Re: 13 seconds per Calorie

[Guest guest]

> So each calorie saved after age 30 will give us an improvement in

C/L

> of .0875 minutes. So we are saving 5.25 seconds per calorie over

the

> lifetime.

There's my first mistake. It's actually .7125 - .576, which is .1365

minutes, which is 8.19 seconds. So it's 8 seconds for the initial

calculation, but the final calculation of 13 seconds for just the CR

period still stands (so far).

Katrina.

[Guest guest]

So if I'm lengthening my life by 13 sec for every cal.(not eaten) and let's

say I'm eliminating 500 cal a day, that means 500 X 13 = 6500 seconds or 108

minutes a day. Multiply by 7 days a week means 758 min a week or about 12

hours or 1/2 a day per week. I then get 26 days more days of life in a

year.

So if I've been on CRON for over 3 1/2 years, I should have added about 91

days or 3 months to my life. Is my math correct?

This is fun to do.

on 1/28/2004 9:16 PM, mrbosco78 at mrbosco78@... wrote:

> First I have to say that as an engineer, I really appreciate Katrina's

> calculations. They are a true work of art. Katrina, congratulations

> on your deserved position in the hall of fame!

[Guest guest]

> Therefore, our CR male after he commences CR has a C/L ratio of:

>

> 34,164,000 (minutes) / 42,705,000 (calories) = 0.8 minutes per

> calorie.

>

> So each calorie saved after age 30 will give us an improvement in

C/L

> of .224 minutes (13.44 seconds). So we are saving 13 seconds per

> calorie, which seems like a more reasonable number to me.

OK, here's something I just noticed. The above figure is correct,

but it is telling us how much life we gain per calorie *consumed*

over a CR lifetime. This is a useless number for most of us and

leads to confusion, we want to know how much life we are gaining for

the calories we save. The easiest way to do that is to back-

calculate it from the years saved:

20 years gained over 65 years is 0.30769 years gained each year;

which is 112 days.

112 days * 1440 minutes * 60 seconds is 9703384 seconds gained each

year.

This is achieved by saving 237250 calories per annum (650 * 365).

So, we are gaining 40.89 (9703384/237250) seconds of life for every

calorie *reduced*. Assuming, of course, we are a 30 year old male

who eats 1850 calories per day, used to eat 2500, and we live to 95

on a CRON diet as opposed to 75 on an AL diet.

Sorry for the confusion folks, I only just spotted it.

K.

[Guest guest]

Hi Katrina:

Good stuff. But why do you assume CRON increases lifespan by only

27%? (75 to 95).

Do not the species tested see increases more like 40%? (Dr. Walford

talks of an extension from 110 to 155 for maximum lifespan, I

believe).

Also, you take 75 years as a base. It is a realistic number for

people born in 1925, but perhaps not for those born in the 1940s

1950s and 1960s. The base is rising all the time so I think it would

be realistic to take a higher base, more like 85 for those with a

healthy lifestyle currently aged in their 40s or 50s. A 40% increase

in lifespan on a base of 85 years represents an increase of 34 years.

So I think your 'seconds-per-calorie' number could perhaps come out

quite a bit higher.

Rodney.

--- In , " katrinacrader " <katnap@f...>

wrote:

> > Therefore, our CR male after he commences CR has a C/L ratio of:

> >

> > 34,164,000 (minutes) / 42,705,000 (calories) = 0.8 minutes per

> > calorie.

> >

> > So each calorie saved after age 30 will give us an improvement in

> C/L

> > of .224 minutes (13.44 seconds). So we are saving 13 seconds per

> > calorie, which seems like a more reasonable number to me.

>

> OK, here's something I just noticed. The above figure is correct,

> but it is telling us how much life we gain per calorie *consumed*

> over a CR lifetime. This is a useless number for most of us and

> leads to confusion, we want to know how much life we are gaining

for

> the calories we save. The easiest way to do that is to back-

> calculate it from the years saved:

>

> 20 years gained over 65 years is 0.30769 years gained each year;

> which is 112 days.

