Re: More CR Data from Dr. Fontana

[Guest guest]

Do the other 70% on calorie restriction die *with* diseases normally related to

aging? That would mean that even with CRON we have a better than 2/3rds chance

of dying *from* a disease related to aging?

>

> Hi folks:

>

> " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an advanced age

without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana says. " In contrast,

among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent) develop and

die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease. "

>

> Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100)

instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

70% is a vast improvement over 94%:)Jeff

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:13 PM, vvg88r wrote:

Do the other 70% on calorie restriction die *with* diseases normally related to aging? That would mean that even with CRON we have a better than 2/3rds chance of dying *from* a disease related to aging?

>

> Hi folks:

>

> "About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging," Fontana says. "In contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent) develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease."

>

> Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100) instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi:

Or, put slightly differently, 30% disease-free sounds even better still ......

compared with 6% disease-free. Five times as many.

Especially when the reason for the 6% is that they die after being hit by a

truck, metaphorically, before having the opportunity to die of an age-related

disease.

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

[This is a bit like when they do studies of 'healthy adults with no CVD'. What

they mean is that the subjects when the study starts have not quite yet started

experiencing the chest pains that will be sending them to the doctor's office,

next week in some cases. If, instead, they defined 'healthy subjects with no

CVD' as:

'with carotid IMT of less than 0.6; blood pressure of 100/60 and ratio of total

cholesterol to HDL of 2.5' the only subjects they would be able to locate would

be people established on CR. IMO the vast majority of study subjects listed as

having no CVD actually already have considerable stenosis of their arteries.

They are said to be CVD-free only because their arteries are not yet clogged

enough to be causing overt symptoms. Almost everyone has appreciable blockage

of their arteries.]

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

But the answer for wg88r is 'Yes'. Remember, blocked arteries, something CR is

well able to prevent, is not the only cause of heart disease. It seems

reasonable to assume that while CR helps heart health in other respects also -

diastolic function for example - it likely cannot prevent every different type

of heart issue.

: ^ )))

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an advanced

age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana says. " In contrast,

among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent) develop and

die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease. "

> > >

> > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100)

instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> > >

> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> > >

> > > Rodney.

> > >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" Five times as many " spins better but... 7 out of 10 eating CR will die from

cancer, CVD or some other " disease of aging " in a similar fashion to those

eating ad lib.

Doesn't this surprise you, it does me. I would have thought CRON to be much more

protective against disease and mortality esp since it purports to extend maximum

lifespan too.

How about that?

> >

> > > Do the other 70% on calorie restriction die *with* diseases normally

related to aging? That would mean that even with CRON we have a better than

2/3rds chance of dying *from* a disease related to aging?

> > >

> > > --- In , " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi folks:

> > > >

> > > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an

advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana says. " In

contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent)

develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart

disease. "

> > > >

> > > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100)

instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> > > >

> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> > > >

> > > > Rodney.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

CRON just postpones the inevitable. Nobody lives forever. (Not yet anyway).

And if they did, that would cause a whole new set of problems.

On 4/24/10 4:43 PM, " vvg88r " <vvg88r@...> wrote:

" Five times as many " spins better but... 7 out of 10 eating CR will die from cancer, CVD or some other " disease of aging " in a similar fashion to those eating ad lib.

Doesn't this surprise you, it does me. I would have thought CRON to be much more protective against disease and mortality esp since it purports to extend maximum lifespan too.

How about that?

> > > >

> > > > Hi folks:

> > > >

> > > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana says. " In contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent) develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease. "

> > > >

> > > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100) instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> > > >

> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> > > >

> > > > Rodney.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Your immune system needs to be measured and found to be superior (supplements,

blood tests) or would you need to move to an island and lead a primitive life.

Even then, what washes up on the shore may cause you problems. You are

discounting environmental factors such as air and water pollution; New

carcinogens and other toxins that are available in all the plastics that you use

and touch or the carpets that you walk upon, etc. are produced every day. The

keyboard that I am typing on and the mouse that I am using to produce this is

probably delivering BPA and fire retardants into my hands and fingers.

You will die of something until immortality is achieved (within the next 100

years or so) and even then you will still die by an accident or some

disease--you just won't age and I personally would prefer to live a life like

that.

I still believe that you will benefit from CR and do better than your non-CR

peers. Be aware of your surroundings and study all you can about all the toxins

around you and do the best that you can. Information is power.

JCE

> > >

> > > > Do the other 70% on calorie restriction die *with* diseases normally

related to aging? That would mean that even with CRON we have a better than

2/3rds chance of dying *from* a disease related to aging?

> > > >

> > > > --- In , " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi folks:

> > > > >

> > > > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an

advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana says. " In

contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent)

develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart

disease. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100)

instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> > > > >

> > > > > Rodney.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

From what I hear fontana say is that, 30% of LONGEST lived mice on CR have NO

obvious pathologies or diseases. Whereas only a few of the longest survivors in

the control group have no diseases but die at a much earlier age also.

I don't think that CVD is going to be a cause of death amongst CRers either.

Seriously.

[Guest guest]

Francesca,

You are correct that no one lives forever (yet).

I'm just trying to get those stats into my dumb head. Never great at math, and

stats really confuse me.

