RE: Well, the misrepresentation begins :(

[Guest guest]

The last time and Meredith appeared on tv, did indeed look very

gaunt, probably as thin as the more extreme CRONIES. They take in only

about 1200 cal a day and it looks better on Meredith. For many of us, 1200

cal a day would indeed BE near starvation. As mentioned previously, I wish

they'd portray some of us CRONIES who adapt a more moderate approach (which

is also easier to maintain). FWIW, I put a question into the website that

Warren posted yesterday, asking about moderation. We'll see if they

actually address it tonight. I doubt it.

on 12/5/2003 11:22 AM, Jody Mack at jdmac@... wrote:

> I was just watching " The View " and Barbara Walters brought up CR during " Hot

> Topics " (since it's on 20/20 tonight). They were calling it " Starvation " and

> they, of course, all had nothing but bad to say about it - totally uninformed,

> ignorant comments - such as (new co-host who was on Survivor) acting

> like she knew all about it due to her experience on Survivor eating an

> " anorexic " diet. Of course, since that experience " screwed up her metabolism

> and can totally mess up your thyroid " , then that must also be true of CRON.

> (nothing worse than people who act like they know everything when they don't!)

>

> Anyway, just saying, I have a feeling that it may not be portrayed in the best

> light - calling it " Starvation " for one isn't very positive.

>

> Jody

>

[Guest guest]

I'm afraid any discussion of moderate behavior while certainly appropriate,

would not attract many television viewers. Further difficulty in precisely

defining where actual restriction begins and simple healthful (light) eating

ends is not IMO obvious or easy to determine.

I do not claim to be restricted nor do I lose any sleep thinking about it. I

do practice what I consider healthy behavior. I try to control my very human

tendency to rationalize my personal choices by recruiting other's to my

" vision " of correct behavior, having learned long ago that it's difficult

enough just to get myself to do what I think is right, let alone others.

Having been overweight for pretty much my entire adult life, I very much

appreciate and benefit from resources like this. For our more extreme

practitioners I appreciate their contribution to the body of knowledge

regarding the effects of CR on humans, and hope for their sake they have

also made good personal choices. Having already buried one sibling I am

comfortable with mine.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:40 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Well, the misrepresentation begins

The last time and Meredith appeared on tv, did indeed look very

gaunt, probably as thin as the more extreme CRONIES. They take in only

about 1200 cal a day and it looks better on Meredith. For many of us, 1200

cal a day would indeed BE near starvation. As mentioned previously, I wish

they'd portray some of us CRONIES who adapt a more moderate approach (which

is also easier to maintain). FWIW, I put a question into the website that

Warren posted yesterday, asking about moderation. We'll see if they

actually address it tonight. I doubt it.

on 12/5/2003 11:22 AM, Jody Mack at jdmac@... wrote:

> I was just watching " The View " and Barbara Walters brought up CR during

" Hot

> Topics " (since it's on 20/20 tonight). They were calling it " Starvation "

and

> they, of course, all had nothing but bad to say about it - totally

uninformed,

> ignorant comments - such as (new co-host who was on Survivor)

acting

> like she knew all about it due to her experience on Survivor eating an

> " anorexic " diet. Of course, since that experience " screwed up her

metabolism

> and can totally mess up your thyroid " , then that must also be true of

CRON.

> (nothing worse than people who act like they know everything when they

don't!)

>

> Anyway, just saying, I have a feeling that it may not be portrayed in the

best

> light - calling it " Starvation " for one isn't very positive.

>

> Jody

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Absolutely. What is needed are studies (in mice, rats, monkeys and

humans) that delineate the exact shape of the 'lifespan vs degree of

restriction' curve, as well as where it peaks in humans. Perhaps a

shortcut to this would be to watch mortality rates, as Partridge et

al did with Drosophila.

We will not have that for years I suspect. In the meantime we each

have to make our own decisions as to what we guess is appropriate.

As previously noted, the curve must inevitably be very steep on both

sides of the lifespan maximum - given that the okinawan degree of

restiction doesn't do much for their lifespan, and that damage to

health, which presumably occurs above the true starvation level, is

likely to be not all that far below some of the numbers talked about

here.

Rodney.

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

Further difficulty in precisely defining where actual restriction

begins and simple healthful (light) eating ends is not IMO obvious or

easy to determine.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi :

>

> Absolutely. What is needed are studies (in mice, rats, monkeys and

> humans) that delineate the exact shape of the 'lifespan vs degree

of

> restriction' curve....

