Re: CR vs. ON(was Atkins WAS: hypoglycemia)

[Guest guest]

Count me in the " disagrees with you " camp. I believe " you are what you

eat " . Now that they're discovering the potency of the different

fruits/veggies in preventing disease, I truly believe therein lies the

answers. And I truly believe you'll live longer/better with just the ON

part of CRON. How could it be otherwise if you eliminate the major

illnesses that kill such as heart and cancer? Also if you eat enough fruits

and veggies, it'll " naturally " cause you to eat less (you'll fill up on the

fiber).

on 9/19/2002 1:17 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote:

> IMO, what matters first is calorie restriction, and what matters third

> is Optimal/Adequate nutrition (and I know there are others on the list

> that disagrees.

[Guest guest]

The evidence is clear: the calorie-restricted rats lived much healthier

and longer lives than the rats that ate the _same amount of nutrients_ but more

calories. I know of no evidence that shows that rats live _that much_ healthier

and longer lives only by giving them a “better” diet on the same

calorie intake.

It’s in the Walford book.

If we believe CR works for humans, this means: restrict calories. The rest

is tweaking. If you just tweak, but don’t restrict, then sure, you will

be a bit healthier and live a bit longer, but not as much as from CR. In

Walford’s words: show me the 45 months old rat on a non-CR diet.

And to quote Rae: “I

would, of course, be delighted to see studies on folks consuming genuinely

optimal AL vegetarian & Paleo

diets. But, OTOH, from what we know this is all tweaking: from available

evidence, a CRONie eating Big Macs, Burger King fries, and a multivitamin will

outlive all of 'em.”

Tough, provoking, but that

what the evidence says…

Micky.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

[mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002

10:39 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] CR

vs. ON(was Atkins WAS: hypoglycemia)

Count me in the " disagrees with you "

camp. I believe " you are what you

eat " . Now that they're discovering the

potency of the different

fruits/veggies in preventing disease, I truly

believe therein lies the

answers. And I truly believe you'll live

longer/better with just the ON

part of CRON. How could it be

otherwise if you eliminate the major

illnesses that kill such as heart and

cancer? Also if you eat enough fruits

and veggies, it'll " naturally " cause you

to eat less (you'll fill up on the

fiber).

on 9/19/2002 1:17 PM, Micky Snir at

mickys@... wrote:

> IMO, what matters first is calorie

restriction, and what matters third

> is Optimal/Adequate nutrition (and I know

there are others on the list

> that disagrees.

To unsubscribe from this

group, send an email to:

-unsubscribeegroups

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

Micky: Perhaps if you could show/tell us where you found this (so we could

figure out if you're comparing apples or oranges or not) ?

From what you write below, you're not comparing CR'd rats on a so-so diet to

ad lib rats on a " superior " diet.

on 9/19/2002 2:12 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote:

> The evidence is clear: the calorie-restricted rats lived much healthier

> and longer lives than the rats that ate the _same amount of nutrients_

> but more calories. I know of no evidence that shows that rats live _that

> much_ healthier and longer lives only by giving them a " better " diet on

> the same calorie intake.

>

> It's in the Walford book.

>

[Guest guest]

The rats in the experiments did not eat “healthy”

food. They ate rat-chow. Hardly anything “natural” or “fresh”.

They did not eat fresh veggies etc.

Here’s why they ate rat-chow: it’s

standardized; thus the experiment can be controlled. It’s very hard to

control broccoli and cabbage (nutrient-wise), but it’s very easy to

create rat chow with controlled caloric value, identical macro-nutrient ratios,

but different nutrient (vitamin and mineral contents, by adding multi-vitamins

to the chow!) levels.

Walford’s experiments showed that

restricting calories without restricting nutrients extends maximum life span

(and mean life span) by up to 80%.

Can you show me an experiment that

extended maximum life span in say, 5% just by making a diet healthier, but

keeping calorie intake identical? I bet no. You might be able to come up with

experiments that show that rats or a superior iso-caloric diet had a 5% (or so)

mean (but not maximum!) life-span. You might be able to show that rats on a REALLY

BAD diet live less and are less healthy. Now that’s were the heat turns

on, and people hearing ”Atkins” think of pork-rinds and margarine,

and say: “but Atkins diet is REALLY BAD”. Well, what I wrote below,

which was snipped, is that there’s a healthy way of the Atkins diet which

I outlined briefly. No pork-rinds (or processed food for that matter), no

margarine, no butter, no charred steaks and no lots of high-fat cheese. Yes vegetables,

yes some berries, low-fat cheese, fish, poultry, eggs (remove the yolk if you

like), a bit of red-meat (grass fed if you like), soy if you like, whey, nuts, seeds

and like the rats: a good multi-vitamin. BTW, for those that did not read any

of the Atkins book: only the induction phase which is limited in time (a few

weeks) severely limits carb intake to 30gms/day (and in my opinion this phase

can be skipped). Later on one can eat about 100-200gms of carbs a day on the maintanace

diet, which is quite a lot of veggies (not potatoes though…).

