Re: Thoughts on macronutrients by Fallon and Enig

[Guest guest]

> can you explain the corn oil and sucrose thing to

> me or do you believe it to be outright lying? If

> it were true, what would your thoughts be?

It's not true of all the CR studies, and they still get the same results, so

therefore I'd feel comfortable saying it's not a determining factor.

X + a = z

X + b = z

X + c = z

If that's the case (with a, b, & c being dietary factors, X being CR, and z

being life-extension), then obviously the distinctions between a, b, & c are

not the determining factors, but rather their commonalities, which for all

intents and purposes seems to be gross calorie count in the context of

reasonably adequate nutrition.

Nonetheless, pull up a broad sampling of the CR studies on pubmed, from a

variety of different locales, schools, and scholars, and find out what they

actually fed their animals. That should probably satisfy the question,

though I'd still not trust macro & micronutrient profiles are necessarily

pertaining to human dietary needs in all areas.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

> Andy,

>

> Yes exactly! How about some ~specifics~ which refute them? BTW, I

> was once accused of listening to whoever was more eloquent but are

> you not applying a similar bias by dismissing them because they

> ~sound~ 'unscientific' to you?

*****Hey, ...I admit it! I AM biased. No question about it.

From all the reading, research, and literature I have " consumed " (pun

intended), I come to Fallon & Enig with *predispositions* (read:

bias). The notion of " pure objectivity " is just that, a Myth, but

not something that human beings have, for the most part.

The " wiring " which runs us, the unconscious drives arising from our

innate and personal conditioning, predispose us to view things in

certain ways. There is nothing wrong with that. It is simply the

way things are.

> Perhaps they do sound angry but if you look at it from their point

> of view it makes more sense. Suppose you knew that millions upon

> millions of dollars and corporate greed were invested in promoting

> toxic oils which are killing people...would you not be outraged and

> reach out to the public?

*****And I agree with some of their anger. I share the same anger

towards the multibillion dollar food industry, for many reasons (not

all of them are the same as Fallon's however). That anger played a

role in my adopting the type of diet I now use (very little refined

foods, very very little refined sugar).

However, when I read some of their statements that dramatically

contradict what I've been reading for years from peer-reviewed

journals...well...I find that worthy of looking at and taking notice

of. And at the same time...their is suspicion. If they have found

The Truth...wouldn't it appear in far more widespread publications?

Wouldn't other serious, respected researchers take up the cause,

duplicated their experiments, provide documented support?

Their " cause " seems to be isolated to a few, small groups which hold

similar positions (and that doesn't make them wrong, either...I'm

just pointing out how limited their scope is...they may still be

correct in their assertions).

I suspect that we will never know The Truth about all this (the

interplay of diet, health and longevity) until much more research is

done on the genetic level. And even there, we may find that there

are both cultural and individual differences (not one diet, CRON or

otherwise, is 'right' for every 'body'). How the body sustains

itself is probably a complex mix that results from psychological

states, environmental factors (food, water, air, surrounding

chemicals), and the innate genetic makeup of the individual. To hope

for the Holy Grail of Longevity/Nutrition, one that will " fit " each

person, is probably a pipe dream.

So then...what do we do? We each read the same words and discover

that we " hear " them somewhat differently due to our own, unique and

innate conditioning. And then we go out and find " supporting

documentation " to buttress " our " position. And then we argue with

each other, the subtext often being " Ohhh...if I could only convince

him, her, or them, then I'd be more secure that my position

is 'right.' " :-)))

The situation is too complex for certainty. There are too many

factors, both individual and global, to expect certainty in this (or

most other) realms. Walford and other respected researchers rarely

talk in terms of " certainty. " They usually couch their statements in

terms of " orders of probability. " That is probably the best one can

do, at this time.

~ andy

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> Could it be possible that the food given to these

> mice is in itself unhealthy and therefore reducing

> it leads to increased longevity? That seems like a

> plausible scenario, no?

