RE: the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

[Guest guest]

Some objective facts about the myth of caloric

restriction and longevity

A paper just published in this journal [1] on the

subject of caloric deprivation exposes ideas in

frontal contradiction with a recent article of mine

[2]. With the highest respect that all serious and

interesting works deserve, I must note that [1]

has apparently overlooked some important factors,

which results in seriously flawed conclusions.

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, greater

vulnerability to diseases and predators, and inability

to compete for food with more vigorous species.

In these conditions, only two short-term issues are

possible: either the amount of food available per

individual increases, the nutrition becomes adequate

again and the population stabilises, or the

species disappears. Furthermore, the possible survivors

would not necessarily be those with lower

metabolic rates. Depending on the circumstances,

other qualities may prevail: strength, endurance,

polyvalence, intelligence, etc.

Inversely, for wild species, sustained demographic

growth is associated to a situation of nutritional

abundance. In this respect, the success of the

Homo genus has been spectacular: it has managed

to perform several successive worldwide expansions

from tiny spots located mainly in eastern or southern

Africa. Furthermore, Homo, and most specially

our species Homo Sapiens, has developed specific

adaptations to food overabundance, like the custom

of investing energy surplus in Pharaonic enterprises

since prehistoric times. Unlike any other animal, our

genetic emotional profile allows us to enjoy investing

our extra energy in a large variety of recreational

or spiritual activities, not always directly

useful, but at least instructive: sports, games, arts,

crafts, familial and social activities, altruistic work,

etc. In sum, although our Homo lineage has occasionally

known periods of shortage, overall we not

only are perfectly adapted to nutritional abundance,

but probably depend on it for our evolutionary

success. What our species is not prepared for is a

massive contamination by psychoactive poisons

propagating through the air.

References

[1] Amen-Ra N. Humans are evolutionarily adapted to caloric

restriction resulting from ecologically dictated dietary

deprivation imposed during the Plio-Pleistocene period.

Med Hypotheses 2006;66:978-84.

[2] Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:

Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? Med

Hypotheses 2006;66:939-44.

M.C. Gracia

C/ de Aranda 35,

28027 Madrid,

Spain

E-mail address: m.c.gracia@....

[Guest guest]

Some objective facts about the myth of caloric

restriction and longevity

A paper just published in this journal [1] on the

subject of caloric deprivation exposes ideas in

frontal contradiction with a recent article of mine

[2]. With the highest respect that all serious and

interesting works deserve, I must note that [1]

has apparently overlooked some important factors,

which results in seriously flawed conclusions.

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, greater

vulnerability to diseases and predators, and inability

to compete for food with more vigorous species.

In these conditions, only two short-term issues are

possible: either the amount of food available per

individual increases, the nutrition becomes adequate

again and the population stabilises, or the

species disappears. Furthermore, the possible survivors

would not necessarily be those with lower

metabolic rates. Depending on the circumstances,

other qualities may prevail: strength, endurance,

polyvalence, intelligence, etc.

Inversely, for wild species, sustained demographic

growth is associated to a situation of nutritional

abundance. In this respect, the success of the

Homo genus has been spectacular: it has managed

to perform several successive worldwide expansions

from tiny spots located mainly in eastern or southern

Africa. Furthermore, Homo, and most specially

our species Homo Sapiens, has developed specific

adaptations to food overabundance, like the custom

of investing energy surplus in Pharaonic enterprises

since prehistoric times. Unlike any other animal, our

genetic emotional profile allows us to enjoy investing

our extra energy in a large variety of recreational

or spiritual activities, not always directly

useful, but at least instructive: sports, games, arts,

crafts, familial and social activities, altruistic work,

etc. In sum, although our Homo lineage has occasionally

known periods of shortage, overall we not

only are perfectly adapted to nutritional abundance,

but probably depend on it for our evolutionary

success. What our species is not prepared for is a

massive contamination by psychoactive poisons

propagating through the air.

References

[1] Amen-Ra N. Humans are evolutionarily adapted to caloric

restriction resulting from ecologically dictated dietary

deprivation imposed during the Plio-Pleistocene period.

Med Hypotheses 2006;66:978-84.

[2] Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:

Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? Med

Hypotheses 2006;66:939-44.

M.C. Gracia

C/ de Aranda 35,

28027 Madrid,

Spain

E-mail address: m.c.gracia@....

[Guest guest]

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.

So, perhaps in somewhat plainer english, the issue seems to me to

be: " Is there serious evidence, beyond mere logic, that what is

advised/suggested/advocated actually happens to real subjects, when

tested? "

If anyone doubts this as regards CR they might like to go to the

files here and take a look at the studies listed under the title, I

believe: " Fundamental CR Studies " .

