Re: Setting CRON Objectives

[Guest guest]

IIRC they were Ob-Ob (?) variant.JROn Jul 29, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Rodney wrote:Hi folks:For some reason a comment in one of Warren 's posts here, long ago, has always stuck in my mind.  It was a finding that, among the restricted mice, those that lived the absolute longest were the ones which, while fed the identical very restricted diet, somehow managed to maintain the greatest body fat, compared with the other restricted mice.(If anyone can recall the paper which found this, please post it.)There is a number of possible explanations for this.  One I particularly like is that perhaps the longest-lived mice were those which managed to avoid any exercise over and above the threshold amount absolutely necessary for health, thereby storing the calories as fat that the others were burning in exercise  ; ^ ))).  Another possibility is that the longest-lived mice had a lower 'metabolic rate', or an especially low body temperature.  Or they could have been the more diminutive mice, using up fewer calories while fed the same as the others.In any event, whatever the explanation, if it is true, then focussing on body fat percentage as a measure of compliance with CRON, which is what I have been thinking is appropriate up until now, may be mistaken.  Rather, perhaps the emphasis should be on attaining excellent typical CRON biomarkers** while MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST BODY FAT.In this case, perhaps it may not be helpful to squeeze the last few decimals out of some of the biomarkers past the point of diminishing returns, by dropping caloric intake appreciably further to get a comparatively small additional improvement in biomarker values.Instead, maybe it would be better for longevity (based on the Warren quote) to maintain a somewhat higher body fat, if the biomarkers are already very good?  (I am expecting Tony to agree with this!)Of course arguing against this is the fact that one study found 60% restriction produced longer lifespans than 40% restriction.  The 60% restricted animals couldn't have had a lot of spare body fat!  But perhaps the longest lived among them were also those with the highest traces of body fat?Any thoughts?    Even better, any papers that might help to clarify this issue?**  lipids, BP, CRP, glucose, insulin, T3  .......... perhaps using the WUSTL study subjects' data as a benchmark for 'excellent'.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

I do not remember the details. It must have been posted three to five years ago. So if anyone knows which study it was, that would be very helpful. As would other papers relevant to the issue.

Rodney.

> > >> > Hi folks:> >> > For some reason a comment in one of Warren 's posts here, > > long ago, has always stuck in my mind. It was a finding that, > > among the restricted mice, those that lived the absolute longest > > were the ones which, while fed the identical very restricted diet, > > somehow managed to maintain the greatest body fat, compared with > > the other restricted mice.> >> > (If anyone can recall the paper which found this, please post it.)> >> > There is a number of possible explanations for this. One I > > particularly like is that perhaps the longest-lived mice were those > > which managed to avoid any exercise over and above the threshold > > amount absolutely necessary for health, thereby storing the > > calories as fat that the others were burning in exercise ; ^ ))). > > Another possibility is that the longest-lived mice had a lower > > 'metabolic rate', or an especially low body temperature. Or they > > could have been the more diminutive mice, using up fewer calories > > while fed the same as the others.> >> > In any event, whatever the explanation, if it is true, then > > focussing on body fat percentage as a measure of compliance with > > CRON, which is what I have been thinking is appropriate up until > > now, may be mistaken. Rather, perhaps the emphasis should be on > > attaining excellent typical CRON biomarkers** while MAINTAINING THE > > HIGHEST BODY FAT.> >> > In this case, perhaps it may not be helpful to squeeze the last few > > decimals out of some of the biomarkers past the point of > > diminishing returns, by dropping caloric intake appreciably further > > to get a comparatively small additional improvement in biomarker > > values.> >> > Instead, maybe it would be better for longevity (based on the > > Warren quote) to maintain a somewhat higher body fat, if the > > biomarkers are already very good? (I am expecting Tony to agree > > with this!)> >> > Of course arguing against this is the fact that one study found 60% > > restriction produced longer lifespans than 40% restriction. The > > 60% restricted animals couldn't have had a lot of spare body fat! > > But perhaps the longest lived among them were also those with the > > highest traces of body fat?> >> > Any thoughts? Even better, any papers that might help to clarify > > this issue?> >> > ** lipids, BP, CRP, glucose, insulin, T3 .......... perhaps using > > the WUSTL study subjects' data as a benchmark for 'excellent'.> >> > Rodney.> >> >> >>

[Guest guest]

That's the reason I don't dwell on the obesity issue. That and osteoporosis.