On this note, does anyone have a great site that explains the stats of medical

studies? Much appreciated if you could post the same.

If 70% of those on CRON die of the same diseases of the ad lib population, do we

die much later?

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > Hi folks:

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at

an

> >>>>> advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana

> >>>>> says. " In contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority

> >>>>> (94 percent) develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as

> >>>>> cancer or heart disease. "

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20

to

> >>>>> 100) instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > Rodney.

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>> > > >

> >>>> > > >

> >>> > >

> >> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I don't think that there are enough humans on CR to have valid statistics yet

about the causes of death. I have some statistics from the CDC about mortality

in a web page:

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

The top ten causes of death in 2005 in the U.S. were:

* Heart Disease: 652,091

* Cancer: 559,312

* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579

* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933

* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809

* Diabetes: 75,119

* Alzheimer's disease: 71,599

* Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001

* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901

* Septicemia: 34,136

Let us assume that CR will eliminate the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and

stroke. Also let us assume that cancer and the chronic lower respiratory

diseases are the result of smoking, and that we don't smoke.

This means that people on CR are likely to die from accidents, Alzheimer's, or

viral or bacterial infections that cause influenza/pneumonia or septicemia.

There are still many other causes of death that CR will not prevent. CR did not

protect Dr. Walford from ALS.

Even if the risk of cancer is smaller for people on CR, it is not zero. There

are many factors that contribute to cancer, some of which we can control.

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

Tony

>

> Francesca,

>

> You are correct that no one lives forever (yet).

>

> I'm just trying to get those stats into my dumb head. Never great at math, and

stats really confuse me.

>

> On this note, does anyone have a great site that explains the stats of medical

studies? Much appreciated if you could post the same.

>

> If 70% of those on CRON die of the same diseases of the ad lib population, do

we die much later?

>

[Guest guest]

The entire human CRON experiment is just that – an experiment.

Many of us (myself included) are just aiming for “healthy” as we head into old age.

On 4/26/10 1:56 PM, " vvg88r " <vvg88r@...> wrote:

Francesca,

You are correct that no one lives forever (yet).

I'm just trying to get those stats into my dumb head. Never great at math, and stats really confuse me.

On this note, does anyone have a great site that explains the stats of medical studies? Much appreciated if you could post the same.

If 70% of those on CRON die of the same diseases of the ad lib population, do we die much later?

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > Hi folks:

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an

> >>>>> advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana

> >>>>> says. " In contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority

> >>>>> (94 percent) develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as

> >>>>> cancer or heart disease. "

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to

> >>>>> 100) instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>>> > > > > Rodney.

> >>>>> > > > >

> >>>> > > >

> >>>> > > >

> >>> > >

> >> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Achieving immortality is an opinion of the fringe such as De Grey, not mainstream science. So dream on.

Microbes keep mutating to keep a step ahead of us; and even if we conquer disease, --- war, terrorism and other threats have been around since the dawn of man.

On 4/26/10 12:44 PM, " johnceberhardt " <johnceberhardt@...> wrote:

Your immune system needs to be measured and found to be superior (supplements, blood tests) or would you need to move to an island and lead a primitive life. Even then, what washes up on the shore may cause you problems. You are discounting environmental factors such as air and water pollution; New carcinogens and other toxins that are available in all the plastics that you use and touch or the carpets that you walk upon, etc. are produced every day. The keyboard that I am typing on and the mouse that I am using to produce this is probably delivering BPA and fire retardants into my hands and fingers.

You will die of something until immortality is achieved (within the next 100 years or so) and even then you will still die by an accident or some disease--you just won't age and I personally would prefer to live a life like that.

I still believe that you will benefit from CR and do better than your non-CR peers. Be aware of your surroundings and study all you can about all the toxins around you and do the best that you can. Information is power.

JCE

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi folks:

> > > > >

> > > > > " About 30 percent of the animals on calorie restriction die at an advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging, " Fontana says. " In contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent) develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Sounds good to me. Healthy productive lifespan of 80 years (20 to 100) instead of 30 years (20 to 50)?

> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100415141123.htm

> > > > >

> > > > > Rodney.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

Do you know what happens to the other 70% on CR? Odd's are that's where i (we

all) will end up.

>

> From what I hear fontana say is that, 30% of LONGEST lived mice on CR have NO

obvious pathologies or diseases. Whereas only a few of the longest survivors in

the control group have no diseases but die at a much earlier age also.

>

> I don't think that CVD is going to be a cause of death amongst CRers either.

Seriously.

>

[Guest guest]

But there are MANY centenarians.

They keep popping up in my county of 47,000 people, almost weekly.

And >20000 die each year since 1999.

Maybe because they went thru the depression?

By 2035, it may seem like forever.

Regards

Re: [ ] Re: More CR Data from Dr. Fontana

The entire human CRON experiment is just that – an experiment.Many of us (myself included) are just aiming for “healthy” as we head into old age. On 4/26/10 1:56 PM, "vvg88r" <vvg88r > wrote:

Francesca, You are correct that no one lives forever (yet).I'm just trying to get those stats into my dumb head. Never great at math, and stats really confuse me.On this note, does anyone have a great site that explains the stats of medical studies? Much appreciated if you could post the same.If 70% of those on CRON die of the same diseases of the ad lib population, do we die much later?> > >