Re: Viral Immunity

[Guest guest]

Perhaps enlightening:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1676S

"It has long been known that the nutritional status of the host can influence both susceptibility to infectious disease and the severity of the disease if contracted. In studies of coxsackievirus infection and selenium deficiency in mice, we found that mice fed a selenium-deficient diet developed myocarditis, but mice fed a diet adequate in selenium did not. Similarly, mice fed a diet deficient in vitamin E developed myocarditis, but mice fed a diet with adequate vitamin E did not. The epidemic of optic and peripheral neuropathy that occurred in Cuba in the early 1990s provides another example of how the nutritional status of the host may affect the impact of a virus. Patients who developed neuropathy had lower blood concentrations of riboflavin, vitamin E, selenium, - and ß-carotenes, and the carotenoid lycopene, which suggests that the disease was associated with an impairment of protective antioxidant pathways.

The nutritional status of the host can have a profound influence on a virus, so that a normally avirulent virus becomes virulent because of changes in the viral genome. Our studies suggest that outbreaks of disease attributed to a nutritional deficiency may actually result from infection by a virus that has become pathogenic by replicating in a nutritionally deficient host. "

Townsend: Sabiston Textbook of Surgery, 17th ed., Copyright © 2004

In 1992 Daly and coworkers[64] [65] were the first to study the clinical effects of immune-enhancing diets, by prospectively randomizing 85 patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal malignancies to either a standard (Osmolite) or experimental (Impact) enteral formula.

On subgroup analysis, the patients who received a minimum of 821 mL/day for at least 7 days experienced the greatest decrease in hospital stay.

64. Daly JM, Lieberman MD, Goldfine J, et al: Enteral nutrition with supplemental arginine, RNA, and omega-3 fatty acids in patients after operation: Immunologic, metabolic, and clinical outcome. Surgery 112:56–67, 1992. 65. Daly JM, Reynolds J, Thom A, et al: Immune and metabolic effects of arginine in the surgical patient. Ann Surg 208:512, 1988.

[ ] Re: Viral Immunity

Hi Al:What is it I am missing here? I don't see where you are coming from on this(!).Are they not saying that ER mice die when they get flu because they do not have sufficient energy reserves to fight off the infection? And are they not also saying that non-restricted mice survive because they do have sufficient energy reserves?And if so then may that not have (serious) consequences for ER (CRON) humans in the case of flu infection?From the study summary:"Although the preponderance of evidence suggests that ER maintains immune function at an advanced age, including in response to immunization, more recent data clearly indicate impairment in the immune function of aged ER mice after primary influenza infection. This observation supports the notion that immunization can no longer serve as the sole indicator of the immune response to viruses (12). Further, if applicable to the human circumstance, these data have clear implications for elderly individuals at high risk for reduced energy intake resulting from social, physical, economic, and emotional obstacles to eating (39). Infection is associated with both an increase in energy demands and an anorexia that decreases energy intake. Underweight, therefore, may contribute to a poor prognosis in infection by exacerbating this energy deficit, thus negating the spectrum of health benefits attributed to ER and the maintenance of a low body weight. The potential consequences of underweight in response to infection must be addressed in future proposals on the therapeutic benefits of ER in humans (37,40) and in consideration of the Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE), a series of human clinical trials initiated by the National Institute on Aging in 2002. Immediate action is warranted to determine the metabolic, physiologic, and immune changes associated with ER that may affect the outcome to primary viral infection. Future studies should evaluate the kinetics of innate and cell-mediated immunity, viral clearance, and recovery in ER mice and investigate the effects of refeeding before infection to delineate the roles of weight and energy status on the immune response to primary viral infection."Note particularly the: "Underweight, therefore, may contribute to a poor prognosis in infection by exacerbating this energy deficit, thus negating the spectrum of health benefits attributed to ER and the maintenance of a low body weight".The "poor prognosis" to which they refer, was 100% mortality in the case of their experimental CRON mice. Are you saying this is in some way not materially significant?I am perplexed. And would like to resolve that perplexity one way or the other!Rodney.======================Hi Al:But in their study, as I quoted from the verbal stuff appended toFIGURE 1, none of the ad lib mice died despite losing a considerableamount of body weight. By contrast, 100% of the ER mice died withinseven days, they believe because they had inadequate energy reservesto survive until the T-cells could get to work.== Hi Rodney.Sure, but my point is that no statement is being made about "viralimmunity", but to relative vulnerability to the toxic effects of the virusin individuals that have been already infected - at least that's how I readit. And that doesn't seem very surprising to me.Al

[Guest guest]

Thanks Rodney, what I was not sure if it is a "energie" (expresed as caloric intake) or more specifically protein deficiencies to fight with hipercatabolic statement as postop. or infection related stress.

