Re: Applicability of CR to Humans

March 11, 2006

I assume you mean 40% longer than say 126.

Es verdad, I think there would be at least one instance of such in the world.

Even in areas which have poor records and people claim to be over 100 yo, they don't claim to be 150, eg., (not today). Surely there would have been one monk who fasted his way to 130?

Also, it may be rather easy thing to get to 100 yo, but another to know you got there. The one instance in my family and my wife's of a health nut, does not remember me anymore at 83. The rest are older or nearly the same and are just as healthy, even though technically overweight, with no sign of mental problems. They control their weight, more or less, but they're not that well educated.

Many of the centi's seem to be mentally incapacitated.

So we practice CR to have a chance to get there, but we also have to be aware of the other health risks, as simple as falling down on icy streets, slipping in the tub, falling off the roof, or depriving our brain of DHA, maybe.

And many of the critical factors, we might not even know about yet.

Regards.

[ ] Applicability of CR to Humans

Hi folks:Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning regarding whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to us. The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also shown that sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan. Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:"To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc.; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria."So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond to CR this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range of animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-animal species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out that humans are the only species of living things it does not apply to? Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as much to humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic, then 40% extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a thought. Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))Rodney.

March 11, 2006

I assume you mean 40% longer than say 126.

Es verdad, I think there would be at least one instance of such in the world.

Even in areas which have poor records and people claim to be over 100 yo, they don't claim to be 150, eg., (not today). Surely there would have been one monk who fasted his way to 130?

Also, it may be rather easy thing to get to 100 yo, but another to know you got there. The one instance in my family and my wife's of a health nut, does not remember me anymore at 83. The rest are older or nearly the same and are just as healthy, even though technically overweight, with no sign of mental problems. They control their weight, more or less, but they're not that well educated.

Many of the centi's seem to be mentally incapacitated.

So we practice CR to have a chance to get there, but we also have to be aware of the other health risks, as simple as falling down on icy streets, slipping in the tub, falling off the roof, or depriving our brain of DHA, maybe.

And many of the critical factors, we might not even know about yet.

Regards.

[ ] Applicability of CR to Humans

Hi folks:Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning regarding whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to us. The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also shown that sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan. Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:"To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc.; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria."So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond to CR this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range of animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-animal species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out that humans are the only species of living things it does not apply to? Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as much to humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic, then 40% extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a thought. Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))Rodney.

March 11, 2006

Hi Rodney,

> Based on this logic, then 40%

> extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic.

You may be right but I think the odds are against it; otherwise,

there would be more examples of people living to 140 years or more.

Among the billions of people who have lived (and now dead) surely

some of them (by accident or choice) ate a CRON-like diet.

Tom

March 11, 2006

Hi Rodney,

> Based on this logic, then 40%

> extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic.

You may be right but I think the odds are against it; otherwise,

there would be more examples of people living to 140 years or more.

Among the billions of people who have lived (and now dead) surely

some of them (by accident or choice) ate a CRON-like diet.

Tom

March 11, 2006

Hi JW:

Well no, I don't mean 40% more than 126. When they say that 40% CR

in mice extends maximal lifespan by 40%, they do not mean (correction

welcomed) that the mice lived 40% longer than the longest any mouse

on the planet has ever lived. IIRC they mean the 10% longest lived

of the CR group lived 40% longer than the average age at death of the

longest lived 10% of the control group.

If you had a 100 member random sample of humans for your control

group, what would the average age at death be for the ten longest

lived? I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess my guess would

be 92 ....... perhaps?

So 40% greater than 92 would mean about 129 years. And that would

not apply to the entire CRON group, but would represent the average

lifespan of the group's longest living ten percent.

I believe it was in BT120YD that I read this definition of 'maximal

lifespan'. As I said, if I have this definition wrong - I quote it

from memory - please correct.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

wrote:

>

> I assume you mean 40% longer than say 126.

> Es verdad, I think there would be at least one instance of such in

the world.

> Even in areas which have poor records and people claim to be over

100 yo, they don't claim to be 150, eg., (not today). Surely there

would have been one monk who fasted his way to 130?

>

> Also, it may be rather easy thing to get to 100 yo, but another to

know you got there. The one instance in my family and my wife's of a

health nut, does not remember me anymore at 83. The rest are older or

nearly the same and are just as healthy, even though technically

overweight, with no sign of mental problems. They control their

weight, more or less, but they're not that well educated.

> Many of the centi's seem to be mentally incapacitated.

>

> So we practice CR to have a chance to get there, but we also have

to be aware of the other health risks, as simple as falling down on

icy streets, slipping in the tub, falling off the roof, or depriving

our brain of DHA, maybe.

