Re: 1-2 People per 100 on CRON Will Live to 88 to 93.5

[Guest guest]

> IF you thought doing CR would get you to 100+ years old you are (almost

> certainly) sadly mistaken.

Hey people:

I'm bald to know it!

Human maximum lifespan is at most 130. NO MORE THAN THAT,

if you begin CRON in childhood and retard grouth.

110 is the maximum if you start CRON at

20 and reduce it gradually in a course of 3 years, staying at the xtremum of

BMR for

*the rest of your life* and the probability to reach this value (by my

calculations) is only 10%. That is

if you begin at 35, is half, that is 5%.

Said to tell this truth...

Cheers up.

-- Gandhi.

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

Walford has already gone through the stats in _Beyond the 120 year Diet_.

If 110 is already the maximum for human lifespan (with a few outsiders, but

not very many, who were not on CRON), then how is it still the same maximum

with CRON? This would seem to contradict all of the animal evidence and is

more or less arguing that CRON has no influence on aging whatsoever.

Nonetheless, I doubt my personal CRON programme is going to keep me around

to 120; however, if 82 is the average (given that I haven't died from 19-26

of accident, which is a major factor in average lifespan for a human

population), then why would only 1% of CRONies make it to 88... This sounds

like an unrealistic statistic even for a normal population that has already

made it past, say, 50 years of age or so.

Please send you figures, as I'm interested in how you went about calculating

this, and what you're basing it on...

> Human maximum lifespan is at most 130. NO MORE THAN THAT,

> if you begin CRON in childhood and retard grouth.

Why? We already know that non-CRON folks have lived to 122... If we

followed the same curve as the animal studies, CRON in childhood, with

retarded growth, would come out to around 160 or so (based on 110 as the

maximum lifespan for human, with a comparable survival curve as rodent

studies). On what do you base this statement? Current survival curves? Do

you mean maximum or average?

Cheers,

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

> From: o Luiz Alonso [mailto:ronaldo.luiz.alonso@...]

> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:16 PM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] 1-2 People per 100 on CRON Will Live to 88

> to 93.5

>

>

> > IF you thought doing CR would get you to 100+ years old you are (almost

> > certainly) sadly mistaken.

> Hey people:

>

> I'm bald to know it!

> Human maximum lifespan is at most 130. NO MORE THAN THAT,

> if you begin CRON in childhood and retard grouth.

> 110 is the maximum if you start CRON at

> 20 and reduce it gradually in a course of 3 years, staying at the

> xtremum of

> BMR for

> *the rest of your life* and the probability to reach this value (by my

> calculations) is only 10%. That is

> if you begin at 35, is half, that is 5%.

> Said to tell this truth...

>

> Cheers up.

> -- Gandhi.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Numi (or is it crON Lite? ) most of us on THIS list are more moderate and

do not expect much life extension (if any). I'm sure someone will correct

me if they disagree. At least I don't. I'm doing moderate CRON to

(hopefully) be able to live out my years disease-free and spry as long as

possible.

One wonders, if this is true, why so many on the list you refer to, practise

CR to the extreme.

on 8/28/2003 10:21 PM, crON Lite BMI 21 at no-spam-please@...

wrote:

> ALL:

>

> IF you thought doing CR would get you to 100+ years old you are (almost

> certainly) sadly mistaken.

[Guest guest]

> > Human maximum lifespan is at most 130. NO MORE THAN THAT,

> > if you begin CRON in childhood and retard grouth.

>

> Why? We already know that non-CRON folks have lived to 122... If we

Let me explain in cientific terms:

The parents of Jeanne Calment (which are doubtfully claimed

*not* to be on

CRON ) died: His father 82 His mother 88.

Or something arround this (Don't have the right numbers now).

Supose these for short.

Averaging you get 85. Define this as

85 = Maxlifespan in AD-Libitum.

> followed the same curve as the animal studies.

Yes!

Let's folow it (humans have different genetics, but the gain in

Maxlifespan is

nearly the same in almost all species tested, with few exceptions):

You increase life by 50% and than you get:

85 + 0.5 * 85 = 127.5 = Maxlifespan in CR50, EOD or CR30+Exercise

for

the given metric and genetics.

But ***attention!*** only 10% with the genetic mentioned reach such

lifespan.

(see the survivor curves). Jeanne was a very active woman

(she rides her bicicle til the age of 100).

To reach *such* lifespan, first she was lucky because the

exercise she made burn exactly the aumont of

20% of her daily calories.

My claim folows.

People loves criticizing me because of my " go by feel conjecture " .

That is: CR50 or CR30+exercise puts you in the maximum energy point.