I've been searching old articles for why we have an increasing number of centenarians.

Found this:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez & artid=387427

Fig 1

Fig. 1 Time trend in cardiovascular disease deaths and concurrent trends in average serum cholesterol levels and overweight during the decline in CHD deaths in the United States.

I think this chart shows that CVD is coming down when overweight is going up?

Regards

Re: [ ] Setting CRON Objectives

IIRC they were Ob-Ob (?) variant.

JR

On Jul 29, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Rodney wrote:

Hi folks:

For some reason a comment in one of Warren 's posts here, long ago, has always stuck in my mind. It was a finding that, among the restricted mice, those that lived the absolute longest were the ones which, while fed the identical very restricted diet, somehow managed to maintain the greatest body fat, compared with the other restricted mice.

(If anyone can recall the paper which found this, please post it.)

There is a number of possible explanations for this. One I particularly like is that perhaps the longest-lived mice were those which managed to avoid any exercise over and above the threshold amount absolutely necessary for health, thereby storing the calories as fat that the others were burning in exercise ; ^ ))). Another possibility is that the longest-lived mice had a lower 'metabolic rate', or an especially low body temperature. Or they could have been the more diminutive mice, using up fewer calories while fed the same as the others.

In any event, whatever the explanation, if it is true, then focussing on body fat percentage as a measure of compliance with CRON, which is what I have been thinking is appropriate up until now, may be mistaken. Rather, perhaps the emphasis should be on attaining excellent typical CRON biomarkers** while MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST BODY FAT.

In this case, perhaps it may not be helpful to squeeze the last few decimals out of some of the biomarkers past the point of diminishing returns, by dropping caloric intake appreciably further to get a comparatively small additional improvement in biomarker values.

Instead, maybe it would be better for longevity (based on the Warren quote) to maintain a somewhat higher body fat, if the biomarkers are already very good? (I am expecting Tony to agree with this!)

Of course arguing against this is the fact that one study found 60% restriction produced longer lifespans than 40% restriction. The 60% restricted animals couldn't have had a lot of spare body fat! But perhaps the longest lived among them were also those with the highest traces of body fat?

Any thoughts? Even better, any papers that might help to clarify this issue?

** lipids, BP, CRP, glucose, insulin, T3 .......... perhaps using the WUSTL study subjects' data as a benchmark for 'excellent'.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

You guessed right. I am not in favor of very low body fat levels. I

think that going below 10% body fat may be harmful. Female athletes

have 14-20% BF and male athletes have 6-13% BF. The 6% figure for

males can be achieved by keeping a low BMI or by eating very low carb,

high-protein bodybuilder diets. I think that the higher level of body

fat in the " athlete " category, 20%BF for women, and 13%BF for men,

would probably be a good goal for persons on CR.

One important consideration is that the brain is 60% fat. Keeping

overall body fat very low may cause depletion of brain fats and

interfere with mental function and cause psychological problems like

the " gray zone " which happened to Jeff Novick at BMI under 17 and body

fat close to 5-6% (see Message #25154). There are other such stories

in previous messages in our files.

With regard to 40% and 60% CR for mice, all these experiments are

started right after weaning so that the mice develop to the limit of

the available nutrients. They end up with normally proportioned

bodies which are much smaller than normal. It is not the same as

trying to shrink an adult body by reducing nutrients. Since the bones

do not shrink, severe CR started in adulthood produces lanky,

poorly-proportioned bodies.