> And many of the critical factors, we might not even know about yet.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Applicability of CR to Humans

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning

regarding

> whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to

us.

> The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also shown

that

> sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan.

>

> Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:

>

> " To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of

> animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is

made

> up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human

eye);

> Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc.;

and

> Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria. "

>

> So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond to

CR

> this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.

>

> So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range

of

> animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-animal

> species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out that

> humans are the only species of living things it does not apply

to?

>

> Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as

much to

> humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic, then

40%

> extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a

thought.

> Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))

>

> Rodney.

>

March 11, 2006

Hi JW:

Well no, I don't mean 40% more than 126. When they say that 40% CR

in mice extends maximal lifespan by 40%, they do not mean (correction

welcomed) that the mice lived 40% longer than the longest any mouse

on the planet has ever lived. IIRC they mean the 10% longest lived

of the CR group lived 40% longer than the average age at death of the

longest lived 10% of the control group.

If you had a 100 member random sample of humans for your control

group, what would the average age at death be for the ten longest

lived? I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess my guess would

be 92 ....... perhaps?

So 40% greater than 92 would mean about 129 years. And that would

not apply to the entire CRON group, but would represent the average

lifespan of the group's longest living ten percent.

I believe it was in BT120YD that I read this definition of 'maximal

lifespan'. As I said, if I have this definition wrong - I quote it

from memory - please correct.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

wrote:

>

> I assume you mean 40% longer than say 126.

> Es verdad, I think there would be at least one instance of such in

the world.

> Even in areas which have poor records and people claim to be over

100 yo, they don't claim to be 150, eg., (not today). Surely there

would have been one monk who fasted his way to 130?

>

> Also, it may be rather easy thing to get to 100 yo, but another to

know you got there. The one instance in my family and my wife's of a

health nut, does not remember me anymore at 83. The rest are older or

nearly the same and are just as healthy, even though technically

overweight, with no sign of mental problems. They control their

weight, more or less, but they're not that well educated.

> Many of the centi's seem to be mentally incapacitated.

>

> So we practice CR to have a chance to get there, but we also have

to be aware of the other health risks, as simple as falling down on

icy streets, slipping in the tub, falling off the roof, or depriving

our brain of DHA, maybe.

> And many of the critical factors, we might not even know about yet.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Applicability of CR to Humans

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning

regarding

> whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to

us.

> The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also shown

that

> sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan.

>

> Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:

>

> " To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of

> animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is

made

> up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human

eye);

> Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc.;

and

> Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria. "

>

> So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond to

CR

> this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.

>

> So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range

of

> animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-animal

> species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out that

> humans are the only species of living things it does not apply

to?

>

> Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as

much to

> humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic, then

40%

> extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a

thought.

> Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))

>

> Rodney.

>

March 12, 2006

The thing that haunts me is that we really don't know much about living longer.

We know that we should eat fewer calories, but which calories are they?

We have to do more than live longer, we have to avoid:

Anorexia,

ARMD

Cancer in many places

CVD

CAD

Kidney disease

Liver disease

Hypertension

Stroke

Dementia

Alzheimer's,

Loss of memory

Neurodegenerative disorders

Osteoporosis

Pneumonia

Respiratory failure,

Wasting,

Accidents,

and probably most of all people peddling a "new" longevity chemical, which, BTW, "has not been evaluated by the FDA".

Our entire medical force has been trained and dedicated to solving health problems, not preventing problems, certainly not increasing lifespan.

So you and I have set about deriving the requirements, such as precise vitamin/mineral requirements, and I see pills being made that megadose, but don't have a lot of science behind them. Just the "science" that you and I can read in Pubmed.

There is maybe an optimum set of foods that provide the right vitamins and minerals, but that merely scratches the surface maybe.

There are literally thousands of "herbs" that provide thousands of chemicals for a thousand activities and we have very little data inre to those.

So I don't see the task so much as reducing calories or weight as is it finding those things I can eat that will help and not do harm. Probably each persons requirements will be different.

Perhaps:

4 oz prune juice

8 oz orange juice (no Ca and vit D added)

0.5 tsp of cod liver oil

1.4 oz walnuts

2 oz carrots

7 oz canned papaya, guava, pineapple

2 oz of whole kernel bread

3 oz chicken breast, mustard,

vinegar,

salsa made with tomatoes, red chili peppers, red sweet peppers, onions, garlic

romaine lettuce, cucumber, tomatoes, spinach, mixed other salad greens, chopped celery (2 oz)

steamed broccoli, cauliflower, celery, green beans with rosemary,

yellow corn, English peas, immature limas or black eyed peas,

baked sweet potato

0.5 oz of peanuts,

plain yogurt with blueberries or cherries

no cabbage, no MV, no dried beans of any kind cooked any way, not more than 2 oz of raw celery.