In this point (CR50), the hiperactivity of the brain reaches the maximum.

I plan to stay in this point to *try* to reach *my* maxlifespan (the

lifespan my genetic alows

me to live). I go by feel, folow the evidences. But who is right, who is

wrong

Only the time will

tell.....................................................................

Atenciosly.

-- Gandhi.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ghandi,

> 1-2 People per 100 on CRON Will Live to 88 to 93.5

Where do these numbers come from?

Right now, %50 of the population (in Canada) born in 1925 is still alive.

More than 10% of those born in 1915 (without CRON, and probably having spent

much of their life smoking) are still alive, so your contention that only

1-2% of a CRON population will make it to 88 seems unrealistic, even just

given continuing advanced in health care that do not retard aging, as CR

does. BTW, those percentages include those who died in such things as WWI,

WWII, the great influenza outbreak, etc... For women in Canada, %50 of the

population is still alive at 83 years of age.

As of 1995, in Europe there are more people over the age of 80 than there

are aged 75-79.

> Jeanne was a very active woman

> (she rides her bicicle til the age of 100).

> To reach *such* lifespan, first she was

> lucky because the exercise she made burn exactly

> the aumont of 20% of her daily calories.

Hmmm. The animal studies have definitively shown that *energy expended* is

not the same as CR and the lifespan extension effect is shows. That is to

say, it's energy in, not energy out, that is the determining factor.

Nonetheless, anyone who lives to 122 in great health, on a rich diet and

without terribly good health care is obviously a genetic 'freak.' Given her

genetic profile, my guess is that she couldn't have died before 100 even if

she'd lived off arsenic (sarcasm...).

To offer the flip side of your argument, if we place the maximum human

lifespan at 110 (ignoring Jeanne Calment & others over 110) and then factor

in the CR effect (not exercise), maximum human lifespan would go to around

160 (or more if you consider Jeanne and the others who make it into the

100-teens) and average to 120 or so (that means %50 of a CRed population

would make it to 120 years of age). Projecting milder life-extension for

average lifespan at say %10 restriction (ignoring the disease prevention

side of CR), then an average lifespan of 75 would become 109, depending on

when you started CR. This, of course, overlooks the fact that a

population's average lifespan includes things such as infant mortality,

teenage accidents, and those who suffer from severe diseases at an early

age. In our present world (North America and Europe), if a given group has

made it past 30 without killing themselves, aims to avoid disease as best

they can, and doesn't already have some horrific wasting disease, such folks

can probably count on being around for 80+ years on average (meaning %50 of

them will still be kicking at age 80-85 or so).

Even mild CR, aimed primarily at improving health, will increase one's odds

of making it into the upper end of our normal survival curve. Even without

CR, the percentage of the population that makes it to 100 is ever-increasing

(and that's factoring in WWI, WWII, etc...).

This site might help to clarify:

http://bmj.com/archive/7119/7119l1a.htm

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that we're arguing here about what really consitutes

life extension, and how much extension we would be likely to see (as

individuals) with either more moderate or more extreme CR.

Looking at statistics on past life expectancies and comparing them to

current figures ignores the influence of modern medicine on age at

death. As for myself - living an extra 6 months because I was

confined to bed and hooked up to an oxygen cylinder is NOT what I'm

interested in. But the statistics that are collected and recorded in

general do not give us the kind of data we'd like on the type of life

people lived before they died. Of course the ones you read about are

the ones that drank, smoked, went sky diving up to age 92 - but this

is certainly not the majority. Now if they'd report the number of

medications Joe/ Average was taking when he/she passed away at

age 80, I'd be more interested in the data.

I'm more interested in the data that connects weight or BMI (sorry

folks, it's still the best indicator we've got) with various medical

conditions. If it's just energy in that is the issue - then life

extension would be getting yourself installed in a flotation tank

with an intravenous tube. Should result in the minimum of calories

in and the greatest life extension. Sorry, not interested.

The best data available in one place, as far as I can tell, is

reported in " Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate,

Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids

(Macronutrients) (2002) " published by the NAS. It's available

online - see the pages beginning at

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/93.html#pagetop

(it's a long link - needs to be all there in the URL window even if

it breaks in this e-mail) which supports the data summary published

some time ago by CSPI and which I cribbed into our files area as

/files/CSPI_plots_of_BMI_v

s_disease_risk.xls

(another long link which needs to all be in the URL)

The NAS publicaton has pages and pages of citations of studies

linking higher BMI with the higher incidence of various medical

conditions such as heart attack, stroke, diabetes, gall bladder

disease, etc.