I apologize again for my writing english

Regards

[ ] Re: Viral Immunity

Hi :For the purposes of that study "ER" was defined as "undernutrition without malnutrition".-------------------------Here is a suggested way CRONistas might approach this 'influenza-risk' issue. I will use my own data as an example.Twice in my life I have been fairly seriously ill in hospital. Both times staying three weeks, and in each case requiring two general anaesthetic operations to complete the 'fix'. What was interesting about these two episodes was that on both occasions I lost fifteen pounds of weight in the first few days in hospital. (I was not overweight at the time. Nor attempting CRON. BMI at the time, very approxinmtely = 24. Nor were large parts of me removed during the procedures. Indeed in one case stuff was added!). So I am going to take that number, fifteen pounds, as the amount of spare energy apparently required by me, to cope with a fairly nasty assault on my well-being.I will also take a BMI of 18·5 as my 'never-go-below' weight. This is arbitrary, of course. In my case a BMI of 18·5 would mean a body weight of 130·4 pounds. So if I was to want to start a bout of influenza with at least fifteen pounds more than that, so that if I were to lose fifteen pounds I would not drop below my never-go-below weight, then I would need to weigh at least 145·4 pounds before infection. For me 145·4 pounds represents a BMI of 20·6. So, using a bunch of arbitrary, but hopefully sensible, assumptions, and a touch of rational argument, one could come to the conclusion that a BMI of 20·6 might be a sensible minimum BMI to aim for if it begins to look like Avian Flu is evolving to become a widespread and serious issue in humans.I am currently three or four pounds over a BMI of 21, so I may have a sufficient safety margin, if the above calculations make sense.fwiwRodney.>> Hi all > I´ve some question about the study design and in general. First are those ER rats CR or CRON rats, I think for CRON people to know wath is the food composition, because maybee there will be some important diferences in the % restriction for fats,proteins, and carbs, in terms of AA content, minerals and so on. The term undernutrition is not sinonimus of CRON isn´t ?.> Regards> > > > ---------------------------------> 1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam> Correo , el mejor correo web del mundo> Abrí tu cuenta aquí>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Very interesting question. Put another way ......... is it a lack

of energy, which could be satisfied by reserves of fat, or a lack of

protein which is the key issue.

I don't think they know the answer. But they are probably working on

it.

Rodney.

> >

> > Hi all

> > I´ve some question about the study design and in general.

First

> are those ER rats CR or CRON rats, I think for CRON people to

know

> wath is the food composition, because maybee there will be some

> important diferences in the % restriction for fats,proteins, and

> carbs, in terms of AA content, minerals and so on. The term

> undernutrition is not sinonimus of CRON isn´t ?.

> > Regards

> >

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > 1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam

> > Correo , el mejor correo web del mundo

> > Abrí tu cuenta aquí

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Many CRONies report washing their hands frequently, using antibacterial

gels, doing all of those things that your typical nurse would recommend

to keep yourself moderately protected from sickness.

However, does anyone take the opposite tack? I eat food off my floor,

touch my nose/eyes with unwashed hands, eat lots of ethnic food from

literal holes-in-the-wall restaurants.... When I'm in the company of

just myself and/or food I'm preparing for myself, it is practically

anything goes.

Partially I do this out of laziness, but there is definitely that

thought in my head of " low exposure garners protection " . I put myself

in the vicinity of " dirt " and I will be protected from " dirt " in

general.

Thoughts?

, in Albuquerque

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Not a pain in the butt at all!!! Now I understand you. Thank you.

And it makes sense too. And I certainly hope you are right about the

susceptibility to infection. CRONistas have been shown to have a

stronger response to vaccination, so that may well be true.

But still, that study seems to supply another reason for me not to

drop my BMI below 21 (for a number) until Avian Flu has been and

gone. But of course there will be other flus. It will be

interesting to see if studies can show that massive IV feeding

immediately infection starts would be able to supply the nutrients

required, and alter the mortality rate. But it would be difficult,

for example, for the US hospital system to put 100 million people on

IVs at the same time - if one-third of the population became

infected.