Just my take.

Regards.

[ ] Applicability of CR to Humans> > > Hi folks:> > Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning regarding > whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to us. > The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also shown that > sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan. > > Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:> > "To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of > animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made > up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); > Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc.; and > Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria."> > So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond to CR > this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.> > So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range of > animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-animal > species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out that > humans are the only species of living things it does not apply to? > > Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as much to > humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic, then 40% > extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a thought. > Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))> > Rodney.>

March 12, 2006

The thing that haunts me is that we really don't know much about living longer.

We know that we should eat fewer calories, but which calories are they?

We have to do more than live longer, we have to avoid:

Anorexia,

ARMD

Cancer in many places

CVD

CAD

Kidney disease

Liver disease

Hypertension

Stroke

Dementia

Alzheimer's,

Loss of memory

Neurodegenerative disorders

Osteoporosis

Pneumonia

Respiratory failure,

Wasting,

Accidents,

and probably most of all people peddling a "new" longevity chemical, which, BTW, "has not been evaluated by the FDA".

Our entire medical force has been trained and dedicated to solving health problems, not preventing problems, certainly not increasing lifespan.

So you and I have set about deriving the requirements, such as precise vitamin/mineral requirements, and I see pills being made that megadose, but don't have a lot of science behind them. Just the "science" that you and I can read in Pubmed.

There is maybe an optimum set of foods that provide the right vitamins and minerals, but that merely scratches the surface maybe.

There are literally thousands of "herbs" that provide thousands of chemicals for a thousand activities and we have very little data inre to those.

So I don't see the task so much as reducing calories or weight as is it finding those things I can eat that will help and not do harm. Probably each persons requirements will be different.

Perhaps:

4 oz prune juice

8 oz orange juice (no Ca and vit D added)

0.5 tsp of cod liver oil

1.4 oz walnuts

2 oz carrots

7 oz canned papaya, guava, pineapple

2 oz of whole kernel bread

3 oz chicken breast, mustard,

vinegar,

salsa made with tomatoes, red chili peppers, red sweet peppers, onions, garlic

romaine lettuce, cucumber, tomatoes, spinach, mixed other salad greens, chopped celery (2 oz)

steamed broccoli, cauliflower, celery, green beans with rosemary,

yellow corn, English peas, immature limas or black eyed peas,

baked sweet potato

0.5 oz of peanuts,

plain yogurt with blueberries or cherries

no cabbage, no MV, no dried beans of any kind cooked any way, not more than 2 oz of raw celery.

Just my take.

Regards.

[ ] Applicability of CR to Humans> > > Hi folks:> > Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning regarding > whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to us. > The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also shown that > sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan. > > Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:> > "To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of > animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made > up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); > Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc.; and > Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria."> > So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond to CR > this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.> > So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range of > animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-animal > species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out that > humans are the only species of living things it does not apply to? > > Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as much to > humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic, then 40% > extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a thought. > Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))> > Rodney.>

March 12, 2006

Hi JW:

Quick modification here. Looking at Fig 3.1 in an item Jeff linked

in a recent post:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p23-209.pdf

it seems more likely that the current average age at death of the

longest lived 10% of the US population is probably more like 96 than

92. (It appears from that diagram that ten percent of the population

surpasses the age of about 93, most of whom die within a few years

thereafter.) Of course women outperform men.

Forty percent more than 96 is 134·4 for the supposed/projected

average age at death of the longest lived 10% of a human 40% CRAN

population.

All very approximate; and humans are not mice of course; but then

neither are yeast ; ^ )))

Rodney.

> >

> > I assume you mean 40% longer than say 126.

> > Es verdad, I think there would be at least one instance of such

in

> the world.

> > Even in areas which have poor records and people claim to be over

> 100 yo, they don't claim to be 150, eg., (not today). Surely there

> would have been one monk who fasted his way to 130?

> >

> > Also, it may be rather easy thing to get to 100 yo, but another

to

> know you got there. The one instance in my family and my wife's of

a

> health nut, does not remember me anymore at 83. The rest are older

or

> nearly the same and are just as healthy, even though technically

> overweight, with no sign of mental problems. They control their

> weight, more or less, but they're not that well educated.

> > Many of the centi's seem to be mentally incapacitated.

> >

> > So we practice CR to have a chance to get there, but we also have

> to be aware of the other health risks, as simple as falling down on

> icy streets, slipping in the tub, falling off the roof, or

depriving

> our brain of DHA, maybe.

> > And many of the critical factors, we might not even know about

yet.

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > [ ] Applicability of CR to Humans

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning

> regarding

> > whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to

> us.