The rodent experiments very clearly demonstrate that a 40% CR diet can

only support 50% of the body weight of the controls. The Mifflin-St

Jeor Energy Equations predict exactly the same thing for humans:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/CR-weight.html

From the energy equations, we can deduce that 16% CR may be the

maximum safe degree of calorie restriction started in adulthood. This

coincides with the finding by Keys in the Minnesota starvation studies

that the BMR of metabolically active tissue decreased by a maximum of

16%.

I am always impressed by large statistical studies that provide some

guidance about BMI and longevity. A study of about 1 million people

(PMID: 10511607) found BMI of ~23 to be associated with longest life.

Should we ignore it?

Moderate exercise also seems to improve longevity.

I think that a good list of CRON objectives would be:

1) Eat a varied diet that meets all the RDA for vitamins and minerals.

2) Make sure that you meet or exceed the 0.8g of protein per Kg of

body weight.

3) Consume enough fish and nuts to get your 15g of essential fatty

acids per day.

4) Exercise moderately from 30 to 60 minutes per day.

5) Keep your BMI in the center of the normal range (between 21 and

23). This may require you to be hungry several hours per day. (This

is the actual CR. Everything else is Optimum Nutrition)

Tony

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> For some reason a comment in one of Warren 's posts here, long

> ago, has always stuck in my mind. It was a finding that, among the

> restricted mice, those that lived the absolute longest were the ones

> which, while fed the identical very restricted diet, somehow managed to

> maintain the greatest body fat, compared with the other restricted mice.

>

> (If anyone can recall the paper which found this, please post it.)

>

> There is a number of possible explanations for this. One I particularly

> like is that perhaps the longest-lived mice were those which managed to

> avoid any exercise over and above the threshold amount absolutely

> necessary for health, thereby storing the calories as fat that the

> others were burning in exercise ; ^ ))). Another possibility is that

> the longest-lived mice had a lower 'metabolic rate', or an especially

> low body temperature. Or they could have been the more diminutive mice,

> using up fewer calories while fed the same as the others.

>

> In any event, whatever the explanation, if it is true, then focussing on

> body fat percentage as a measure of compliance with CRON, which is what

> I have been thinking is appropriate up until now, may be mistaken.

> Rather, perhaps the emphasis should be on attaining excellent typical

> CRON biomarkers** while MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST BODY FAT.

>

> In this case, perhaps it may not be helpful to squeeze the last few

> decimals out of some of the biomarkers past the point of diminishing

> returns, by dropping caloric intake appreciably further to get a

> comparatively small additional improvement in biomarker values.

>

> Instead, maybe it would be better for longevity (based on the Warren

> quote) to maintain a somewhat higher body fat, if the biomarkers

> are already very good? (I am expecting Tony to agree with this!)

>

> Of course arguing against this is the fact that one study found 60%

> restriction produced longer lifespans than 40% restriction. The 60%

> restricted animals couldn't have had a lot of spare body fat! But

> perhaps the longest lived among them were also those with the highest

> traces of body fat?

>

> Any thoughts? Even better, any papers that might help to clarify this

> issue?

>

> ** lipids, BP, CRP, glucose, insulin, T3 .......... perhaps using the

> WUSTL study subjects' data as a benchmark for 'excellent'.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

I suppose one of the things that may come out of this paper is an explanation of the data we have discussed before - that vegetarians, and especially vegans, are no healthier as a group than HEALTH-CONSCIOUS omnivores.

Perhaps the explanation is that some vegetarians consume as much or more (methionine and) fructose than omnivores, thereby skewing the health attributes of the entire group. Some of them are substantially overweight also, of course.

As you keep reminding us: "Saying they are vegetarian does not tell us what they eat ................ ."

I sure would like to see definitive clarification of whether regular fructose is hazardous. HFCS is avoidable. Fruit is avoidable. But from where I sit the conventional wisdom seems to be that HFCS definitely should be avoided, while fruit definitely should not be. It will be an eye-opener to all of us, I think, if consumption of fructose chemically identical to that in fruit is convincingly shown to be deleterious to health.