So somehow the CRON community would have to acquaint the hospital

system to the special vulnerability of slim people to influenza

mortality. Assuming it applies to humans as well as to mice. A 35%

drop in body weight seems to be astonishingly large in response to

something like the flu. So maybe humans are different from mice?

It will, I think, be tricky to get authorization for a study to

intentionally infect slim humans with Avian Flu and watch the

mortality rate!

Rodney.

>

>

> > I am perplexed. And would like to resolve that perplexity one

way or

> > the other!

>

> Hi Rodney. Sorry to be a pain in the butt.

>

> All I'm saying is that the study refers to what happens *after*

infection

> has occurred, not to a prior susceptibility to infection.

>

> So: it's conceivable that CRONistas could be more resistant to

infection,

> yet be more likely to die *if* they become infected.

>

> Al

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And this raises another issue, which is:

WHAT, PRECISELY, do the Avian Flu victims (the 50% fatalities) die

from? Do they lose massive amounts of weight? Or not? Is it the

slimmest who die and the fattest who survive? (Survival of the

fattest?) Or is there no correlation between weight before infection

and mortality rate? Is the issue something entirely different in

humans?

Rodney.

> >

> >

> > > I am perplexed. And would like to resolve that perplexity one

> way or

> > > the other!

> >

> > Hi Rodney. Sorry to be a pain in the butt.

> >

> > All I'm saying is that the study refers to what happens *after*

> infection

> > has occurred, not to a prior susceptibility to infection.

> >

> > So: it's conceivable that CRONistas could be more resistant to

> infection,

> > yet be more likely to die *if* they become infected.

> >

> > Al

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Provided no deep open wounds are involved, I agree to some extent with

the usefulness of your strategy though it sounds pretty disgusting if

not a joke. Your point is a good one: we live in all to clean

environments which offer little challenge to the immune system. A

co-worker of mine fell victim to the flesh-eating disease twice. She

was scrupulously clean, spending an inordinate amount of time

disinfecting her work area. For what? One afternoon she pricked her

finger on a staple and was operated that same evening. Makes you

wonder about the becessity of overcleanliness.

>

> Many CRONies report washing their hands frequently, using antibacterial

> gels, doing all of those things that your typical nurse would recommend

> to keep yourself moderately protected from sickness.

>

> However, does anyone take the opposite tack? I eat food off my floor,

> touch my nose/eyes with unwashed hands, eat lots of ethnic food from

> literal holes-in-the-wall restaurants.... When I'm in the company of

> just myself and/or food I'm preparing for myself, it is practically

> anything goes.

>

> Partially I do this out of laziness, but there is definitely that

> thought in my head of " low exposure garners protection " . I put myself

> in the vicinity of " dirt " and I will be protected from " dirt " in

> general.

>

> Thoughts?

>

> , in Albuquerque

>

[Guest guest]

At 05:11 PM 5/10/2006, you wrote:

>Hi :

>

>Very interesting question. Put another way ......... is it a lack

>of energy, which could be satisfied by reserves of fat, or a lack of

>protein which is the key issue.

>

>I don't think they know the answer. But they are probably working on

>it.

In times when I've been having low calorie intake and experiencing

frequent colds, I've generally been getting plenty of protein -- a while

back I was following the " Zone " diet and was getting around 100-120g of

protein a day. Only Joe Weider would think that's an insufficient protein

dose.

[Guest guest]

> I've found that I get colds often when I lowball my calorie

> intake. I had a lot of trouble in my life last year and gained about 25

> pounds... Funny enough, I didn't have any colds in the first half of the

> winter when I was stuffing myself like a pig. I got some control over my

> food intake in the last half of the winter and it seemed like I was having

> colds continuously.

I have had just the opposite reaction to practicing CRON over the past 3 years.

(Current BMI

19.4. Age 62.) Only one very minor cold in the entire time, which went away in

a week. No

serious headaches. Haven't had anything to send me to the doctor, actually, in

those 3 years.

Meanwhile, my WBC was measured at 2.8, well below the standard range.