> > The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also

shown

> that

> > sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan.

> >

> > Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:

> >

> > " To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of

> > animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which

is

> made

> > up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human

> eye);

> > Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen,

etc.;

> and

> > Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria. "

> >

> > So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond

to

> CR

> > this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.

> >

> > So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range

> of

> > animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-

animal

> > species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out

that

> > humans are the only species of living things it does not apply

> to?

> >

> > Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as

> much to

> > humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic,

then

> 40%

> > extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a

> thought.

> > Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

>

March 12, 2006

Hi JW:

Quick modification here. Looking at Fig 3.1 in an item Jeff linked

in a recent post:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p23-209.pdf

it seems more likely that the current average age at death of the

longest lived 10% of the US population is probably more like 96 than

92. (It appears from that diagram that ten percent of the population

surpasses the age of about 93, most of whom die within a few years

thereafter.) Of course women outperform men.

Forty percent more than 96 is 134·4 for the supposed/projected

average age at death of the longest lived 10% of a human 40% CRAN

population.

All very approximate; and humans are not mice of course; but then

neither are yeast ; ^ )))

Rodney.

> >

> > I assume you mean 40% longer than say 126.

> > Es verdad, I think there would be at least one instance of such

in

> the world.

> > Even in areas which have poor records and people claim to be over

> 100 yo, they don't claim to be 150, eg., (not today). Surely there

> would have been one monk who fasted his way to 130?

> >

> > Also, it may be rather easy thing to get to 100 yo, but another

to

> know you got there. The one instance in my family and my wife's of

a

> health nut, does not remember me anymore at 83. The rest are older

or

> nearly the same and are just as healthy, even though technically

> overweight, with no sign of mental problems. They control their

> weight, more or less, but they're not that well educated.

> > Many of the centi's seem to be mentally incapacitated.

> >

> > So we practice CR to have a chance to get there, but we also have

> to be aware of the other health risks, as simple as falling down on

> icy streets, slipping in the tub, falling off the roof, or

depriving

> our brain of DHA, maybe.

> > And many of the critical factors, we might not even know about

yet.

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > [ ] Applicability of CR to Humans

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Another thought just struck me out of the blue this morning

> regarding

> > whether the experiments in mice are likely to be applicable to

> us.

> > The thought is this. Experiments in ***YEAST*** have also

shown

> that

> > sizeable restriction considerably extends lifespan.

> >

> > Now yeast, as I understand it, are not even regarded as animals:

> >

> > " To date there are five kingdoms: Animalia, which is made up of

> > animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which

is

> made

> > up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human

> eye);

> > Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen,

etc.;

> and

> > Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria. "

> >

> > So it is not just mammals, or animals in general, that respond

to

> CR

> > this way - even non-animal species do as well, apparently.

> >

> > So if, as we already know, CR applies not only to a large range

> of

> > animal species from nematodes and flies on up, but to non-

animal

> > species as well, then how likely is it that it will turn out

that

> > humans are the only species of living things it does not apply

> to?

> >

> > Very, very close to zero chance that it doesn't apply just as

> much to

> > humans as it does to mice, imo, fwiw. Based on this logic,

then

> 40%

> > extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic. Just a

> thought.

> > Like most of my thoughts, may be mistaken : ^ )))

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

>

March 12, 2006

Hi Tom,

Speculation.

At first glance I tend to agree with you that 140 should have been

hit, but it is a supposition that we should be able to quantify. And

looking more closely there seems to be some flaws in the idea that

someone should have got to a documented 140 if it is possible. For

example our knowledge of optimal nutrition seems only close to

possible in the last few years. No one had a clue in my fathers day

what optimal was. And my father, in the 1950's, tried everything he

could think of including, periodically, 14 day water only fasts and/or

grape or blackstrap molasses cures. For someone to accidentally hit

the ratios of food types with CR seems in the billions easily.

It is sort of like the calculation of finding intelligent life on

other planets around distant stars. Most scientists believe

intelligent life is certainly out there but they also believe the odds

of contacting them and us finding each other to be very low. Too many

low percentage factors multipled together makes for a major cosmic

lonliness for humans.

ON seems like a very open giant question mark to me.

When I look at the Purina Monkey Chow that the monkeys were fed I am

amazed the made it to 102, in human years. And living in a cage -- yuk.

Barry Gamble

>

> Hi Rodney,

>

> > Based on this logic, then 40%

> > extension of maximal lifespan should be realistic.

>

> You may be right but I think the odds are against it; otherwise,

> there would be more examples of people living to 140 years or more.

> Among the billions of people who have lived (and now dead) surely

> some of them (by accident or choice) ate a CRON-like diet.

>

> Tom

>

March 12, 2006