In a word, no, though your question is plausible given the context of

discussions so far. The reason I'd say 'no' is because the diets have been

varied too much in the studies for that to be the case, and more to the

point, the effect is *not* one of an increase in average lifespan within the

context of the normal maximum lifespan, but rather an increase in both the

average and maximum lifespans themselves, which points to some other very

different effect than a simple reduction of morbidity due to disease

reduction.

IOW, as Walford puts it, in ancient Rome half the population was dead by 22

(average lifespan), but some very few outsiders did make it to around 110

(maximum lifespan). Now, the average (where half of us are dead) seem to be

around 75-80 and depends on a host of issues, but the maximum lifespan still

remains around 110 (with those few very rare exceptions, which seem to be

very largely based on genetic predisposition). The reasons are sanitary,

medical, and nutrition based, and they DO play a very important role in

average lifespan, but they have absolutely no effect on the maximum lifespan

seen in those lucky individuals that will appear in any population sample of

a reasonable size, regardless of the quality of diet and general sanitation

or medical services.

Same for mice, where the average is 28 months and the maximum is around 1100

days, but with a calorically restricted diet (with a variant of actual

macro/micronutrient profiles) the average goes up to 47 months and the

maximum to around 1900 days. That's a pretty significant difference, and

since it's based not just on lab mice average lifespans (wild, pet, etc...,

just *try* to get them to live longer than 3 years on any ad lib diet), it

would seem that nutrition isn't the determining factor.

Make sense? It has also been replicated in long-lived mouse breeds,

disease-susceptible mouse breeds, short-lived mouse breeds, obese mouse

breeds, and many others, as well as in Rats, fish, spiders, etc... (though

the average and maximum lifespans obviously vary with different breeds in

each species).

Either way, make sure you enjoy the way you choose to eat and live life

fully. An obsessive attention to the diet can (but not necessarily will)

ruin one's life, even while extending it. I go off CR while teaching in

Greece and routinely take my partner out for dinner -- I still enjoy good

wines, brandies, and other such things, but do maintain an otherwise

nutritious diet that is moderately restricted. As Francesca pointed out

though, at 17, you probably don't want to restrict your consumption anyway,

since you're not fully grown yet. Develop a nutritious diet you like and

can live with, and then maybe consider caloric restriction in five years

time if the evidence for it is strong enough for you.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

If you happen to know this would you mind telling me if the studies

mimic how they would eat in the wild? It seems like a plausible

scenario that CR is working because it limits the amount of junk

they're recieiving.

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

> > can you explain the corn oil and sucrose thing to

> > me or do you believe it to be outright lying? If

> > it were true, what would your thoughts be?

>

> It's not true of all the CR studies, and they still get the same

results, so

> therefore I'd feel comfortable saying it's not a determining factor.

>

> X + a = z

> X + b = z

> X + c = z

>

> If that's the case (with a, b, & c being dietary factors, X being

CR, and z

> being life-extension), then obviously the distinctions between a, b,

& c are

> not the determining factors, but rather their commonalities, which

for all

> intents and purposes seems to be gross calorie count in the context of

> reasonably adequate nutrition.

>

> Nonetheless, pull up a broad sampling of the CR studies on pubmed,

from a

> variety of different locales, schools, and scholars, and find out

what they

> actually fed their animals. That should probably satisfy the question,

> though I'd still not trust macro & micronutrient profiles are

necessarily

> pertaining to human dietary needs in all areas.

>

> Cheers,

>

> ________________________

> Gifford

> 3-5 Humanities Centre

> Department of English

> University of Alberta

> www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

You raise a good point--why haven't prominent scientists mentioned

this? If you have 4 hours or so to spare I highly suggest that your

'The Cholesterol Myths' which touches on this. It shows how

'reputable' sources have lied and falsified statistics in order to

maintain government grants and their high salaries. It shows how

prominent studies will pick 7 out of 22 data points to suit their needs.