Over the years, it has been my experience that eating less = better day-to-day

health. Of

course, I also eat very high-quality food, including a large variety of fruits

and vegetables. If

I were eating only a small amount of cheap industrial food instead of a larger

amount of

excellent food, my results might be different. (But I don't intend to find out,

if I can help it!)

[Guest guest]

One thought is, by now, we've been exposed to most viral agents from all the world do to transportation. Only new ones, created each year, must we get vaccinated.

I guess anything that doesn't kill me makes me stronger, but there are those "weaker" individuals that will succumb.

Bird flu, doesn't seem all that important to me, because only 200 cases since 1997, indicate it either burns itself out quickly, or it's not that transmissible. "Ordinary" flu's definitely are.

So the problem is if the deadly form of bird flu were to acquire the transmissible feature, it could conceivably wipe out a large population. And we will perhaps hear about that quickly and be prepared.

BUT, early in the AIDS "epidemic", there were data that indicated a large die off by about 1994 or thereabouts. That didn't happen for maybe many reasons, but the fact is it's 2006, and it didn't happen. Humans adapted.

Smallpox killed off a lot of Indians, long before smallpox was wiped out in the world, but there are many Indians alive today.

Humans adapt, but just in case, I have the idea if there is a vaccination for bird flu, I'll get one. Age has a lot to do with how well the immune system can respond.

Other than that, running to the john for 6 days, to develop immunity, is last class, IMO.

Regards

[ ] RE: Viral Immunity

Many CRONies report washing their hands frequently, using antibacterialgels, doing all of those things that your typical nurse would recommendto keep yourself moderately protected from sickness.However, does anyone take the opposite tack? I eat food off my floor,touch my nose/eyes with unwashed hands, eat lots of ethnic food fromliteral holes-in-the-wall restaurants.... When I'm in the company ofjust myself and/or food I'm preparing for myself, it is practicallyanything goes.Partially I do this out of laziness, but there is definitely thatthought in my head of "low exposure garners protection". I put myselfin the vicinity of "dirt" and I will be protected from "dirt" ingeneral.Thoughts?, in Albuquerque

[Guest guest]

I had 6 days of flu last year and didn't drop any weight - I drank a lot of fluids.

Perhaps, the rats were not treated properly? I.e., did they know they were supposed to drink more fluids? Did they have ready access to lemonade, coca cola, coffee, tea?

But what would be the reason to drop body weight below 21 anyway? Just to try to match WUSTL people? What makes them an object lesson for very low BMI? We know the risk curve is nearly flat from 19 to 24 or so.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Viral Immunity

Hi Al:But still, that study seems to supply another reason for me not to drop my BMI below 21 (for a number) until Avian Flu has been and gone. But of course there will be other flus. It will be interesting to see if studies can show that massive IV feeding immediately infection starts would be able to supply the nutrients required, and alter the mortality rate. But it would be difficult, for example, for the US hospital system to put 100 million people on IVs at the same time - if one-third of the population became infected. So somehow the CRON community would have to acquaint the hospital system to the special vulnerability of slim people to influenza mortality. Assuming it applies to humans as well as to mice. A 35% drop in body weight seems to be astonishingly large in response to something like the flu. So maybe humans are different from mice?It will, I think, be tricky to get authorization for a study to intentionally infect slim humans with Avian Flu and watch the mortality rate!Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a good thing.

Is that a WUSTL thing?

Is WBC a function of BMI?

Regards.

[ ] Re: Viral Immunity

> I've found that I get colds often when I lowball my calorie > intake. I had a lot of trouble in my life last year and gained about 25 > pounds... Funny enough, I didn't have any colds in the first half of the > winter when I was stuffing myself like a pig. I got some control over my > food intake in the last half of the winter and it seemed like I was having > colds continuously.I have had just the opposite reaction to practicing CRON over the past 3 years. (Current BMI 19.4. Age 62.) Only one very minor cold in the entire time, which went away in a week. No serious headaches. Haven't had anything to send me to the doctor, actually, in those 3 years. Meanwhile, my WBC was measured at 2.8, well below the standard range.Over the years, it has been my experience that eating less = better day-to-day health. Of course, I also eat very high-quality food, including a large variety of fruits and vegetables. If I were eating only a small amount of cheap industrial food instead of a larger amount of excellent food, my results might be different. (But I don't intend to find out, if I can help it!)