Hi All,

Please see:

http://www045.heronetwork.com/modules.php?

name=Sections & op=viewarticle & artid=12

Cheers, Al.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Thanks for that response. Unfortunately, when I click on it I get

the following error message:

" Sorry, you can't access this file directly... "

Rodney.

> > Hi :

> >

> > Absolutely. What is needed are studies (in mice, rats, monkeys

and

> > humans) that delineate the exact shape of the 'lifespan vs degree

> of

> > restriction' curve....

>

> Hi All,

>

> Please see:

>

> http://www045.heronetwork.com/modules.php?

> name=Sections & op=viewarticle & artid=12

>

> Cheers, Al.

[Guest guest]

Fri Dec 5, 2003 10:39 am

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@e...> Wrote:

<The last time and Meredith appeared on tv, did indeed look

very gaunt, probably as thin as the more extreme CRONIES. They take

in only about 1200 cal a day and it looks better on Meredith. For

many of us, 1200 cal a day would indeed BE near starvation. As

mentioned previously, I wish they'd portray some of us CRONIES who

adapt a more moderate approach (which is also easier to maintain).

FWIW, I put a question into the website that Warren posted yesterday,

asking about moderation.>

Hi All,

In the 20/20 program tonight they said eats 1800 calories per

day, and Averill eats 1400 calories. I personally would not choose

to be as low a weight as is at 131 lbs & 5' 11', but the other

CR people in the interview certainly seemed normal in appearance.

There were warnings about taking it too far to extremes including Dr.

Greenberg admission he gained weight to preserve his marriage.

Relationship problems have happened to others doing CR too. Further

warnings were given about osteoporosis, anemia, cell damage, and skin

damage.

These are real concerns & many doing extreme CR have experienced

these problems.

..

[Guest guest]

The link was truncated into a second line... I edited the link below &

now you can copy paste into browser.

Rodney wrote:

> Hi Al:

>

> Thanks for that response. Unfortunately, when I click on it I get

> the following error message:

>

> " Sorry, you can't access this file directly... "

>

>

>

> > Please see:

> >

>

http://www045.heronetwork.com/modules.php?name=Sections & op=viewarticle & artid=12

> >

> > Cheers, Al.

>

[Guest guest]

i noticed that too and apologize for the mixup. , as I originally said

is very thin and IMHO does not look " young " or " healthy. Just one woman's

opinion. There was only one other person cited on CR that I recall (the

first young woman cited who takes in 1600 cal a day). She was not an

" extremist " . I aim for 1600 myself (although I probably go over many days).

on 12/6/2003 4:14 AM, numicucamonga at no-spam-please@... wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> In the 20/20 program tonight they said eats 1800 calories per

> day, and Averill eats 1400 calories. I personally would not choose

> to be as low a weight as is at 131 lbs & 5' 11', but the other

> CR people in the interview certainly seemed normal in appearance.

[Guest guest]

Hi Apricot:

(Very nice name incidentally!)

It was a bit dumb of me not to figure out about the truncation!

Hopefully I will be able to figure it out next time. Thanks.

The charts are interesting. I take it they are 'normalized' to a

human timeframe? In other words, the 1700 days in the first chart

represents 1700 human days, not 1700 mouse days? If so, then the

time scale effect appears to be pretty much the same as it was with

fruit flies. In fruit flies it took two days after 35% CR was

started, for mortality to drop by the full 80% (even if started when

the flies were '60' years old). Two days in fruit flies is about the

equivalent of four years in humans.

But the data in the second chart, showing proportionate increase in

survivors versus degree of restriction, appear to contradict my

suggestion that the slope of the curve must be very steep at some

point. Since in that chart the relationship seems to be linear.

If the relationship IS linear in humans too, then what are we to

conclude about the only very modest improvement in lifespan among the

okinawans?

Rodney.

> > > Please see:

> > >

> > http://www045.heronetwork.com/modules.php?

name=Sections & op=viewarticle & artid=12

> > >

> > > Cheers, Al.

> >

[Guest guest]

> If the relationship IS linear in humans too,

> then what are we to conclude about the only

> very modest improvement in lifespan among the

> okinawans?

Limited medical support (in contrast to current life expectancies)? Is it

really ON? War? While the Okinawan data is interesting and generally

supportive, it is an open population and there are many things that cannot

be controlled in the same way a lab is. I wouldn't expect to see an exact

parallel to lab data in those circumstances, so the fact that there's a

correlation at all is generally supportive, but I don't think anything more

specific can really be gained. ie: what if Okinawans had a lower cancer or

heart disease incidence rate, but an abysmal record for 5 year survival due

to political, cultural, or technological circumstances? This could render a

greatly skewed comparison to elsewhere (or there) 50 years later when

medicine has greatly improved survival rates, even if incidences are more

frequent...

