Thought about the vality of CR.

[Guest guest]

> Has it occured to you that some may think exactly the same way about

> Weil, Walford and Ornish? You claim these people are more credible and

> leave it at that. Now imagine if everyone did this. There would be no

> debates, no exchange of knowledge, no shifts in paradigm. The idea of

> CR obviously has appeal with you and you have a vested interest in it

> being correct, but is it impossible to consider that the idea is not

> as true as we once presumed? How about keeping an open mind? You ask

I agree that you should keep an open mind and be critical about

everything

and question all the things. But after years of study

(perhaps after you finish your Ph.D.) you will still have doubts. And the

only

thing that will appear to make sense to you, will be the fact that CR is the

only way to go if you want to retard aging.

Well , what these cientists you mentioned did, were just an

experimental

*constatation* . No discover at all :

Restrict calories the creature ate ------> The creature live

longer.

***** That's all. *****

Seems ironic! But

nobody (neither Walford, neither Weindruch, nor any other

explained the reason **why** CR works, and thus tested an anti-aging

medicine

that mimicked CR effects making creatures live longer, appear young and

enjoy

food as much as they can!! Nobody knows it !!!!

If somebody discover (oh! yes! Nobel Prize to him/her!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Hundreds of books are being written, hundreds of experiments (and

hungry mices)

are being done. Hundreds of gene chips being buyed, hundreds of dollares

being waste....

and small talks at coffee breaks .......an suddnelly (bingo!!) **no**

answer at all.

Hhahahahaahaha....

I wish I could be young forever. Live forever.

Because loosing my beaulty and strenght is something that scares me.

But I can't.

Aging goes on and on and on... until I die.

The experiments were reproducible IN ALMOST ** all ** creatures tested

(with

very few exceptions).

To date no experiment already proved the diet works in monkeys, neither

in humans.

> me whether I'm affiliated with them (which is an obvious no) but a

> more pertinent question would be if you're affiliated with Walford and

> co. Should we take the world of Linus ing because he won a noble

> prize? What about Atkins since he's more popular? How about looking

> at the evidence and trying to make an honest evaluation? I'm reading

> both sides and trying to make an honest evaluation. But when one side

> simply calls the other quacks without addressing their statements it

> makes me question the advice they dole out.

No! Linus ing is not God. He was a very smart and brillant

scientist,

but he didn't solve the problem he proposed (which me and millions of people

are

researching: The protein folding problem).

There are more open questions in science and biochemistry than you

could

even imagine. I guess that *by* your words you have a bit aumount of

scientific

blood runing into your veins. My advice is: keep studying ! Anotate what

you

think, investigate, and help us to solve the aging problem! If you have

the opportunity to meet Prolla, Weindruch or some other scientist, please do

it!

I don't have such opportunity because I don't have money to travel by

now.

But anyway I'm researching here with some founds here.

Keep your criticism and go ahead with your studies.

You are in the right way.

In all respect.

-- Gandhi.

>