-

> > Andy,

> >

> > Yes exactly! How about some ~specifics~ which refute them? BTW, I

> > was once accused of listening to whoever was more eloquent but are

> > you not applying a similar bias by dismissing them because they

> > ~sound~ 'unscientific' to you?

>

>

>

> *****Hey, ...I admit it! I AM biased. No question about it.

> From all the reading, research, and literature I have " consumed " (pun

> intended), I come to Fallon & Enig with *predispositions* (read:

> bias). The notion of " pure objectivity " is just that, a Myth, but

> not something that human beings have, for the most part.

> The " wiring " which runs us, the unconscious drives arising from our

> innate and personal conditioning, predispose us to view things in

> certain ways. There is nothing wrong with that. It is simply the

> way things are.

>

>

> > Perhaps they do sound angry but if you look at it from their point

> > of view it makes more sense. Suppose you knew that millions upon

> > millions of dollars and corporate greed were invested in promoting

> > toxic oils which are killing people...would you not be outraged and

> > reach out to the public?

>

>

> *****And I agree with some of their anger. I share the same anger

> towards the multibillion dollar food industry, for many reasons (not

> all of them are the same as Fallon's however). That anger played a

> role in my adopting the type of diet I now use (very little refined

> foods, very very little refined sugar).

>

> However, when I read some of their statements that dramatically

> contradict what I've been reading for years from peer-reviewed

> journals...well...I find that worthy of looking at and taking notice

> of. And at the same time...their is suspicion. If they have found

> The Truth...wouldn't it appear in far more widespread publications?

> Wouldn't other serious, respected researchers take up the cause,

> duplicated their experiments, provide documented support?

> Their " cause " seems to be isolated to a few, small groups which hold

> similar positions (and that doesn't make them wrong, either...I'm

> just pointing out how limited their scope is...they may still be

> correct in their assertions).

>

> I suspect that we will never know The Truth about all this (the

> interplay of diet, health and longevity) until much more research is

> done on the genetic level. And even there, we may find that there

> are both cultural and individual differences (not one diet, CRON or

> otherwise, is 'right' for every 'body'). How the body sustains

> itself is probably a complex mix that results from psychological

> states, environmental factors (food, water, air, surrounding

> chemicals), and the innate genetic makeup of the individual. To hope

> for the Holy Grail of Longevity/Nutrition, one that will " fit " each

> person, is probably a pipe dream.

>

> So then...what do we do? We each read the same words and discover

> that we " hear " them somewhat differently due to our own, unique and

> innate conditioning. And then we go out and find " supporting

> documentation " to buttress " our " position. And then we argue with

> each other, the subtext often being " Ohhh...if I could only convince

> him, her, or them, then I'd be more secure that my position

> is 'right.' " :-)))

>

> The situation is too complex for certainty. There are too many

> factors, both individual and global, to expect certainty in this (or

> most other) realms. Walford and other respected researchers rarely

> talk in terms of " certainty. " They usually couch their statements in

> terms of " orders of probability. " That is probably the best one can

> do, at this time.

>

> ~ andy

[Guest guest]

, thoughtful reply...I appreciate it. I understand better now why

the article by Fallon might not influence your opinion on this matter.

Do you know of any studies done on wild mice? How long do they live?

How old has the oldest wild mouse lived? If we knew this and it was

inferior to a studied CR mouse we might reasonably conclude that CR is

the way to go. My gut feeling is that perhaps we simply don't know

enough about the mice in question and therefore feed them whatever

easy macronutrients we have available. So it stands to follow that

eating less (and being exposed to less junk) would result in an

increased lifespan.

In any case, I shall continue to explore the information that abounds

out there while keeping an open mind. Of course, I make sure whatever

way I eat is delicious and suits my lifestyle. I can't fathom the idea

of giving up nuts and fruits.

BTW, wasn't the oldest (french?) lady 122 years old? Ironically, I

think she was an avid smoker.

