Validity of Studies to CR Practitioners

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

A background point worth mentioning, perhaps: As we all know well,

not only from the studies in non-human animals but in the WUSTL human

CR study also, CR goes a very long way to prevent many of the

diseases that are the principal causes of death in western societies.

Nearly 100% of the studies we share with each other here that

demonstrate some benefit, or harm, from some food or other, are based

on observations of non-CR subjects. So one must wonder how much, if

any, relevance they have for those of us involved in CR.

Take heart disease as an example. If the classic cardiovascular risk

factor data of the WUSTL CR subjects are any guide, then CR pretty

much eliminates the chances of suffering cardiovascular disease. If

this is correct, then is there any relevance for CR practitioners of

making minor changes in the types of foods they eat in response to

protective heart characteristics of certain foods proven to be of

help for that purpose to the general (non-CR) population? It may

make an appreciable difference to them. But will it make any

difference to us? Probably not.

And a related point: In part this was the reason why, many months

ago, I asked here if anyone had a breakdown of the causes of death of

people/animals on CR.

If cardiovascular disease is nearly eradicated by CR and cancer

greatly reduced, then what ailments is it we should be spending our

time trying think of ways to avoid?

Rodney.