Does anyone know if the death, birth, & age records for Okinawa have been

compared to other populations of the same time period? If they were living

well into their 80s in the 1940s, then that would make a more meaningful

contrast to life expectancies in North America and Europe in the 1940s

rather than the 2000s... I'm not familiar enough to say.

Cheers,

________________________

Gifford

3-5 Humanities Centre

Department of English

University of Alberta

www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Thanks for those suggestions. I agree with everything you say. But

the same could equally be said of north americans. As I understand

it there is no dispute that okinawans consume appreciably fewer

calories than north americans. Most of what I have read about the

okinawan diet seems to indicate that the authors believe its quality

is far superior also (that would not be difficult, of course). Is

there even ONE okinawan who claims to be over 110 years old? We know

there are none over 120 years of age. Is it reasonable to suppose

that WWII selectively eliminated every single person in Okinawa who

had been destined to live to an age in excess of 115? Not likely.

What I am saying is that something among all this (I don't know what)

does not quite fit the hope we all have - that CR will extend maximum

lifespan in humans to a degree at least in the same ball-park as is

observed in rodents.

Since, obviously, the pieces of the puzzle **must** fit, I would like

to know the reason for the apparent discrepancy. And not just out of

idle curiosity, but so that we can all make sure we do not make the

same mistakes, whatever they are, that the okinawans apparently have

been making. Perhaps it is as you suggest, that everything else in

Okinawa, except the quality and quantity of the diet, is inferior.

If we can determine that that is indeed the case then we will all

have learnt something important. Possibly even helpful.

For a start, I need to read the rodent studies and learn more about

the differences between the north american and okinawan diets.

Hopefully I will get to do that sometime.

Rodney.

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

wrote:

> > If the relationship IS linear in humans too,

> > then what are we to conclude about the only

> > very modest improvement in lifespan among the

> > okinawans?

>

> Limited medical support (in contrast to current life

expectancies)? Is it

> really ON? War? While the Okinawan data is interesting and

generally

> supportive, it is an open population and there are many things that

cannot

> be controlled in the same way a lab is. I wouldn't expect to see

an exact

> parallel to lab data in those circumstances, so the fact that

there's a

> correlation at all is generally supportive, but I don't think

anything more

> specific can really be gained. ie: what if Okinawans had a lower

cancer or

> heart disease incidence rate, but an abysmal record for 5 year

survival due

> to political, cultural, or technological circumstances? This could

render a

> greatly skewed comparison to elsewhere (or there) 50 years later

when

> medicine has greatly improved survival rates, even if incidences

are more

> frequent...

>

> Does anyone know if the death, birth, & age records for Okinawa

have been

> compared to other populations of the same time period? If they

were living

> well into their 80s in the 1940s, then that would make a more

meaningful

> contrast to life expectancies in North America and Europe in the

1940s

> rather than the 2000s... I'm not familiar enough to say.

>

> Cheers,

>

> ________________________

> Gifford

> 3-5 Humanities Centre

> Department of English

> University of Alberta

> www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I read recently, probably in a archive source, that

life expectancy in Okinawa has increased considerably in the past 50

years. I believe it said that 50 years ago it was below US life

expectancy. fwiw

Rodney.

PS: Or the source might have been the only other place I have taken

a serious look at regarding Okinawa - the book 'The Okinawa Program' -

which I recently borrowed from the library.

> Does anyone know if the death, birth, & age records for Okinawa

have been

> compared to other populations of the same time period? If they

were living

> well into their 80s in the 1940s, then that would make a more

meaningful

> contrast to life expectancies in North America and Europe in the

1940s

> rather than the 2000s... I'm not familiar enough to say.

>

> Cheers,

>

> ________________________

> Gifford

> 3-5 Humanities Centre

> Department of English

> University of Alberta

> www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

I mostly have the same answers/concerns, though these are good questions.

> Is there even ONE okinawan who claims to be

> over 110 years old? We know there are none

> over 120 years of age. Is it reasonable to

> suppose that WWII selectively eliminated

> every single person in Okinawa who had been

> destined to live to an age in excess of 115?

> Not likely.

Yup, but with the population and the question of whether or not they're

actually doing a mild version of CRON hanging in the air, why would we

expect a group measured in the thousands to have the same outlying

'oddities' as are observed in populations numbering in the

millions/billions?