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

wrote:

> Hi ,

>

> > Could it be possible that the food given to these

> > mice is in itself unhealthy and therefore reducing

> > it leads to increased longevity? That seems like a

> > plausible scenario, no?

>

> In a word, no, though your question is plausible given the context of

> discussions so far. The reason I'd say 'no' is because the diets

have been

> varied too much in the studies for that to be the case, and more to the

> point, the effect is *not* one of an increase in average lifespan

within the

> context of the normal maximum lifespan, but rather an increase in

both the

> average and maximum lifespans themselves, which points to some other

very

> different effect than a simple reduction of morbidity due to disease

> reduction.

>

> IOW, as Walford puts it, in ancient Rome half the population was

dead by 22

> (average lifespan), but some very few outsiders did make it to

around 110

> (maximum lifespan). Now, the average (where half of us are dead)

seem to be

> around 75-80 and depends on a host of issues, but the maximum

lifespan still

> remains around 110 (with those few very rare exceptions, which seem

to be

> very largely based on genetic predisposition). The reasons are

sanitary,

> medical, and nutrition based, and they DO play a very important role in

> average lifespan, but they have absolutely no effect on the maximum

lifespan

> seen in those lucky individuals that will appear in any population

sample of

> a reasonable size, regardless of the quality of diet and general

sanitation

> or medical services.

>

> Same for mice, where the average is 28 months and the maximum is

around 1100

> days, but with a calorically restricted diet (with a variant of actual

> macro/micronutrient profiles) the average goes up to 47 months and the

> maximum to around 1900 days. That's a pretty significant

difference, and

> since it's based not just on lab mice average lifespans (wild, pet,

etc...,

> just *try* to get them to live longer than 3 years on any ad lib

diet), it

> would seem that nutrition isn't the determining factor.

>

> Make sense? It has also been replicated in long-lived mouse breeds,

> disease-susceptible mouse breeds, short-lived mouse breeds, obese mouse

> breeds, and many others, as well as in Rats, fish, spiders, etc...

(though

> the average and maximum lifespans obviously vary with different

breeds in

> each species).

>

> Either way, make sure you enjoy the way you choose to eat and live life

> fully. An obsessive attention to the diet can (but not necessarily

will)

> ruin one's life, even while extending it. I go off CR while teaching in

> Greece and routinely take my partner out for dinner -- I still enjoy

good

> wines, brandies, and other such things, but do maintain an otherwise

> nutritious diet that is moderately restricted. As Francesca pointed out

> though, at 17, you probably don't want to restrict your consumption

anyway,

> since you're not fully grown yet. Develop a nutritious diet you

like and

> can live with, and then maybe consider caloric restriction in five years

> time if the evidence for it is strong enough for you.

>

> Cheers,

>

> ________________________

> Gifford

> 3-5 Humanities Centre

> Department of English

> University of Alberta

> www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Good question, and I've never actually seen such a study, although a 'wild'

diet probably wouldn't be optimal anyway... We do know that the CR effect

is seen in rabbits, and I think most kids know how long a rabbit lives when

eating leafy greens...

Quite seriously, I would be incredibly shocked if hundreds of studies from

around the world, all with major scientists, had failed to account for the

possibility that their just limiting junk intake. Likewise, it still

wouldn't influence the *maximum* lifespan of a sufficiently large

population -- most humans who have lived past 110 (not that many) don't seem

to have led particularly healthy lives (smoking, sugar intake, etc...); it

was based on genetic predisposition and luck. Even if the rodents, bunnies,

spiders, fish and other species were all being fed garbage, there should

still be at least a few out of the many thousands of animals that made it to

the upper maximum limit (ie: 1900 days for mice), but they didn't. The

effect actually increased the maximum lifespan along a normal population

curve. That's one of the reasons why it's so convincing.

All this is not to say that a CR diet is not compatible with Fallon and

Enig, but the CR part (for concerns of life-extension, not just a longer

lifespan in the normal time period) should come first.

