Re: Re: the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

[Guest guest]

[ ] Re: the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

Hi folks:LOL.This issue sort of underlines for me why it is I have always been more persuaded by, or more amenable to, arguments that are based on EMPIRICAL evidence. Rather than on hypotheses that do not have a shred of tangible evidence to support them.My experience has been that there is all kinds of stuff (in all disciplines) which appears plausible because it is based on information which is absolutely, wonderfully, perfectly logical. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff not infrequently turns out to be complete hogwash.I got away from thinking totally logical when I logic'ed out why I should buy a gas stove in place of an electric (gas being a lot cheaper). I left out the important variable. It was not "continuously cleaning" - it WAS continuosly dirty.

Now when I attempt analyses, I try to list ALL the variables, and in field of nutrition they simply haven't gotten the data yet.

Saying we evolved in the paleo, forgets we evolved from something older than that. This guy says "myth" of CR. I didn't know CR had been around long enough to become a myth.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

[ ] Re: the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

Hi folks:LOL.This issue sort of underlines for me why it is I have always been more persuaded by, or more amenable to, arguments that are based on EMPIRICAL evidence. Rather than on hypotheses that do not have a shred of tangible evidence to support them.My experience has been that there is all kinds of stuff (in all disciplines) which appears plausible because it is based on information which is absolutely, wonderfully, perfectly logical. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff not infrequently turns out to be complete hogwash.I got away from thinking totally logical when I logic'ed out why I should buy a gas stove in place of an electric (gas being a lot cheaper). I left out the important variable. It was not "continuously cleaning" - it WAS continuosly dirty.

Now when I attempt analyses, I try to list ALL the variables, and in field of nutrition they simply haven't gotten the data yet.

Saying we evolved in the paleo, forgets we evolved from something older than that. This guy says "myth" of CR. I didn't know CR had been around long enough to become a myth.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mike,

I guess the problem I have with his language is the positive statements that start with "ONLY" etc.

"Only the identification and elimination of the inflammatory agents can efficiently prevent and cure inflammatory diseases, "

He can't know that. It's conceivable that inflammation is an aspect of aging. Or ingestion of sugar, or alcohol, or any one of thousands of chemicals in our "natural" foods. It's conceivable that ALL agents will never be identified or eliminated. His statement is an idealism.

"and currently nicotine, absorbed intentionally or passively, from tobacco or other sources, must be considered the chief suspect "

Not plausible - nicotine, although very bad and ignorant has not been in European humans forever. Arthritis is as old as Neanderthals.

I can guess the tetraethyl lead used in gasoline for many years, has had more impact to health.

That said, he has a point whether we have bad health because of bad diets, OR bad diets because of bad health. One can surely beget the other because lotsa things in the human are cyclical. Hard to tell, irrelevant, because we know we have to control our diet, not let it control us.

I can't believe the human "taste" can tell me anything about the nutrients in a food. More likely if it "tastes" good, it's probably bad. Hunger is much the same. Being an educated human, requires me to know if a food or nutrient is good or bad.

I'm not so sure "bad health" leads to shortened lifespan. I think we can say of some of those who practice CR - they're not perfectly healthy. Maybe the stress lengthens life?

Rereading /, pg 74, they mention "taxes the pancreas". It occurred to me that maybe taxing "strengthens" the healthy pancreas. We know exercise strengthens muscles.

Why not organs?

pg 73 starts theories of aging, a good read for all, IMO. Disposable soma, antagonistic pleiotropy, et al.

Regards.

[ ] Re: the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

Here's abstract of:Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? MedHypotheses 2006;66:939-44?http://tinyurl.com/rdjebMike--- In , "jwwright" <jwwright@...> wrote:>> Thanks Jeff, > > I'm sorry, I can't get by the one thing I find grossly wrong with the logic:> "In wild environments, long-term chronic ''undernutrition'', postulated in [1] for the Homo of 1-2 Myr ago, is impossible: the number of individuals > of the affected species would decrease because of lower reproduction rates..">

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mike,

I guess the problem I have with his language is the positive statements that start with "ONLY" etc.

"Only the identification and elimination of the inflammatory agents can efficiently prevent and cure inflammatory diseases, "

He can't know that. It's conceivable that inflammation is an aspect of aging. Or ingestion of sugar, or alcohol, or any one of thousands of chemicals in our "natural" foods. It's conceivable that ALL agents will never be identified or eliminated. His statement is an idealism.

"and currently nicotine, absorbed intentionally or passively, from tobacco or other sources, must be considered the chief suspect "

Not plausible - nicotine, although very bad and ignorant has not been in European humans forever. Arthritis is as old as Neanderthals.

I can guess the tetraethyl lead used in gasoline for many years, has had more impact to health.

That said, he has a point whether we have bad health because of bad diets, OR bad diets because of bad health. One can surely beget the other because lotsa things in the human are cyclical. Hard to tell, irrelevant, because we know we have to control our diet, not let it control us.

I can't believe the human "taste" can tell me anything about the nutrients in a food. More likely if it "tastes" good, it's probably bad. Hunger is much the same. Being an educated human, requires me to know if a food or nutrient is good or bad.

I'm not so sure "bad health" leads to shortened lifespan. I think we can say of some of those who practice CR - they're not perfectly healthy. Maybe the stress lengthens life?

Rereading /, pg 74, they mention "taxes the pancreas". It occurred to me that maybe taxing "strengthens" the healthy pancreas. We know exercise strengthens muscles.

Why not organs?

pg 73 starts theories of aging, a good read for all, IMO. Disposable soma, antagonistic pleiotropy, et al.

Regards.

[ ] Re: the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

Here's abstract of:Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? MedHypotheses 2006;66:939-44?http://tinyurl.com/rdjebMike--- In , "jwwright" <jwwright@...> wrote:>> Thanks Jeff, > > I'm sorry, I can't get by the one thing I find grossly wrong with the logic:> "In wild environments, long-term chronic ''undernutrition'', postulated in [1] for the Homo of 1-2 Myr ago, is impossible: the number of individuals > of the affected species would decrease because of lower reproduction rates..">