of CRed

> aptosis in later life appeared to be new and impressive.

>>

>> Is Caloric Restriction the Key to a Longer and Healthier Life?

> (Luigi Fontana)

>> http://www.edmontonagingsymposium.com/files/eas/presentations/08-

> Luigi_Fontana.wmv

>> http://tinyurl.com/2mrl3y

>>

>> Holloszy JO.

>> Mortality rate and longevity of food-restricted exercising male

> rats: a reevaluation.

>> J Appl Physiol. 1997 Feb;82(2):399-403.

>> PMID: 9049716 http://tinyurl.com/qgxe3

>>

>> Mechanisms by which Caloric Restriction Better Preserves Skeletal

> Muscle Mass & Function with Aging

>> http://www.edmontonagingsymposium.com/files/eas/presentations/07-

> Russ_Hepple.wmv

>> http://tinyurl.com/373wcj

>>

>> -- Al Pater, PhD; email: Alpater@...

>

[Guest guest]

I can't speak for the veracity of his claims, but it does sound like he wrote the questions for that "interview" himself. Notice that the "interviewer" is never identified.

Personally, I think his argument sounds logical, but I wonder what the last ten years of health study has said about the subject.

chris

[ ] CR + ON + Exercise ......... Was Re: 2 CR videos

Hi folks:Here is an interview with Dr. Henry , done about ten years after his book about the effects of exercise was published:http://www.encyclop edia.com/ doc/1G1-16535099 .htmlRodney.

Recent Activity

16

New MembersVisit Your Group

[Guest guest]

There have been at least two recent postings generally

questioning whether there are any health benefits from exercise.

In response, the below address is to only one of many research

articles indicating that the health benefits of regular exercise

are not controversial, rather, it is only the amount of exercise

needed for beneficial health effects that remains controversial.

http://www.fitness.gov/Reading_Room/Digests/september2002digest.pdf

[ ] CR + ON + Exercise ......... Was Re: 2 CR videos

Hi folks:

Here is an interview with Dr. Henry , done about ten years after his book about the effects of exercise was published:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16535099.html

Rodney.

> >

> > Rod: FWIW I got somehing entirely different from this. We've been > kicking

> > around the "evidence" that exercise beyond fitness is not useful > for LE in

> > the group almost since inception. ....................

>

[Guest guest]

> In response, the below address is to only one of

> many research

> articles indicating that the health benefits of

> regular exercise

> are not controversial, rather, it is only the amount

> of exercise

> needed for beneficial health effects that remains

> controversial.

While there is a body of evidence to show that

exercise may reduce the risk for certain diseases,

most all the evidence is amongst those eating a

typical american diet, and/or at risk for these

diseases due to their poor and excessive dietary

habits... there is little if any evidence to show

that exercise, in and of itself, will reduce your risk

for disease, outside of the elevated risks from a poor

and excessive diet.

The only exception may be in regard to bone health,

yet it would take minimal amount to reduce that risk.

Bones like muscles & tendons weaken when not stressed.

Jogging or another weight bearing aerobic exericse for

about 20 minutes 3X a week and maybe in addition some

resistance exercise for 20 minutes 2x a week should be

sufficient to maintain reasonably strong and efficient

muscles, tendons, and bones into old age.

The belief that exercise prevents HTN or raises HDL-C

is questionable at best. Weight training and the gain

of LBM almost certainly lowers HDL-C and most of the

difference in HDL-C and life expectancy between men

and women may be explained by the lower LBM of women.

Calorie restriction reduces LBM as well as fat mass

and is far more effective at reversing insulin

resistance, raising HDL-C and even lowering BP than

exercise.

Remember the key to a long life is -> " eat less and

live longer " . Exercise more than the minimum needed to

maintain well functioning muscles, bones, and tendons

and you have to eat more and also raise your risk for

more injuries.

So outside of the minimum exercise neccessary, what is

the payoff for all that extra work?

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane:

In more general terms, what I believe you are saying is that while

(to the extent we know the facts about this) doing only X, Y and Z

may be likely to give us the very best chance to squeeze the largest

number of years into our lifespan, it is quite appropriate to trade

off a couple of years of that maximum (if that is what it takes) for

better enjoyment of those years. We all do it, and of course should.

But one comes to question it when people trade off 50 or 60 years of

lifespan because they are just not prepared to eat an appropriate

amount of healthy foods, and instead binge on excessive amounts

and/or unhealthy foods.

IMO, deciding to run 60 miles a week on some whim that it makes a

person immune to heart disease when there is no evidence to support

that view, is not much different. It seems more akin to addiction.

But it depends on the number of years being traded off and the amount

of enjoyment derived. And we are each entitled to make our own

decisions about these things. But in such cases people should not

expect others to provide a sympathetic ear to their complaints if

their decisions result in early ill health.

Rodney.

>

> --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@>

wrote:

>

> >

> > So outside of the minimum exercise neccessary, what is

> > the payoff for all that extra work?

> >

>

> For me there are plenty of QOL payoffs: increased stamina so I can

> enjoy watching a sunrise at the top of Mt. Whitney, or the glorious

> feeling of racing down the road on my bike, or skiing out to Glacier

> Point and seeing Half Dome from the top, covered in snow. In fact,

if

> I don't do the " extra work " , I feel lethargic, like I have a bad

case

> of cabin fever.

>

> Diane

>