> 112 days * 1440 minutes * 60 seconds is 9703384 seconds gained each

> year.

> This is achieved by saving 237250 calories per annum (650 * 365).

>

> So, we are gaining 40.89 (9703384/237250) seconds of life for every

> calorie *reduced*. Assuming, of course, we are a 30 year old male

> who eats 1850 calories per day, used to eat 2500, and we live to 95

> on a CRON diet as opposed to 75 on an AL diet.

>

> Sorry for the confusion folks, I only just spotted it.

>

> K.

[Guest guest]

> Good stuff. But why do you assume CRON increases lifespan by only

> 27%? (75 to 95).

I based the assumption on a 1-for-1 basis. 26% reduction in calories

= 26% (ish) increase in years. I know this is vague, but we are

making so many assumptions, and it's as good as guess as any other

when it comes to humans. In reality, we may not even get 20 years

because we are starting later in life. 15% increase in lifespan for

a 26% reduction starting at age 30 might be more likely. And that's

assuming that we reduced our calorie intake slowly enough at the

beginning not to negate all the benefits and actually cause an

earlier death.

> Do not the species tested see increases more like 40%? (Dr.

Walford

> talks of an extension from 110 to 155 for maximum lifespan, I

> believe).

The increase in lifespan of up to 40% was for a 40% reduction in

calories, I believe, over a longer period of time.

> Also, you take 75 years as a base. It is a realistic number for

> people born in 1925, but perhaps not for those born in the 1940s

> 1950s and 1960s.

Perhaps.

Katrina.

[Guest guest]

Hi Katrina:

In the recent Drosophila study from University College, London, the

full benefit was achieved by those individuals that were started

on 'CR' (even without the 'ON') at the equivalent of 60 years of

age.

(I posted here about that study shortly after it was published a

couple of months ago).

Rodney.

--- In , " katrinacrader " <katnap@f...>

wrote:

> > Good stuff. But why do you assume CRON increases lifespan by

only

> > 27%? (75 to 95).

>

> I based the assumption on a 1-for-1 basis. 26% reduction in

calories

> = 26% (ish) increase in years. I know this is vague, but we are

> making so many assumptions, and it's as good as guess as any other

> when it comes to humans. In reality, we may not even get 20 years

> because we are starting later in life. 15% increase in lifespan

for

> a 26% reduction starting at age 30 might be more likely. And

that's

> assuming that we reduced our calorie intake slowly enough at the

> beginning not to negate all the benefits and actually cause an

> earlier death.

>

> > Do not the species tested see increases more like 40%? (Dr.

> Walford

> > talks of an extension from 110 to 155 for maximum lifespan, I

> > believe).

>

> The increase in lifespan of up to 40% was for a 40% reduction in

> calories, I believe, over a longer period of time.

>

> > Also, you take 75 years as a base. It is a realistic number for

> > people born in 1925, but perhaps not for those born in the 1940s

> > 1950s and 1960s.

>

> Perhaps.

>

> Katrina.

[Guest guest]

Hi Katrina:

Post # 8167:

" " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@y...>

Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 4:48 pm

Subject: Very Recent Article in 'Science' Journal

Hi Guys: I am new here. First post. Lots of interesting stuff

being discussed I see. But I did not see mentioned the

article " Demography of Dietary Restriction and Death in Drosophila "

in the 19 September 2003 issue of SCIENCE. Absolutely relevant to

this group. To cut a long story short it proves that, at least in

fruit flies (drosophila), when previously fully fed flies are placed

on 40% calorie restriction only at the equivalent of human age of

about 60, they thereafter gain the FULL benefits of it. The evidence

is best demonstrated in the first diagram in the article which shows

that two days after going on calorie restriction the mortality rate

of 'sixty year old' flies is indistinguishable from that of flies that

have been calorie-restricted from early in life. The unrestricted

flies, of course, die off 'like flies' (Sorry for that rather poor

pun). "

The mortality rate of the group put on CR at age '60' fell by 80%, to

the same rate as those who had been on CR since age '20'. Of course

more of the group that was fully fed until age 60 had died between

ages 20 and 60. But not afterwards.