For a mild version of CRON (not as severe or as nutritionally balanced as

the rodent studies), we might expect to see a mild rise in average life

expectancy, but within the confines of what would be reasonable to an open

population. We certainly wouldn't expect to find a huge number of very

oddly old people from among a very small population practicing a mild

version of CRON. So far, those who live to the 110+ age seem to do so based

largely on their genetics, much like long-lived stains of mice -- in short,

they're statistical freaks who would live long with or without CR. That a

small population doesn't have such statistical freaks should be expected.

Nonetheless, if a mild version of CRON shows an increase in average life

expectancy that is significant, than that would seem to be supporting

evidence, especially if it comes from an open population.

> Perhaps it is as you suggest, that

> everything else in Okinawa, except the

> quality and quantity of the diet, is inferior.

Let me rephrase that. I'm sure Okinawa is now a fully modern place with the

same facilities we know and love (or at least comparable), including potato

chips and fast food. If the longevity data on Okinawa in the 1940s could be

compared to life expectancy data for a group at a similar level of medical

achievement (say, 1900 North America -- I'm guessing here, since I don't

know what Okinawa was like in the 1940s), then that might be a more

meaningful comparison. I suppose my stance is that I'm not sure if the

comparisons we're making are meaningful.

If our technology helps us to survive the diseases of old age longer, while

another group just puts them off by aging less, but dies promptly once they

are contracted, then the actual life spans will be pretty close, and my

guess is that we can probably create an inverse relationship between medical

advances in Okinawa and degeneration of the quality of the diet there from a

CR perspective.

The best data we have so far is that human responses to CR in the short term

are quite comparable to rodent responses, which would seem to indicate that

other expectations would likely follow, but of course there are no long-term

CR studies in humans yet...

Cheers,

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

> life expectancy in Okinawa has increased

> considerably in the past 50 years. I

> believe it said that 50 years ago it was

> below US life expectancy.

That's interesting too. I wonder what the relationship is between that and

medical technology, or if anyone has done the comparison factoring out

infant mortality, etc...

I think the argument for Okinawa derives from the ratio of centenarians to

the populations, which might indicate that those who don't die of infectious

disease (say, those who make it to 30), tend to stick around longer than

'normal.'

Cheers,

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

> From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:18 PM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: Well, the misrepresentation begins

>

>

> Hi :

>

> I read recently, probably in a archive source, that

> life expectancy in Okinawa has increased considerably in the past 50

> years. I believe it said that 50 years ago it was below US life

> expectancy. fwiw

>

> Rodney.

>

> PS: Or the source might have been the only other place I have taken

> a serious look at regarding Okinawa - the book 'The Okinawa Program' -

> which I recently borrowed from the library.

>

>

> > Does anyone know if the death, birth, & age records for Okinawa

> have been

> > compared to other populations of the same time period? If they

> were living

> > well into their 80s in the 1940s, then that would make a more

> meaningful

> > contrast to life expectancies in North America and Europe in the

> 1940s

> > rather than the 2000s... I'm not familiar enough to say.

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > ________________________

> > Gifford

> > 3-5 Humanities Centre

> > Department of English

> > University of Alberta

> > www.ualberta.ca/~gifford

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney: perhaps as we learn more, we can " fit " the pieces. As of now, CRON

is the best we have so we have to just " go " with it. If there's a better

" mousetrap " soon, then we can switch to that......

on 12/6/2003 2:07 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Since, obviously, the pieces of the puzzle **must** fit, I would like

> to know the reason for the apparent discrepancy. And not just out of

> idle curiosity, but so that we can all make sure we do not make the

> same mistakes, whatever they are, that the okinawans apparently have

> been making.

[Guest guest]

Yup. and as our resident Okinawan, Eddie (Eddie, are you there?) has

said in the past, the younger generation are contracting all the diseases

of western civilization........

on 12/6/2003 2:28 PM, Gifford at gifford@... wrote:

> I'm sure Okinawa is now a fully modern place with the

> same facilities we know and love (or at least comparable), including potato

> chips and fast food.

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

And I would like to try to contribute to finding the way to design

the better mousetrap : ^ )

Rodney.

>

> > Since, obviously, the pieces of the puzzle **must** fit, I would

like

> > to know the reason for the apparent discrepancy. And not just

out of

> > idle curiosity, but so that we can all make sure we do not make

the

> > same mistakes, whatever they are, that the okinawans apparently

have

> > been making.

[Guest guest]

Wow! A tall order. Keep plugging away and keep us posted on your efforts.

I'd like to be able to point to you and say: " You read it here first,

folks......... "

on 12/6/2003 3:31 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi Francesca:

>

> And I would like to try to contribute to finding the way to design

> the better mousetrap : ^ )

>

> Rodney.