For the average individual (which none of us are) these data support

the connection of BMI and a number of conditions which have to some

extent in the past been regarded as diseases of aging. Today they

appear to be diseases of having lived long enough to eat way too much

and cause these conditions - for the most part.

So we can argue about the balance of fats, or micronutrients or a

host of other issues, which are part of the ON aspect and which

certainly have an impact on health and longevity, but the major gains

are in preventing the major conditions, and even if you looked like

Jabba the Hutt and had yourself put in that flotation tank, you

probably wouldn't escape them without weight reduction.

The individual likelihood of living to a particular age is influenced

by many factors. I have no family history past my maternal

grandparents. My paternal grandparents died of Hitler. My maternal

grandfather died (before my mother married) of leukemia, my maternal

grandmother died of lung cancer (2nd hand smoke) at age 93. My dad

died of a hear attack at age 63 - in my memory he was always heavy.

My mom died of a stroke at age 83 - not thin, and had been a prior

smoker. I guess I'd better watch those ages that end in 3 - but my

grandparents and my dad were immigrants and we were never sure of

their exact ages. I can't begin to guess what my genetic max age

would be. How would I know if I managed to extend my life? My goal

is to live as long as possible with all of my mental faculties

without the need for major medical intervention and then just drop

dead - preferably not in a situation where I endanger others.

There are lots of sci fi stories involving people living a long time -

long enough to outlive all their friends and family and perhaps

survive on life support. Sorry, I'm not interested in that either.

Consider what your goals really are in extending your life before

deciding what fraction of your time you're going to invest in

extending it.

Iris

[Guest guest]

No doubt Jeanne was one of the few people with the " long-life " gene that

scientists seem to think some are lucky enough to be born with.

on 8/29/2003 11:03 PM, o Luiz Alonso at ronaldo.luiz.alonso@...

wrote:

> But ***attention!*** only 10% with the genetic mentioned reach such

> lifespan.

> (see the survivor curves). Jeanne was a very active woman

> (she rides her bicicle til the age of 100).

> To reach *such* lifespan, first she was lucky because the

> exercise she made burn exactly the aumont of

> 20% of her daily calories.

> My claim folows.

[Guest guest]

>> 1-2 People per 100 on CRON Will Live to 88 to 93.5

Gifford wrote:

>Where do these numbers come from?

Follow links from original post & continue to follow links in those 2 posts

too. The numbers are from figure 3 for the US population in 2020. Start

here to begin following links:

/message/7757

By 2050 a higher percentage of the population will be 85-90 years or older,

but the odds don't improve much on longevity.

>To offer the flip side of your argument, if we place the maximum human

lifespan at 110 (ignoring Jeanne Calment & others over 110) and then factor

in the CR effect (not exercise), maximum human lifespan would go to around

160 (or more if you consider Jeanne and the others who make it into the

100-teens) and average to 120 or so (that means %50 of a CRed population

would make it to 120 years of age). Projecting milder life-extension for

average lifespan at say %10 restriction (ignoring the disease prevention

side of CR), then an average lifespan of 75 would become 109, depending on

when you started CR.

I think you are projecting " pipe dreams " which are unrealistic & incorrect

for humans. Please read the posts thoroughly which I refer to, including

the links those posts point to, or show me how you get the numbers you are

stating.

..

[Guest guest]

Hi crON Lite,

The links won't open for me, but nonetheless, if the CURRENT population

already has *more* than 1-2% living to 85+, then why would the amount be

LESS for those on CR? At the very least one would expect the

life-expectancy at birth to be the same...

Between 1.7% to 2.5% of all people born in a given year live to the age of

100, so it is impossible by definition for a smaller percentage to live to

85+...

Here's the CDC's quick stats:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

American women who are 65 right now can anticipate an average lifespan of

another 19.2 years (data for 2000). That means that among those who make it

to 65, half will still be alive at age 84. If you make it to 75 (in 2000),

then half of that remaining population will still be around at age 87. Also

note, those statistics are made by deleting all information for people who

live past 100 years of age (and that is some 80,000 living people in the USA

right now).

If you're 48 right now

Walford goes through this in the opening to _Beyond the 120 Year Diet_.

> That means 98% of us doing CR will likely die

> well before the 1-2% of us that make it to

> 88-93.5 years old.

More than 1-2% of people currently 22-48 will live to 88 years of age

WITHOUT CR... In fact, for those in the general population who were 48 in

the year 2000, 50% will still be around at age 81. For the USA's

life-expectancy at birth for the year 2000, 28% of the general population

will live to 88...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lt2000.pdf

Cheers,

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

> From: crON Lite BMI 21 [mailto:no-spam-please@...]

> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 11:35 AM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: 1-2 People per 100 on CRON Will Live to 88

> to 93.5

>

>

> >> 1-2 People per 100 on CRON Will Live to 88 to 93.5

>

> Gifford wrote:

> >Where do these numbers come from?

>

> Follow links from original post & continue to follow links in

> those 2 posts

> too. The numbers are from figure 3 for the US population in 2020. Start

> here to begin following links:

>

> /message/7757

>

> By 2050 a higher percentage of the population will be 85-90 years

> or older,

> but the odds don't improve much on longevity.

>

> >To offer the flip side of your argument, if we place the maximum human

> lifespan at 110 (ignoring Jeanne Calment & others over 110) and

> then factor

> in the CR effect (not exercise), maximum human lifespan would go to around

> 160 (or more if you consider Jeanne and the others who make it into the

> 100-teens) and average to 120 or so (that means %50 of a CRed population

> would make it to 120 years of age). Projecting milder life-extension for

> average lifespan at say %10 restriction (ignoring the disease prevention

> side of CR), then an average lifespan of 75 would become 109, depending on

> when you started CR.

>

> I think you are projecting " pipe dreams " which are unrealistic & incorrect

> for humans. Please read the posts thoroughly which I refer to, including

> the links those posts point to, or show me how you get the numbers you are

> stating.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> .

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> To offer the flip side of your argument, if we place the maximum human

> lifespan at 110 (ignoring Jeanne Calment & others over 110) and then

factor

> in the CR effect (not exercise), maximum human lifespan would go to around

> 160 (or more if you consider Jeanne and the others who make it into the

> 100-teens) and average to 120 or so (that means %50 of a CRed population

> would make it to 120 years of age). Projecting milder life-extension for

> average lifespan at say %10 restriction (ignoring the disease prevention

> side of CR), then an average lifespan of 75 would become 109, depending on

> when you started CR.

I'll post a sabatina of my photos (I'm in something near CRON since

my adolescence) and my mother's photos (she only does the ON part) in

the posts to folow.

But I don't expect to live 160 (whether or not this can be is

unrealistic, and **only** the time will tell).

I 'm traveling almost every day

and I heard that the probability of dying of acident (mainly here in

Brazil),

traveling every day, is nearly the same of geting AIDS having sex

indiscriminately

with every person without codons

Isto é assustador !!! (This is scaring!!)

But I'm doing CRON because I feel so good with it, not because I want to

live, say 130. The mark I wish to let in this world is the cher and love I

can give to the people arround me and the things I can teach and learn

with they. That's all. Whataver my (and others

CRON ) suceed and make the difference in science is a

matter of luck, of course, IMHO...

-- Gandhi.

[Guest guest]

Date: Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:00 pm

Gifford " <gifford@u...> WROTE:

Between 1.7% to 2.5% of all people born in a given year live to the age of

100, so it is impossible by definition for a smaller percentage to live to

85+...

Hi ,

Your numbers seem way off considering the statistics from the Okinawa

Program website! You say 1,700 to 2,500 people per 100,000 will make it to

100 years old, but to the contrary your numbers appear 170 to 250 times an

exaggeration! Why is it the Okinawan population is world famous for having

ONLY 427 centenarians per 1.27 Million people? They state: " At present it

is generally accepted that there are approximately 10 centenarians per

100,000 people in most industrialized countries. " So, your numbers do

appear to be 170-250 times too high!

We better get the ball rolling for the world famous American Centenarian

Program, cause these numbers blow the Okinawans away! :-) Something

doesn't add-up with what you're suggesting???

http://okinawaprogram.com/evidence.html

At present it is generally accepted that there are approximately 10

centenarians per 100,000 people in most industrialized countries.

Nevertheless, we have documented a much higher prevalence of centenarians in

Okinawa, a prefecture (state) of Japan that consists of a group of 44

inhabited islands that stretches 800 miles between the Japan main islands

and Taiwan.

In a demographic survey of the entire Okinawan population we identified a

total of 427 centenarians out of a population of 1.27 million inhabitants.

Ages were validated through the koseki (family registry) system that has

been recording complete birth, marriage, and death statistics for every

Okinawan-Japanese citizen since 1879. A prevalence of 33.6 centenarians per

100,000 population was identified of which 85.7% were female. The age range

was 100-111 with a mean age of 101.6 There were 35 (8.2%) centenarians over

the age of 105 and 1 (0.2%) over the age of 110. This is the highest

prevalence of centenarians ever documented with a reliable database.

Okinawan emigration is balanced by the highest fertility rate in Japan with

a net positive population growth so this phenomenon cannot be attributed to

attrition of younger age groups.

..