Re: Evidence - CRON vs Atkins

[Guest guest]

Since you bring it up, there is a lot of literature out there which

discusses the impact of insulin on longevity. And clearly, the Atkins

diet is one where little insulin is produced. There are also studies

out there showing that body fat may be the actual life span

determinant (as indicated by GM mice studies).

-

> One additional point that perhaps may be made about the evidence

> regarding CRON and Atkins is that, as far as I know, no study on any

> type of organism has ever shown that the Atkins diet can extend the

> maximum lifespan of the species. An important point in reviewing the

> benefits of each in my opinion. Gone for today.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

one thing i don't understand about this thread is why anybody would

even attempt to compare CRON and Atkins in the first place, since

they overlap. it's like comparing " diets with only organic or wild

food " and " diets with no pork " . obviously they overlap and neither

is a subset of the other, so a comparison is meaningless. i think

has pointed this out, that the two are potentially

complementary. in fact, doubtless there are actual CRONies who

follow an Atkins diet. the phrase " CRON vs Atkins " is simply

incoherent. CRON is CR + ON, and the two are completely

independent. CR is how much you eat, not what you eat (i.e. how many

carbs, etc). ON can be achieved by hundreds of wildly diverse diets

in theory, and in practice our lack of conclusive knowledge about ON

further widens the field of possibilities, especially given people's

tendency to conflate nutritional considerations with ideological,

aesthetic, and circumstantial considerations.

a common error on this list (sadly and inexcusably) and in other

discourse domains like popular media (more understandably, but also

more detrimentally) is to identify CRON with the specific candidate

version of CRON articulated by Walford. like many on this list, i

take great influence from Walford's nutritional ideas, but he is

certainly not the be all and end all of ON, nor even a leading

authority on nutrition per se. the profound omissions and errors of

his formulation of ON have been addressed numerous times on this

list, and honest inquiry will always consider multiple sources.

mike parker

[Guest guest]

whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the truth must be brough forth!

francesca, i feel that every single point in your post is inaccurate.

CRON does NOT imply an abundance of vegetables and to a lesser degree

fruit. there could easily be CRON diets with very little vegetables

or fruit, like a diet based on fresh sea foods and organ meats. this

might be more nutrient-dense than the diets of anyone on this list,

in fact! and it would likely contain ample amounts of fat, making

the CR part easy. most of us on this list, myself included, do eat

an abundance of vegetables and fruit, but this is just a personal

preference, not an entailment of CRON. actually, i've been steadily

decreasing the quantity of vegetables and fruit in my diet, while

simultaneously increasing their quality and variety, by foraging for

wild plants, growing my own, etc. witness the Masai, with their

incredibly nutritious diet of milk, meat, and blood that contains

only tiny amounts of plant foods (twigs, herbs, etc), which function

more like medicinal supplements than food per se. someone could eat

the same foods, but practice CR, making it a CRON diet. similar

remarks apply to Inuit diets.

next, if by " protein diet " you mean " high-protein diet " , then, as i

pointed out in a post yesterday, this is not entailed by an Atkins

diet, which could be moderate-protein, high-fat, and this version is

probably more natural and healthy anyway. nevertheless, whether a

person chose a high-fat or a high-protein version, they could still

achieve ON and practice CR, making it a CRON diet. furthermore, an

Atkins diet could include an abundance of vegetables, just not

starchy ones, and small amounts of fruit, especially tomatoes,

peppers, wild berries, etc could easily be included as well. you

could eat a pound or two of greens everyday and still be low-carb

enough for Atkins. the phrase " all you can eat " is without substance

and is probably best ignored. low-carb and CR is a pretty easy

combination. (by the way, i don't personally follow Atkins or any

low-carb diet...)

note that i didn't say they were similar; rather, i pointed out they

were *****incomparable******.

mike parker

>

> > one thing i don't understand about this thread is why anybody

would

> > even attempt to compare CRON and Atkins in the first place, since

> > they overlap. it's like comparing " diets with only organic or

wild

> > food " and " diets with no pork " . obviously they overlap and

neither

> > is a subset of the other, so a comparison is meaningless.