Rodney.

> > > Good stuff. But why do you assume CRON increases lifespan by

> only

> > > 27%? (75 to 95).

> >

> > I based the assumption on a 1-for-1 basis. 26% reduction in

> calories

> > = 26% (ish) increase in years. I know this is vague, but we are

> > making so many assumptions, and it's as good as guess as any

other

> > when it comes to humans. In reality, we may not even get 20

years

> > because we are starting later in life. 15% increase in lifespan

> for

> > a 26% reduction starting at age 30 might be more likely. And

> that's

> > assuming that we reduced our calorie intake slowly enough at the

> > beginning not to negate all the benefits and actually cause an

> > earlier death.

> >

> > > Do not the species tested see increases more like 40%? (Dr.

> > Walford

> > > talks of an extension from 110 to 155 for maximum lifespan, I

> > > believe).

> >

> > The increase in lifespan of up to 40% was for a 40% reduction in

> > calories, I believe, over a longer period of time.

> >

> > > Also, you take 75 years as a base. It is a realistic number

for

> > > people born in 1925, but perhaps not for those born in the

1940s

> > > 1950s and 1960s.

> >

> > Perhaps.

> >

> > Katrina.

[Guest guest]

> Absolutely relevant to this group. To cut a long story short it

> proves that, at least in fruit flies (drosophila), when previously

> fully fed flies are placed on 40% calorie restriction only at the

> equivalent of human age of about 60, they thereafter gain the FULL

> benefits of it.

Meh, fruit flies are not humans, it's ridiculous to compare the two

(except maybe to show that calorie restriction works at a fundamental

level). It's been shown that in higher species that's not true.

Putting someone a little overweight(like the drosophila most likely

were if they were completely fed al) at that age on such a diet in

humans would be disasterous more often than not.

[Guest guest]

Katrina/Rodney and anyone else involved: I'd like some sort of consensus as

to what the final file (which needs to be corrected) should say. I'm not as

clever as you guys, so guidance would be appreciated. As it stands now,

it's Katrina's original post and the first correction to it. Or go over and

read for yourself, and let me know what corrections have to be made.

Thanks again Katrina. It is really brilliant!

on 1/29/2004 11:29 PM, katrinacrader at katnap@... wrote:

>> Good stuff. But why do you assume CRON increases lifespan by only

>> 27%? (75 to 95).

>

> I based the assumption on a 1-for-1 basis. 26% reduction in calories

> = 26% (ish) increase in years. I know this is vague, but we are

> making so many assumptions, and it's as good as guess as any other

> when it comes to humans. In reality, we may not even get 20 years

> because we are starting later in life. 15% increase in lifespan for

> a 26% reduction starting at age 30 might be more likely. And that's

> assuming that we reduced our calorie intake slowly enough at the

> beginning not to negate all the benefits and actually cause an

> earlier death.

>

>> Do not the species tested see increases more like 40%? (Dr.

> Walford

>> talks of an extension from 110 to 155 for maximum lifespan, I

>> believe).

>

> The increase in lifespan of up to 40% was for a 40% reduction in

> calories, I believe, over a longer period of time.

>

>> Also, you take 75 years as a base. It is a realistic number for

>> people born in 1925, but perhaps not for those born in the 1940s

>> 1950s and 1960s.

>

> Perhaps.

>

> Katrina.

[Guest guest]

I'll type up a new file for you and send it via e-mail.

I'm also going to write a little program so that people can work out

their own CR number, as it will be different for each one of us. My

program will also take into account Rodney's concerns.

K.

> Katrina/Rodney and anyone else involved: I'd like some sort of

consensus as

> to what the final file (which needs to be corrected) should say.