Case closed.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

wrote:

>

> Some objective facts about the myth of caloric

>

> restriction and longevity

>

> A paper just published in this journal [1] on the

>

> subject of caloric deprivation exposes ideas in

>

> frontal contradiction with a recent article of mine

>

> [2]. With the highest respect that all serious and

>

> interesting works deserve, I must note that [1]

>

> has apparently overlooked some important factors,

>

> which results in seriously flawed conclusions.

>

> 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, greater

>

> vulnerability to diseases and predators, and inability

>

> to compete for food with more vigorous species.

>

> In these conditions, only two short-term issues are

>

> possible: either the amount of food available per

>

> individual increases, the nutrition becomes adequate

>

> again and the population stabilises, or the

>

> species disappears. Furthermore, the possible survivors

>

> would not necessarily be those with lower

>

> metabolic rates. Depending on the circumstances,

>

> other qualities may prevail: strength, endurance,

>

> polyvalence, intelligence, etc.

>

> Inversely, for wild species, sustained demographic

>

> growth is associated to a situation of nutritional

>

> abundance. In this respect, the success of the

>

> Homo genus has been spectacular: it has managed

>

> to perform several successive worldwide expansions

>

> from tiny spots located mainly in eastern or southern

>

> Africa. Furthermore, Homo, and most specially

>

> our species Homo Sapiens, has developed specific

>

> adaptations to food overabundance, like the custom

>

> of investing energy surplus in Pharaonic enterprises

>

> since prehistoric times. Unlike any other animal, our

>

> genetic emotional profile allows us to enjoy investing

>

> our extra energy in a large variety of recreational

>

> or spiritual activities, not always directly

>

> useful, but at least instructive: sports, games, arts,

>

> crafts, familial and social activities, altruistic work,

>

> etc. In sum, although our Homo lineage has occasionally

>

> known periods of shortage, overall we not

>

> only are perfectly adapted to nutritional abundance,

>

> but probably depend on it for our evolutionary

>

> success. What our species is not prepared for is a

>

> massive contamination by psychoactive poisons

>

> propagating through the air.

>

> References

>

> [1] Amen-Ra N. Humans are evolutionarily adapted to caloric

>

> restriction resulting from ecologically dictated dietary

>

> deprivation imposed during the Plio-Pleistocene period.

>

> Med Hypotheses 2006;66:978-84.

>

> [2] Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:

>

> Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? Med

>

> Hypotheses 2006;66:939-44.

>

> M.C. Gracia

>

> C/ de Aranda 35,

>

> 28027 Madrid,

>

> Spain

>

> E-mail address: m.c.gracia@...

>

[Guest guest]

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.

So, perhaps in somewhat plainer english, the issue seems to me to

be: " Is there serious evidence, beyond mere logic, that what is

advised/suggested/advocated actually happens to real subjects, when

tested? "

If anyone doubts this as regards CR they might like to go to the

files here and take a look at the studies listed under the title, I

believe: " Fundamental CR Studies " .

Case closed.

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...>

wrote:

>

> Some objective facts about the myth of caloric

>

> restriction and longevity

>

> A paper just published in this journal [1] on the

>

> subject of caloric deprivation exposes ideas in

>

> frontal contradiction with a recent article of mine

>

> [2]. With the highest respect that all serious and

>

> interesting works deserve, I must note that [1]

>

> has apparently overlooked some important factors,

>

> which results in seriously flawed conclusions.

>

> 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, greater

>

> vulnerability to diseases and predators, and inability

>

> to compete for food with more vigorous species.

>

> In these conditions, only two short-term issues are

>

> possible: either the amount of food available per

>

> individual increases, the nutrition becomes adequate

>

> again and the population stabilises, or the

>

> species disappears. Furthermore, the possible survivors

>

> would not necessarily be those with lower

>

> metabolic rates. Depending on the circumstances,

>

> other qualities may prevail: strength, endurance,

>

> polyvalence, intelligence, etc.

>

> Inversely, for wild species, sustained demographic

>

> growth is associated to a situation of nutritional

>

> abundance. In this respect, the success of the

>

> Homo genus has been spectacular: it has managed

>

> to perform several successive worldwide expansions

>

> from tiny spots located mainly in eastern or southern

>

> Africa. Furthermore, Homo, and most specially

>

> our species Homo Sapiens, has developed specific

>

> adaptations to food overabundance, like the custom

>

> of investing energy surplus in Pharaonic enterprises

>

> since prehistoric times. Unlike any other animal, our

>

> genetic emotional profile allows us to enjoy investing

>

> our extra energy in a large variety of recreational

>

> or spiritual activities, not always directly

>

> useful, but at least instructive: sports, games, arts,

>

> crafts, familial and social activities, altruistic work,

>

> etc. In sum, although our Homo lineage has occasionally

>

> known periods of shortage, overall we not

>

> only are perfectly adapted to nutritional abundance,

>

> but probably depend on it for our evolutionary

>

> success. What our species is not prepared for is a

>

> massive contamination by psychoactive poisons

>

> propagating through the air.