That said, I repeat another part that I wrote

and was snipped: I believe that this is not OPTIMAL, thus I increased veggie

and berry intake, and reduced fat (nut) intake, in order to maintain caloric

intake, and now I’m of a Zone-like diet. However, it WAS OPTIMAL when I started

CR, because it allowed me to conquer the hunger more easily, and as I learned

to manage hunger I gradually replaced some fat with more veggies.

Micky.

P.S. I think snipping is perfectly ok.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

[mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday,

September 19, 2002 11:25 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] CR

vs. ON(was Atkins WAS: hypoglycemia)

Micky: Perhaps if you could show/tell us where

you found this (so we could

figure out

if you're comparing apples or oranges or not) ?

From what

you write below, you're not comparing CR'd rats on a so-so diet to

ad lib rats

on a " superior " diet.

on 9/19/2002 2:12 PM, Micky Snir at

mickys@... wrote:

> The

evidence is clear: the calorie-restricted rats lived much healthier

> and

longer lives than the rats that ate the _same amount of nutrients_

> but

more calories. I know of no evidence that shows that rats live _that

> much_

healthier and longer lives only by giving them a " better " diet on

> the

same calorie intake.

>

> It's in

the Walford book.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi again Micky: Walford states that doing just the ON part of CRON will

enhance health. He never says that just doing the CR part will enhance

health. In fact on pg 62 of " Beyond " : " Simply launching yourself on a

hit-or-miss, long term, low calorie diet would not work well. It might even

shorten your life span " .

Now I know you don't particularly put 100% stock in everything Walford says.

However, he's the scientist who developed the diet we follow, so I'm going

to trust him. Whenever he's been doubted in the past, we seem to land up

coming back to the Walfordian way of doing things. At least that's how I

see it anyway.

P.S. You may call what you're on the " Atkins " diet. But I call it the

" Sears " diet.

on 9/19/2002 2:57 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote:

> The rats in the experiments did not eat " healthy " food. They ate

> rat-chow. Hardly anything " natural " or " fresh " . They did not eat fresh

> veggies etc.

>

(snipped)

[Guest guest]

Walford is correct in the sense that if

you embark on a calorie restricted diet, but do not take care to NOT reduce

your nutrient intake, then you may harm yourself. Yes, you will benefit from ON

but so much less than from CRON.

As for being the “who developed the

diet we follow“ I have to disagree. We are not following his diet. We are

merely applying his lab-rat findings in our human lives. He’s the great

scientist that showed us all how to extend the maximum life span of lab rats,

but has not the matching credentials in human diet. He’s also a very good

scientist as can be seen in BT120YD page 22: “The Nature of Evidence”,

and applying what you read in this chapter to his “diet”, you find

out that his “diet” is not very well evidence based. IMO, W was “afraid”

of people not getting enough nutrients (and rightly so; this was the reason why

initial rat DR experiments failed), thus it made sense to cut down to a minimum

the “empty calories” such as sugar (right on!) fat (nope) and

protein (big nope). I repeat: W was big in extending lab-rat max-LS, not on

extending real-life human LS. Besides, there’s lots of new evidence since

he wrote his books.

I agree that we owe everything to W. He’s

tha man. He changed my life for the best. He was right on the CR thing, but not

so on his interpretation of the ON thing. There’s new evidence around. Good

evidence.

Micky.

P.S. I know.

I WAS on Atkins (well, actually I was on Rob Faigin), and now I’m on

Sears, but I hate to use his name, so I call it Zone-like.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

[mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday,

September 19, 2002 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] CR

vs. ON(was Atkins WAS: hypoglycemia)

Hi again Micky: Walford states that doing just

the ON part of CRON will

enhance

health. He never says that just doing the CR part will enhance

health. In

fact on pg 62 of " Beyond " : " Simply launching yourself on

a

hit-or-miss,

long term, low calorie diet would not work well. It might even

shorten your

life span " .

Now I know

you don't particularly put 100% stock in everything Walford says.

However,

he's the scientist who developed the diet we follow, so I'm going

to trust

him. Whenever he's been doubted in the past, we seem to land up

coming back

to the Walfordian way of doing things. At least that's how I

see it

anyway.

P.S.

You may call what you're on the " Atkins " diet. But I call it

the

" Sears "

diet.

on 9/19/2002 2:57 PM, Micky Snir at

mickys@... wrote:

> The

rats in the experiments did not eat " healthy " food. They ate

>

rat-chow. Hardly anything " natural " or " fresh " . They did

not eat fresh

> veggies

etc.

>

(snipped)