Also, it would be very helpful to know whether it is not so much fruits' naturally-occurring AGEs that are the issue (they don't contain a lot of them), but rather the AGEs that are created in the body when fructose is (perhaps) converted into them after consumption, which, it seems, may be what is important.

If so, then measurements of the AGEs contained in the fruit before consumption may not be the appropriate criterion.

All this is in urgent need of clarification. Gradually we are getting closer to the truth, but only after many twists and turns in the road it seems to me.

Imagine the potential benefits for all of us once these factors, and no doubt others we don't yet know about, are fully understood.

Rodney.

> >> > > > Hi folks:> > > > For some reason a comment in one of Warren 's posts here, long> > ago, has always stuck in my mind. It was a finding that, among the> > restricted mice, those that lived the absolute longest were the ones> > which, while fed the identical very restricted diet, somehow managed to> > maintain the greatest body fat, compared with the other restricted mice.> > > > (If anyone can recall the paper which found this, please post it.)> > > > There is a number of possible explanations for this. One I particularly> > like is that perhaps the longest-lived mice were those which managed to> > avoid any exercise over and above the threshold amount absolutely> > necessary for health, thereby storing the calories as fat that the> > others were burning in exercise ; ^ ))). Another possibility is that> > the longest-lived mice had a lower 'metabolic rate', or an especially> > low body temperature. Or they could have been the more diminutive mice,> > using up fewer calories while fed the same as the others.> > > > In any event, whatever the explanation, if it is true, then focussing on> > body fat percentage as a measure of compliance with CRON, which is what> > I have been thinking is appropriate up until now, may be mistaken. > > Rather, perhaps the emphasis should be on attaining excellent typical> > CRON biomarkers** while MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST BODY FAT.> > > > In this case, perhaps it may not be helpful to squeeze the last few> > decimals out of some of the biomarkers past the point of diminishing> > returns, by dropping caloric intake appreciably further to get a> > comparatively small additional improvement in biomarker values.> > > > Instead, maybe it would be better for longevity (based on the Warren> > quote) to maintain a somewhat higher body fat, if the biomarkers> > are already very good? (I am expecting Tony to agree with this!)> > > > Of course arguing against this is the fact that one study found 60%> > restriction produced longer lifespans than 40% restriction. The 60%> > restricted animals couldn't have had a lot of spare body fat! But> > perhaps the longest lived among them were also those with the highest> > traces of body fat?> > > > Any thoughts? Even better, any papers that might help to clarify this> > issue?> > > > ** lipids, BP, CRP, glucose, insulin, T3 .......... perhaps using the> > WUSTL study subjects' data as a benchmark for 'excellent'.> > > > Rodney.> >>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

My argument I think is this:

1. AGEs are generally agreed to be deleterious to health.

2. Vegetarians have been shown to have levels of AGEs that are higher than those of omnivores. And that is odd because AGEs are usually associated with the consumption of high fat animal products and food preparation at high temperatures, neither of which are expected characteristics of vegetarian diets.

3. Some are suggesting the explanation for the apparently higher levels of AGEs in vegetarians may be the conversion of fructose in foods eaten to AGEs internally after consumption. (PMID: 12234125 )

4. If this is really true, and if low levels of AGEs are desirable, then it has some pretty interesting implications as regards the type of diet most likely to be associated with lower levels of AGE biomarkers. Like: "avoid foods containing unusually large quantities of fructose."

Now of course there may well be a flaw in the above logic. And if someone knows what it is, please explain. But if not, how many of us (not me for a start) have, up to this point, been actively pursuing a diet that, among many other characteristics, is low in fructose?

Should we be?

Rodney.