[Guest guest]

i just thought of another interesting counterexample to the idea that

CRON implies an abundance of vegetables and to a lesser degree

fruit. consider the traditional Gaelic diet of super high-quality

fresh local sea food and large amounts of fermented oats, with only

small amounts of veggies. (i don't know whether they had any fruit,

probably very little if any.) that's a high-carb,low veggie ON

diet!!

again, as i've pointed out time and time again, humans can thrive on

a very wide range of diets that can be equally nutrient-dense. it

can be low-carb or high-carb; it can be plant-based or animal-based

(but of course a certain minimum of animal foods are required unless

you do a " product of 20th century pharmaceutical technology " diet,

a " pill diet " ); it can be land-based or sea-based; it can be high-

grain or low-grain; it can be dairy-based or dairy-free; etc.

mike parker

>

> > one thing i don't understand about this thread is why anybody

would

> > even attempt to compare CRON and Atkins in the first place, since

> > they overlap. it's like comparing " diets with only organic or

wild

> > food " and " diets with no pork " . obviously they overlap and

neither

> > is a subset of the other, so a comparison is meaningless.

[Guest guest]

> Members who sharply disagree with the CRON philosphy should

probably

> unsubscribe. It serves no purpose to argue back and forth

concerning Atkins. Peg

hello Peg,

i'm not an advocate or practitioner of Atkins, or even a primary

participant in that thread, and it is not among the topics that most

pique my interest at the moment, but i would like to suggest that you

might benefit from reading some of the recent posts explaining that

the CRON philosophy is broad and inclusive, certainly not a

particular diet, and that an Atkins diet potentially falls within its

umbrella, quite easily in fact. the issues that revolve around the

Atkins diet are crucially relevant to both CR and ON, so i see no

dearth of profit in their exploration by other list members who are

so inclined. i'm an authentic and enthusiastic two-year practitioner

of the CRON philosophy who is very familiar with Walford and many

other sources of information on CR and ON, so obviously i'm not among

those who disagree with the CRON philosophy, but nor am i aware of

anyone else on the list who fits that description. i'm speculating

that you might be making the " CRON=Walford " mistake, which has been

deconstructed and discussed ad nauseam in both the recent and distant

past on the list. please consult the archives for these posts.

best,

mike parker

[Guest guest]

Nobody here sharply disagrees with the CRON philosophy. I fail to see

why some are so adamant to make it an 'us VS them' philosophy.

-

> Members who sharply disagree with the CRON philosphy should probably

> unsubscribe. It serves no purpose to argue back and forth

concerning Atkins. Peg

[Guest guest]

The Atkins adherents have stated many times that Walford says he's not an

expert on dietary advice. I've searched through the book and can't find any

such statement. What I have found on page 5 of " Beyond " is: " My

credentials in relation to age retardation are among the best in the world.

In the matter of disease prevention, they are less, but they reflect

extensive reading on the subject, plus my experience as a teacher and

practitioner at the U of Cal School of Medicine " . If someone else knows

where this claim of Roy not being qualified in diet matters is, in the book,

or anywhere else, I would appreciate a post about it.

Francesca wrote:

Interesting that we all read different things into what Roy says. Although

he definitely says: calories count - he also stresses highly nutritious

foods such as vegetables.

1. On page 231 of " Beyond " : " I remain suspicious of diets too high in

protein as far as aging is concerned.......... " Pg 232: " this would

correspond to deriving 11 to 22 % of your calories from protein. .....no

more than 20 to 25% of your calories should come from fat.....the rest of

your calories should come from carbohydrates..... "

2. Page 233: " Fish foremost and chicken and turkey .....are preferable to

red meats......because of the lower fat content. " There is also an entire

section on that page entitled: Food Types to favor.

3. Again and again Walford stresses that certain foods help prevent disease

(such as cruciferous vegetables). His emphasis on WHAT to eat extends to

" entire cookbooks " at the back of each of his books.

4. Finally Walford says that even if one does not practise CR and only

practises ON, they will be much healthier than before. Sorry can't find the

particular passage at the moment; perhaps someone can help me out here.

[Guest guest]

> 4. Finally Walford says that even if one does not practise CR and

> only practises ON, they will be much healthier than before. Sorry

> can't find the particular passage at the moment; perhaps someone

> can help me out here.

I am not sure if this is the particular passage in question ... but

it does relate to your point 4.

" In the unlikely case [that the life-extension promises of CRON diet

do not apply to humans], all I can promise you is that your

susceptibility to cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, autoimmune

disease, and probably even osteoporosis will be less than half that

of the other people in your car pool...Nontranslatability of maximum

life span still adds about ten or more years to your life, and

healthier years at that, as a 'worst case' estimate. " (p. 4 BT120YD)

I hope that helps.

~ andy