J

> -----Original Message-----

> From: paultheo2000 [mailto:paultheo2000@...]

> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:45 AM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: Thoughts on macronutrients by Fallon and

> Enig

>

>

> If you happen to know this would you mind telling me if the studies

> mimic how they would eat in the wild? It seems like a plausible

> scenario that CR is working because it limits the amount of junk

> they're recieiving.

>

> -

>

>

> > > can you explain the corn oil and sucrose thing to

> > > me or do you believe it to be outright lying? If

> > > it were true, what would your thoughts be?

> >

> > It's not true of all the CR studies, and they still get the same

> results, so

> > therefore I'd feel comfortable saying it's not a determining factor.

> >

> > X + a = z

> > X + b = z

> > X + c = z

> >

> > If that's the case (with a, b, & c being dietary factors, X being

> CR, and z

> > being life-extension), then obviously the distinctions between a, b,

> & c are

> > not the determining factors, but rather their commonalities, which

> for all

> > intents and purposes seems to be gross calorie count in the context of

> > reasonably adequate nutrition.

> >

> > Nonetheless, pull up a broad sampling of the CR studies on pubmed,

> from a

> > variety of different locales, schools, and scholars, and find out

> what they

> > actually fed their animals. That should probably satisfy the question,

> > though I'd still not trust macro & micronutrient profiles are

> necessarily

> > pertaining to human dietary needs in all areas.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > ________________________

> > Gifford

> > 3-5 Humanities Centre

> > Department of English

> > University of Alberta

> > www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Really, quick, since I have to get my courespack to the bookstore today and

get jello for an ailing spouse...

> How old has the oldest wild mouse lived?

To be honest, I don't know, but they'd probably die in the winter or get

eaten before getting really old, especially since they wouldn't be able to

forage or run away as well. I'm sure that 'normal' mice breeds would

qualify as being like wild mice, but I don't know for certain. I would be

extremely surprised if this wasn't accounted for in the rodent experiments

used across the biological sciences in general though, given the *millions*

of mice produced each year for science and the millions of dollars spent on

breeding programmes (all entirely aside from CR experiments).

> If we knew this and it was inferior to a

> studied CR mouse we might reasonably conclude

> that CR is the way to go.

Since long-lived mice have been used in CR experiments, and they're bred

over *many* generations for longevity in the lab environment, I think it

would be pretty safe to say that they live longer than any other mice, and

even longer on CR. Of course, it's not exclusively done with long-lived

breeds: obese breeds are used, as are standard mice. I don't really know as

much about spider and fish breeding programmes, but I can't imagine them

giving oil and sugar to spiders... That might be a study worth looking up!

> So it stands to follow that eating less (and

> being exposed to less junk) would result in an

> increased lifespan.

Precisely. Eating less is the key factor, since even those on oil and sugar

showed CR-type benefits, but I'd take " eating less (and being exposed to

less junk) " as a pretty good line to follow. More or less exactly what I

do.

> I can't fathom the idea of giving up nuts and

> fruits.

And why would you, they're very healthy foods.

> BTW, wasn't the oldest (french?) lady 122 years

> old? Ironically, I think she was an avid smoker.

i think I referred to her earlier, though I've forgotten her name now. Yes,

she was, and she really liked cream, butter, and lots of sugar. She was

also very healthy and active right up into her 110s!! As I said, most

humans who make it past 100 are in far better shape than the rest of us at

75 -- it seems to be genetic and is hereditary. There was a meta study

posted here a while ago about admittance rates for seniors at a hospital,

and of those in a nursing home in the 75-85 range, a higher percentage were

admitted for more serious health problems than among the 90-105 group (or

some such approximation of the ages): point being, those of us who are cued

up to live past 100 generally have incredibly good immune systems with great

resistance to cancer, heart disease, stroke, and other such ailments. Same

for long-lived mice (those in a regular population that just live a long

time, or even those in a long-lived breed), which is why there should be at

least a few living up to 1900 days, even if they're eating crap, but they

don't -- they hit the outside end of extreme old age at 1100, which when

they're all dead.