>

> References

>

> [1] Amen-Ra N. Humans are evolutionarily adapted to caloric

>

> restriction resulting from ecologically dictated dietary

>

> deprivation imposed during the Plio-Pleistocene period.

>

> Med Hypotheses 2006;66:978-84.

>

> [2] Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:

>

> Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? Med

>

> Hypotheses 2006;66:939-44.

>

> M.C. Gracia

>

> C/ de Aranda 35,

>

> 28027 Madrid,

>

> Spain

>

> E-mail address: m.c.gracia@...

>

[Guest guest]

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.."

I don't think this is what happens in general. True in isolated areas a species MIGHT disappear, but my observation is they adapt. Too many deer on a cattle range will grow significantly smaller, eg. This occurred in the Texas drought of the 50's, into the early 60's. Full grown deer with antlers, the size of small dogs.

The only things that don't adapt in my yard are the bugs and those that eat them, because I as a human have the means to wipe them out - in a small area. The upshot is that humans are a LOT smarter and could have found many ways to adapt to a lower intake.

It is possible we ate the weakened predators.

You know a cheetah can run for 90 secs and then he's dead meat to guys with rocks. So are snakes, turtles, alligators. At 40 deg they become immobile. Regardless how big, a cold blooded guy is quite vulnerable.

We can eat anything that doesn't eat us first, and there are many nutritious plants.

And I think it's been proved that the few humans who have eaten radically less food have actually shrunk in size. Not just weight.

Recall Lucy was 39" tall.

SOME humans were apparently particularly adaptable because they survived the subsequent catastrophes. And if we did survive the volcano as thought, there were maybe only 1000 families. I conclude there will always some place on the planet for a human to survive, because of the ability to adapt.

How can you have GREATER vulnerability to predators? Predators die out as prey dies out. And usually neither will die out completely.

It is my observation also that we DO have a variable metabolic rate. I can choose to be 97.4 deg or 98.6 deg. I can be cold in a 78 deg house. There is one idea that says a lower metabolism will live longer, who knows? I kinda like the idea, especially enjoying a 98 deg summer day.

/ mention that in their book, but I'm not convinced it leads to extended life. But then I don't hafta be, do I? CR is the only thing we know to extend life in animals. It's not necessary to understand it.

The one fact m.c.gracia overlooked is that we don't have any example of a person living to say 140 yrs, who accidentally used CR. And that seems strange to me, due to the wars, people found on deserted islands after 30 yrs, people who endured starvation in situations over which they had no control.

Just my take (rant).

Regards.

RE: [ ] the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

Some objective facts about the myth of caloricrestriction and longevityA paper just published in this journal [1] on thesubject of caloric deprivation exposes ideas infrontal contradiction with a recent article of mine[2]. With the highest respect that all serious andinteresting works deserve, I must note that [1]has apparently overlooked some important factors,which results in seriously flawed conclusions.In wild environments, long-term chronic''undernutrition'', postulated in [1] for the Homoof 1-2 Myr ago, is impossible: the number of individualsof the affected species would decrease becauseof lower reproduction rates, greatervulnerability to diseases and predators, and inabilityto compete for food with more vigorous species.In these conditions, only two short-term issues arepossible: either the amount of food available perindividual increases, the nutrition becomes adequateagain and the population stabilises, or thespecies disappears. Furthermore, the possible survivorswould not necessarily be those with lowermetabolic rates. Depending on the circumstances,other qualities may prevail: strength, endurance,polyvalence, intelligence, etc.Inversely, for wild species, sustained demographicgrowth is associated to a situation of nutritionalabundance. In this respect, the success of theHomo genus has been spectacular: it has managedto perform several successive worldwide expansionsfrom tiny spots located mainly in eastern or southernAfrica. Furthermore, Homo, and most speciallyour species Homo Sapiens, has developed specificadaptations to food overabundance, like the customof investing energy surplus in Pharaonic enterprisessince prehistoric times. Unlike any other animal, ourgenetic emotional profile allows us to enjoy investingour extra energy in a large variety of recreationalor spiritual activities, not always directlyuseful, but at least instructive: sports, games, arts,crafts, familial and social activities, altruistic work,etc. In sum, although our Homo lineage has occasionallyknown periods of shortage, overall we notonly are perfectly adapted to nutritional abundance,but probably depend on it for our evolutionarysuccess. What our species is not prepared for is amassive contamination by psychoactive poisonspropagating through the air.References[1] Amen-Ra N. Humans are evolutionarily adapted to caloricrestriction resulting from ecologically dictated dietarydeprivation imposed during the Plio-Pleistocene period.Med Hypotheses 2006;66:978-84.[2] Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? MedHypotheses 2006;66:939-44.M.C. GraciaC/ de Aranda 35,28027 Madrid,SpainE-mail address: m.c.gracia@....

