Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 > > > Speaking of SARs...the SARs virus has me entirely rethinking > > the wisdom of calorie restriction. It would be interesting > > to see how CRONed immune systems react to such an infection. > > Do you suppose CRONies would fare better or worse than the > > general population when exposed to SARs? > > I reckon they'd have a much-reduced chance of coming down with > it in the first place. > > If it came down to a pitched battle in their body - I don't > know how the CRON advantages and disadvantages would pan out. > > Infections are conspicuous by their low frequency in lab > experiments on animals - some more specific studies of the > issue need to be performed to compensate for that. Fact is that CRONies can very well be more susceptable to infectious diseases such as SARS and pneumonia than the general population. Reason being that CRONies typically have low total cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, your cholesterol can be too low. Low cholesterol levels are associated with increased death from infectious diseases such as pneumonia. See PMID 9447398 for example. The full pdf is also available. As you people here are always cautioning: moderation is the key. This seems to apply to CRON in general as well as to dietary choices. Have a great day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 " Fact " ? Where's the " fact " ? You simply claimed it is so and provided *indirect* evidence. I can provide indirect evidence the CR will kill you; for example, it reduces the mass of your heart, thus you are more likely to die from a heart failure. Which is of course bogus, because the " facts " , I mean, the scientific facts show the CR extends life. You may very well be right about the conclusion, but I have yet to see the scientific data (read: facts) to support it. Micky. -----Original Message----- From: Tom [mailto:no1banker@...] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:17 AM Subject: [ ] Re: CRON and infections [Micky Snir] <snip> Fact is that CRONies can very well be more susceptable to infectious diseases such as SARS and pneumonia than the general population. Reason being that CRONies typically have low total cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, your cholesterol can be too low. Low cholesterol levels are associated with increased death from infectious diseases such as pneumonia. See PMID 9447398 for example. The full pdf is also available. As you people here are always cautioning: moderation is the key. This seems to apply to CRON in general as well as to dietary choices. Have a great day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 --- " Micky Snir " <mickys@w...> wrote: From: Tom [mailto:no1banker@a...] >> Fact is that CRONies can very well be more susceptable >> to infectious diseases such as SARS and pneumonia than the >> general population. >> Reason being that CRONies typically have low total cholesterol >> levels. Unfortunately, your cholesterol can be too low. Low >> cholesterol levels are associated with increased death from >> infectious diseases such as pneumonia. See PMID 9447398 >> for example. >> The full pdf is also available. As you people here are always >> cautioning: moderation is the key. This seems to apply to CRON in >> general as well as to dietary choices. > " Fact " ? > Where's the " fact " ? > You simply claimed it is so and provided *indirect* evidence. > I can provide indirect evidence the CR will kill you; for > example, it reduces the mass of your heart, thus you are > more likely to die from a heart failure. Which is of course > bogus, because the " facts " , I mean, the scientific facts > show the CR extends life. > > You may very well be right about the conclusion, but I have > yet to see the scientific data (read: facts) to support it. ``Reduced immune responses in rhesus monkeys subjected to dietary restriction " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query? uid=8680992 & form=6 & db=m & Dopt=r ....seems relevant. PMID: 11527818 suggests... ``that young mice under CR may be protected against oxidative stress but may have delayed maturation of macrophage function and increased susceptibility to bacterial infection.'' The notion that CRONies will be more susceptable to pneumonia appears to be in need of empirical support. It's fairly well recognised that their immune function is beneficially modified in many cases - e.g. in dogs: ``Immune Function – The canine immune system appeared to benefit from calorie restriction. Dogs kept at a more ideal body condition had slower age-related declines in their immune systems, such as the ability of lymphocytes (B cells and T cells) to multiply in response to infection and numbers of key immune cells.'' - http://www.purina.com/institute/news.asp?article=441 ....and CR protects against some infections - e.g. salmonella in mice: ``The role of protein and calorie restriction in outcome from Salmonella infection in mice'' - PMID 1494214. Regarding pneumonia, there may be associations both with being underweight and overweight: ``Pneumonia is serious lung ailment that affects more than 4 million Americans a year. Health professionals tend think that underweight people are particularly prone to this illness, and that hospitalization increases the risk even further. But an article in the Archives of Internal Medicine reports that the health stress caused by obesity also puts people in the general population at risk for pneumonia.'' - http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=1038 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 --- In , " Micky Snir " <mickys@w...> wrote: > " Fact " ? > Where's the " fact " ? > You simply claimed it is so and provided *indirect* evidence. > I can provide indirect evidence the CR will kill you; for example, it > reduces the mass of your heart, thus you are more likely to die from a > heart failure. Which is of course bogus, because the " facts " , I mean, > the scientific facts show the CR extends life. > > You may very well be right about the conclusion, but I have yet to see > the scientific data (read: facts) to support it. > > Micky. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:no1banker@a...] > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:17 AM > > Subject: [ ] Re: CRON and infections > > [Micky Snir] <snip> Hello Micky, Let me apologize for a poor choice of words. Beyond that, what can I say but, suit yourself. The scientific board is the other one. I am not a scientist and simply posted the information because I have read it multiple times, believe it to be true and think it is important. That's all. If you want absolute proof, find it yourself. If you think it's BS, that's OK with me as well. PS: As for proof, who on these various boards is really qualified to judge the quality and results of the large numbers of studies reported on a daily basis? My answer would be: very few, if any. So tell me, why do you practice CRON? I guess you must have found absolute proof somewhere that it applies to humans, as well as to rats and monkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 --- " numicucamonga " <dean2u@a...