>> I assume you mean hazardous as in lifespan, because certainly HFCS is> "nutritious", ie, too much so. It's the excess perhaps that increases weight> in some people - certainly not all.> > But you go on as if "being" obese is life shortening. Perhaps it is, but I> don't see it as a premise.> It is more likely higher risk in mortality, which can be overcome with> better medical practices.> > HFCS is probably a great agent for athletes who consume maybe 6000 kcals per> day in their training, but not for me walking 3 miles per day.> In any case it seems that vegetarians maybe have more training using a> "good" diet.> > Realizing that people are different in their capacity to absorb or reject> nutrients, exercise, grow or reduce weight, the choice of a "standard" diet> for CRON seems to me silly.> > It is still my belief that humans can eat anything, as long as they control> their growth which they should have started at 20 yo. If they grew too large> that is a different medical requirement altogether.> > The stats we continue to look at are people who are not us. The centenarians> are not CRONers, not vegans, not 7th Day Adventists or Mormons, ie, not> anything in particular.> We have an advantage with drugs that control our systems that evolution> created but didn't necessarily design for >120 yrs.> > The best thing for a CRON objective is to make sure we don't do something> silly and result in something like osteoporosis, eg. I don't want to be one> of those "150 yo" mice that in autopsy bones were easily cut with the> scalpel.> > Each person's FX has an effect on their objective. I for example, have> little concern with CVD or cancer or diabetes, rather dementia. Maybe kidney> disease or stroke, at age.> So my diet is least fat, and lower protein than average. Maybe not the diet> for a diabetic.> > IOW, you wouldn't like my rice, fruit and ffmilk emphasis, but that for one> reason or another remains.> > Regards> > > > > > [ ] Re: Setting CRON Objectives> > > Hi Jeff:> I suppose one of the things that may come out of this paper is an> explanation of the data we have discussed before - that vegetarians, and> especially vegans, are no healthier as a group than HEALTH-CONSCIOUS> omnivores.> Perhaps the explanation is that some vegetarians consume as much or more> (methionine and) fructose than omnivores, thereby skewing the health> attributes of the entire group. Some of them are substantially overweight> also, of course.> As you keep reminding us: "Saying they are vegetarian does not tell us what> they eat ................ ."> I sure would like to see definitive clarification of whether regular> fructose is hazardous. HFCS is avoidable.>

[Guest guest]

I never quite understood the appeal to prehistoric anthropology in

fashioning the 'perfect' nutritional diet. 26 million years from NOW

will they look back and say " For proper choice eat what your ancestors

ate 26 million years from ago! " ??

Personally, I care little what they ate to survive way back then. It's

all conjecture anyway. They ate what they could find at that

particular time. Why do we assume their choice the best choice? I'll

let constantly evolving scientific method fashion my choice.

bill4cr

>

> Just questions.

> Ask her what our ancestors ate when they lived in trees 26 mill

years ago.

> Weren't those trees flowering?

>

> Was the " fruit " like a pear or a nut? Did it not contain fructose or

> glucose(dextrose)?

>

> Why did plants evolve the technique of feeding the animal to spread the

> seed?

>

> Regards

>

> Re: [ ] Re: Setting CRON Objectives

>

> My Granny says, and she is never wrong, that glucose is the foundation

> carbohydrate, perhaps as much as 3 billion years old. Fructose, is a

> johnny-come-lately, evolving with the flowering plants and selected for

> because it tastes sweeter than glucose. Glucose can be metabolised

by a wide

> variety of cells, fructose is handled largely by the liver.

> Our ancestors of eons ago may only have had large glycemic loads of

fructose

> in the fall, when there was abundant ripe fruit ......

> The Finns very recently (damn them) devised methods to enzymatically

convert

> corn starch to fructose at a cost lower than the prior cheap sweetener,

> sucrose. Therefore the vast array of fructose loaded foods and

drinks in any

> of our supermarkets.

> My Granny is 4' 10 " , 90 lbs, is asthmatic, but has a clear mind. She

will

> answer any and all of your questions

> Oupa with a grin

>