Likewise, humans on a crap diet don't enter menopause early, so the fact

that menopause is delayed in CR'd animals would indicate something else is

afoot. In fact, if returned to normal eating, CR'd mice can actually BREED

more baby mice past the point when all the other mice are dead of exteme old

age (grey hair, poor response, or other symptoms such as just generally

being dead...)

Cheers,

> -

>

>

> > Hi ,

> >

> > > Could it be possible that the food given to these

> > > mice is in itself unhealthy and therefore reducing

> > > it leads to increased longevity? That seems like a

> > > plausible scenario, no?

> >

> > In a word, no, though your question is plausible given the context of

> > discussions so far. The reason I'd say 'no' is because the diets

> have been

> > varied too much in the studies for that to be the case, and more to the

> > point, the effect is *not* one of an increase in average lifespan

> within the

> > context of the normal maximum lifespan, but rather an increase in

> both the

> > average and maximum lifespans themselves, which points to some other

> very

> > different effect than a simple reduction of morbidity due to disease

> > reduction.

> >

> > IOW, as Walford puts it, in ancient Rome half the population was

> dead by 22

> > (average lifespan), but some very few outsiders did make it to

> around 110

> > (maximum lifespan). Now, the average (where half of us are dead)

> seem to be

> > around 75-80 and depends on a host of issues, but the maximum

> lifespan still

> > remains around 110 (with those few very rare exceptions, which seem

> to be

> > very largely based on genetic predisposition). The reasons are

> sanitary,

> > medical, and nutrition based, and they DO play a very important role in

> > average lifespan, but they have absolutely no effect on the maximum

> lifespan

> > seen in those lucky individuals that will appear in any population

> sample of

> > a reasonable size, regardless of the quality of diet and general

> sanitation

> > or medical services.

> >

> > Same for mice, where the average is 28 months and the maximum is

> around 1100

> > days, but with a calorically restricted diet (with a variant of actual

> > macro/micronutrient profiles) the average goes up to 47 months and the

> > maximum to around 1900 days. That's a pretty significant

> difference, and

> > since it's based not just on lab mice average lifespans (wild, pet,

> etc...,

> > just *try* to get them to live longer than 3 years on any ad lib

> diet), it

> > would seem that nutrition isn't the determining factor.

> >

> > Make sense? It has also been replicated in long-lived mouse breeds,

> > disease-susceptible mouse breeds, short-lived mouse breeds, obese mouse

> > breeds, and many others, as well as in Rats, fish, spiders, etc...

> (though

> > the average and maximum lifespans obviously vary with different

> breeds in

> > each species).

> >

> > Either way, make sure you enjoy the way you choose to eat and live life

> > fully. An obsessive attention to the diet can (but not necessarily

> will)

> > ruin one's life, even while extending it. I go off CR while teaching in

> > Greece and routinely take my partner out for dinner -- I still enjoy

> good

> > wines, brandies, and other such things, but do maintain an otherwise

> > nutritious diet that is moderately restricted. As Francesca pointed out

> > though, at 17, you probably don't want to restrict your consumption

> anyway,

> > since you're not fully grown yet. Develop a nutritious diet you

> like and

> > can live with, and then maybe consider caloric restriction in five years

> > time if the evidence for it is strong enough for you.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > ________________________

> > Gifford

> > 3-5 Humanities Centre

> > Department of English

> > University of Alberta

> > www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You're right...there should have been exceptions. Did any ad lib mice

outlive the CRed mice at all? If none did (and sufficiently many mice

were studied) I'd admit that this would support a CR lifestyle. The

fact that no ad lib mice lived as long as the longest lived CR mice

would isn't saying much if they're food supply is not optimal.

BTW, I believe insulin related factors when modified also increased

lifespan along a normal curve.