> wrote: > I wonder how many (pampered?) lab mice, rats, monkeys were > deliberately exposed to various pathogens to test for AL vs. CR > survivability??? > > Anyone know of the research? There's some evidence that CR doesn't /just/ work under sterile laboratory conditions. Consider this, for example: `` " Interestingly, rapid growth in wild populations of Columbian ground squirrels during times of abundant natural food resources resulted in earlier maturation and shorter LSs (Zammuto & Millar, 1985). Also, within mammalian species living in the wild, the age at which females first reproduce is strongly positively correlated with life expectancy, after correction for the effects of body size (Harvey & Zammuto, 1985). *Thus slow growth and diminished food supply correlate with longer lives in both research colony and wild environs.* " - Walford and Weindruch's " The Retardation of Aging and Disease by Dietary Restriction " , p. 13: > More body fat (reserve energy) might be the best life > extension advantage in such circumstances? CR seems to help against some pathogens - and hinder in response to others. I'm not sure what the net effect is. > ARE WE JUST FOOLING OURSELVES ROLLING THE STERILIZED DICE WITH > PAMPERED LAB ANIMAL REFERENCE SUBJECTS LIVING IN CONTROLLED UNREAL > NON-BIOTHREAT LAB ENVIRONMENTS? Probably not entirely. There are good reasons to think that immune function will be better in old CR organisims - since they are less likely to suffer from age-related decline in their immune systems. ....but pathogens are surely a CR concern - through being an under-studied factor with an important impact on mortality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 Hi Tom. And I apologize for being snappy :-) This was written in utter calmness: I guess another poor choice of words. I never asked for a proof, as you seem to imply below; I asked for facts (which you have just indirectly supplied below: you " read it multiple times " , which constitutes for me some level of fact. It would have constituted a higher level of fact if you had mentioned where you read it). Science does not provide proof. I will not delve into the scientific method, but I will say that all that science can supply is some level of certainty, thus *believing* is an integral part of accepting scientific results (which can be wrong. See Sir Isaac Newton's laws). Facts on the other hand, while subject to interpretation, are not as much an issue of belief, but it seems to me that conclusions should be based on facts; if they are not based on facts, then for me they have very little importance. I do accept other people's choice to make non-evidence based conclusions, but I choose to ignore those conclusions. I'm a believer. I believe in the interpretations of facts by minds much greater than mine, such as Walford's, that CR works. I take it on faith, but the amount of *data* that supports their interpretations helps me a lot to take the leap of faith, and practice CR. As for the other list being the scientific list; I agree that the level of science going on there is very high (though so is the level of social support), with some very impressive list of researchers and scientists, and I use my own judgment when I decide to whom should I believe, based on the facts that they present, and based on some indirect evidence that I pick up like their intelligence and integrity. And it is completely fine with me if *you* chose to believe the interpretations given in the books you read on the same faith, without bothering too much with the data. It is a personal choice, and we simply seem to make different choices. And beware of the double edged sword: if " The scientific board is the other one " , then should scientific-like claims be heard on this list? :-) And last: I never said or implied (or meant) that what you wrote is BS. I simply wanted to know on what data what you said relied upon, so that I will be able to make up my own mind on the subject, which I haven't yet. Micky. -----Original Message----- From: Tom [mailto:no1banker@...] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: [ ] Re: CRON and infections --- In , " Micky Snir " <mickys@w...> wrote: > " Fact " ? > Where's the " fact " ? > You simply claimed it is so and provided *indirect* evidence. > I can provide indirect evidence the CR will kill you; for example, it > reduces the mass of your heart, thus you are more likely to die from a > heart failure. Which is of course bogus, because the " facts " , I mean, > the scientific facts show the CR extends life. > > You may very well be right about the conclusion, but I have yet to see > the scientific data (read: facts) to support it. > > Micky. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:no1banker@a...] > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:17 AM > > Subject: [ ] Re: CRON and infections > > [Micky Snir] <snip> Hello Micky, Let me apologize for a poor choice of words. Beyond that, what can I say but, suit yourself. The scientific board is the other one. I am not a scientist and simply posted the information because I have read it multiple times, believe it to be true and think it is important. That's all. If you want absolute proof, find it yourself. If you think it's BS, that's OK with me as well. PS: As for proof, who on these various boards is really qualified to judge the quality and results of the large numbers of studies reported on a daily basis? My answer would be: very few, if any. So tell me, why do you practice CRON? I guess you must have found absolute proof somewhere that it applies to humans, as well as to rats and monkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2003 Report Share Posted April 17, 2003 Micky and Tom: We would like to keep the discussions on THIS list from degenerating into any personal attacks. I request that you discontinue this particular discussion or take it offlist. Each board has its pluses and minuses and the plus we like to think of on this board is civilized, adult behavior. Thank you for your cooperation. on 4/17/2003 1:53 PM, Micky Snir at mickys@... wrote: > And beware of the double edged sword: if " The scientific board is the > other one " , then should scientific-like claims be heard on this list? > :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.