[Guest guest]

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.."

I don't think this is what happens in general. True in isolated areas a species MIGHT disappear, but my observation is they adapt. Too many deer on a cattle range will grow significantly smaller, eg. This occurred in the Texas drought of the 50's, into the early 60's. Full grown deer with antlers, the size of small dogs.

The only things that don't adapt in my yard are the bugs and those that eat them, because I as a human have the means to wipe them out - in a small area. The upshot is that humans are a LOT smarter and could have found many ways to adapt to a lower intake.

It is possible we ate the weakened predators.

You know a cheetah can run for 90 secs and then he's dead meat to guys with rocks. So are snakes, turtles, alligators. At 40 deg they become immobile. Regardless how big, a cold blooded guy is quite vulnerable.

We can eat anything that doesn't eat us first, and there are many nutritious plants.

And I think it's been proved that the few humans who have eaten radically less food have actually shrunk in size. Not just weight.

Recall Lucy was 39" tall.

SOME humans were apparently particularly adaptable because they survived the subsequent catastrophes. And if we did survive the volcano as thought, there were maybe only 1000 families. I conclude there will always some place on the planet for a human to survive, because of the ability to adapt.

How can you have GREATER vulnerability to predators? Predators die out as prey dies out. And usually neither will die out completely.

It is my observation also that we DO have a variable metabolic rate. I can choose to be 97.4 deg or 98.6 deg. I can be cold in a 78 deg house. There is one idea that says a lower metabolism will live longer, who knows? I kinda like the idea, especially enjoying a 98 deg summer day.

/ mention that in their book, but I'm not convinced it leads to extended life. But then I don't hafta be, do I? CR is the only thing we know to extend life in animals. It's not necessary to understand it.

The one fact m.c.gracia overlooked is that we don't have any example of a person living to say 140 yrs, who accidentally used CR. And that seems strange to me, due to the wars, people found on deserted islands after 30 yrs, people who endured starvation in situations over which they had no control.

Just my take (rant).

Regards.

RE: [ ] the myth of caloric restriction and longevity

Some objective facts about the myth of caloricrestriction and longevityA paper just published in this journal [1] on thesubject of caloric deprivation exposes ideas infrontal contradiction with a recent article of mine[2]. With the highest respect that all serious andinteresting works deserve, I must note that [1]has apparently overlooked some important factors,which results in seriously flawed conclusions.In wild environments, long-term chronic''undernutrition'', postulated in [1] for the Homoof 1-2 Myr ago, is impossible: the number of individualsof the affected species would decrease becauseof lower reproduction rates, greatervulnerability to diseases and predators, and inabilityto compete for food with more vigorous species.In these conditions, only two short-term issues arepossible: either the amount of food available perindividual increases, the nutrition becomes adequateagain and the population stabilises, or thespecies disappears. Furthermore, the possible survivorswould not necessarily be those with lowermetabolic rates. Depending on the circumstances,other qualities may prevail: strength, endurance,polyvalence, intelligence, etc.Inversely, for wild species, sustained demographicgrowth is associated to a situation of nutritionalabundance. In this respect, the success of theHomo genus has been spectacular: it has managedto perform several successive worldwide expansionsfrom tiny spots located mainly in eastern or southernAfrica. Furthermore, Homo, and most speciallyour species Homo Sapiens, has developed specificadaptations to food overabundance, like the customof investing energy surplus in Pharaonic enterprisessince prehistoric times. Unlike any other animal, ourgenetic emotional profile allows us to enjoy investingour extra energy in a large variety of recreationalor spiritual activities, not always directlyuseful, but at least instructive: sports, games, arts,crafts, familial and social activities, altruistic work,etc. In sum, although our Homo lineage has occasionallyknown periods of shortage, overall we notonly are perfectly adapted to nutritional abundance,but probably depend on it for our evolutionarysuccess. What our species is not prepared for is amassive contamination by psychoactive poisonspropagating through the air.References[1] Amen-Ra N. Humans are evolutionarily adapted to caloricrestriction resulting from ecologically dictated dietarydeprivation imposed during the Plio-Pleistocene period.Med Hypotheses 2006;66:978-84.[2] Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? MedHypotheses 2006;66:939-44.M.C. GraciaC/ de Aranda 35,28027 Madrid,SpainE-mail address: m.c.gracia@....

[Guest guest]

Here's abstract of:

Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:

Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? Med

Hypotheses 2006;66:939-44?

http://tinyurl.com/rdjeb

Mike

--- 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]

Here's abstract of:

Gracia MC. Inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases:

Bad diet and physical inactivity are causes or effects? Med

Hypotheses 2006;66:939-44?

http://tinyurl.com/rdjeb

Mike

--- 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.. "

>