There's just so many factors involved that's it's hard to pinpoint the

specific causal one.

What would be nice is if we had an ideal mouse diet compared with an

ideal mouse diet that was simply reduced in proportion. THAT would be

truly convincing. I suspect this may be impossible to do, for the time

being. In any event, I would personally tend to dismiss studies done

with such (harmful) substances as sugar, refine flour and corn oil.

Thanks for your insight,

-

> > > > can you explain the corn oil and sucrose thing to

> > > > me or do you believe it to be outright lying? If

> > > > it were true, what would your thoughts be?

> > >

> > > It's not true of all the CR studies, and they still get the same

> > results, so

> > > therefore I'd feel comfortable saying it's not a determining factor.

> > >

> > > X + a = z

> > > X + b = z

> > > X + c = z

> > >

> > > If that's the case (with a, b, & c being dietary factors, X being

> > CR, and z

> > > being life-extension), then obviously the distinctions between a, b,

> > & c are

> > > not the determining factors, but rather their commonalities, which

> > for all

> > > intents and purposes seems to be gross calorie count in the

context of

> > > reasonably adequate nutrition.

> > >

> > > Nonetheless, pull up a broad sampling of the CR studies on pubmed,

> > from a

> > > variety of different locales, schools, and scholars, and find out

> > what they

> > > actually fed their animals. That should probably satisfy the

question,

> > > though I'd still not trust macro & micronutrient profiles are

> > necessarily

> > > pertaining to human dietary needs in all areas.

> > >

> > > Cheers,

> > >

> > > ________________________

> > > Gifford

> > > 3-5 Humanities Centre

> > > Department of English

> > > University of Alberta

> > > www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

But perhaps the diet of all mouse being studied is sub-par? If these

were to be the case, the studies wouldn't telling us much.

To draw a precedent with human beings: can we be certain that 'excess'

(of course, excluding the possibility that obesity results) fruits,

vegetables, whole milk shorten lifespan if we've only tested the

variations when limiting sugar and corn oil?

-

--- In , " Gifford " <gifford@u...>

Since long-lived mice have been used in CR experiments, and they're bred

over *many* generations for longevity in the lab environment, I think it

would be pretty safe to say that they live longer than any other mice, and

even longer on CR.

[Guest guest]

> You raise a good point--why haven't prominent scientists mentioned

> this? If you have 4 hours or so to spare I highly suggest that your

> 'The Cholesterol Myths' which touches on this. It shows how

> 'reputable' sources have lied and falsified statistics in order to

> maintain government grants and their high salaries. It shows how

> prominent studies will pick 7 out of 22 data points to suit their

needs.

>

> -

*****No doubt about it . It stands to reason that there are some

unscrupulous scientists out there, as well as some who are either

cutting corners or misrepresenting data in order to receive grants.

And that is not to say that some well-published researchers are, in

fact, honest and sincere both in how they conduct their research and

in how they present the results. (Walford, I believe - although I'm

not sure - has been receiving much of his funding from the NIH. Does

this leave him more, or less, open to outside " pressures " ? I don't

know.)

Last point . How do you *know* that what you are being presented

with in " The Cholesterol Myths " is not " tainted " by the same self-

concern and self-interest that the author ascribes to others?

Hahaha!!!! Unless you do the tests yourself (you can trust yourself,

right, to be honest and objective?), and repeat any tests (again,

yourself) that challenge your results, ultimately you end up having

to trust what someone else says. How do you *KNOW* that you can

trust that person (or group of people)?

What it comes down to, at some point, is that you need to trust your

sources. You can check, double and triple check, read a tremendous

amount of (conflicting) data, opinions, research. You may end up

spending your life *researching* the validity of a CRON (or other)

diet scheme. And, in the end, you will probably still not have

certainty. And, in the end, you may have missed out on LIVING life!

In the end, as sang about two decades ago, it's all " A

Matter of Trust " (along with some rationale thinking one would hope!).

~andy