Re: CR, hormesis and moderation

[Guest guest]

Are we allowed to use the word "hormesis" in a public forum? After I got out of the microwave (it's really hot in there!), I read the rest of this post ~ should have read the whole thing first I guess...at any rate, is there a guideline for optimum CR. I sort of thought that by definition CRON would be self regulating in that one might have a tough time securing "optimum nutrition" at extreme levels of caloric restriction, but perhaps that is not the case. I would be interested in knowing more about "problems" or "stuff" experienced by individuals practicing extreme CR ~ by the way, I would like to learn about these issues BEFORE I get back into the microwave. Is there a resource for problems that have been experienced by CRON practitioners? Dave

----- Original Message -----

From: Micky Snir

Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 10:05 AM

Subject: [ ] CR, hormesis and moderation

Francesca, I hereby grant you permission to forward any email I send toCrSociety to this list ( ).Micky.-----Original Message-----From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:39 AMMicky SnirSubject: Micky.....I agree!! Could you post this to the support list? I have longworriedabout the "extremists" - there's a fine line between CR andstarvation........Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:23:17 -0700From: Micky Snir <mickys@...>Subject: CR, hormesis and moderationIf you hate long emails (like I do), you can skip to the "ResearchProposal" at the end (or to "My Point" a paragraph above it).Lets consider hormesis as the method that extends life via CR. Nowalthough saying "hormesis" is like saying "we don't know how, but itworks!" and although hormesis may have nothing to do with CR, I wouldstill like to use the analogy of hormesis to CR. I will use the hormesiseffect of ionizing radiation.Lets assume that the life-span (LS) with zero radiation is 60, LS with 1radiation is 70, LS with 2 radiation is 80, LS with 3 radiation is 70,with 4 60 and with 5 50. (lack of units is intentional).It's quite obvious that we would want to live with a radiation of 2 formaximal life span. (Some might get "confused", and if given the choicebetween radiation of 1 or 3 would never take 3... but it doesn't matter,LS wise.) The problem is that we don't know what radiation of "2" is,and even if we did, there would be variance among people's "2".Now let's assume you are born into a world with no radiation at all. Atsome point in your adult life, you decide you want to live longer(forever?) because life is so great for you. You happen to stumble uponDr Woolford's book "The 120 Year Radiation Therapy" that tells you thatif you buy the expensive ionizing radiation apparatus, it will cost youonly about an extra $500 per month to get enough radiation to safelyextend your life. The problem with Dr Woolford's book, is that it has nodirect evidence for humans (only rats and such), and it also seems thatthe exact radiation profile for max benefits is not clear (exactradiation spectrum distribution and intensity as a function of time andhealth status is not clear, nor the exposed body areas).You decide your life is precious, and you buy the apparatus, but due tolack of money you use radiation at about only $300 per month. You jointhe Radiation mailing list, and some M. Ray guy says that each $100 ofradiation is worth an extra day of living, per month (some restrictionsapply... small print). You happen to win the lottery, and since money isnot a problem now, you go on a $1000 radiation per month regimen. Theweird skin disorders you had started to disappear, and after a whilecompletely healed! It works! Dr. Woolford is a genius! Hail radiationtherapy! (anyone read Solzhenitsyn's book?)A few years down the road you are starting to feel bad. Could it becancer? Would stopping the radiation "therapy" help, or is it too lateand too much damage has accumulated?My point: human CR is experimental. No one knows the calorie restrictionlevel, in which it is beneficial in humans, and calorie-restrictionexacerbates the need for optimized nutrition, and surprise: the variancein opinions (for optimal nutrition) is amazing! Just consider the mostbasic argument over macronutrient ratios!Getting back to my analogy above: could it be that restricting caloriestoo much, especially with un-optimized nutrition, would causeirreparable damage, or at least cause damage that will shorten the lifespan? I mean, I'm reading on this mailing list all kinds of weird"stuff" that happens to the seemingly more extreme members, and itvirtually scares me. But... how much is too much?One of the missing pieces of the CR puzzle is the markers of a tooextreme CR.Research Proposal: perform a too-extreme CR experiment with rats, andtry to find out the markers of a too-extreme CR (besides the obviouspre-mature death :-) ). This should benefit the human CR community: wewill know what to watch out for.Micky.-------------------