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

The reason to drop caloric intake a little further to get a slightly

lower BMI might be the apparent indications in mice that 30%

restriction lengthens maximal lifespan by about 30%; 40% restriction

by about 40%; and 50% restriction by about 50%. These numbers are

not etched in stone, and of course we have no data at all of this

kind for humans.

But 50% restriction is a good deal more than I am currently prepared

to inflict on misself. Especially when it seems that each 100

calories greater restriction tends to be associated with fifteen

pounds less weight. Which suggests that at 50% restriction I might

weigh less than 100 pounds.

But you make a good point: why should the only scientific sample we

have, WUSTL, necessarily be the be-all-and-end-all of restriction?

So how do we decide the optimal degree of restriction?

Perhaps by the degree of restriction that is associated with the best

set of biomarkers?

How else?

And do we know the optimal level for all the biomarkers? Is zero LDL-

C better than 50 LDL-C for example? Probably not?

Rodney.

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

wrote:

>

> I had 6 days of flu last year and didn't drop any weight - I drank

a lot of fluids.

> Perhaps, the rats were not treated properly? I.e., did they know

they were supposed to drink more fluids? Did they have ready access

to lemonade, coca cola, coffee, tea?

>

> But what would be the reason to drop body weight below 21 anyway?

Just to try to match WUSTL people? What makes them an object lesson

for very low BMI? We know the risk curve is nearly flat from 19 to 24

or so.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Re: Viral Immunity

>

>

> Hi Al:

>

> But still, that study seems to supply another reason for me not

to

> drop my BMI below 21 (for a number) until Avian Flu has been and

> gone. But of course there will be other flus. It will be

> interesting to see if studies can show that massive IV feeding

> immediately infection starts would be able to supply the

nutrients

> required, and alter the mortality rate. But it would be

difficult,

> for example, for the US hospital system to put 100 million people

on

> IVs at the same time - if one-third of the population became

> infected.

>

> So somehow the CRON community would have to acquaint the hospital

> system to the special vulnerability of slim people to influenza

> mortality. Assuming it applies to humans as well as to mice. A

35%

> drop in body weight seems to be astonishingly large in response

to

> something like the flu. So maybe humans are different from mice?

>

> It will, I think, be tricky to get authorization for a study to

> intentionally infect slim humans with Avian Flu and watch the

> mortality rate!

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Fwiw, during the influenza epidemic of 1918 (a bird flu), and also those

that have died most recently in Asia and elsewhere, my understanding is that

those with the more capable immune systems were the ones most likely to

die -- so-called Cytokine Storm that's inimical to healthy lung function.

Al

[Guest guest]

I take a similar stance with regard to the over-use of

antibacterials, etc.. Like yourself, some of it is out

of laziness, but also it jives with my viewpoint that

it is better to interact with small amounts of varying

bacteria to keep the immune system healthy. There are

studies showing how raising children in sterile environs

leads to higher likelihood of asthma and illnesses.

Perhaps my obsession with fermented/cultured foods is

another factor.

-

www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

--- In , " Feucht " <andrea@...>

wrote:

>

> Many CRONies report washing their hands frequently, using

antibacterial

> gels, doing all of those things that your typical nurse would

recommend

> to keep yourself moderately protected from sickness.

>

> However, does anyone take the opposite tack? I eat food off my

floor,

> touch my nose/eyes with unwashed hands, eat lots of ethnic food

from

> literal holes-in-the-wall restaurants.... When I'm in the company

of

> just myself and/or food I'm preparing for myself, it is practically

> anything goes.

>

> Partially I do this out of laziness, but there is definitely that

> thought in my head of " low exposure garners protection " . I put

myself

> in the vicinity of " dirt " and I will be protected from " dirt " in

> general.

>

> Thoughts?

>

> , in Albuquerque

>

[Guest guest]

Ditto here, for the same reasons of laziness and keeping immunity up by

frequent small challenges.

I don't think I've ever rinsed off a head of lettuce I've bought at the

grocery store, I just pull off any wilted leaves and use the rest.

Same thing for apples, etc. They've probably been handled by someone, but

so what? If one falls on the carpet I pick it up, brush off the dog hairs

(I've got two), and continue on.

If I'm eating " hand food " I'll often eat some, pet the dogs, eat some more,

etc. It's like living with kids -- you soon all become immune to each

other's germs.

When I'm walking the dogs I'll give them a few small commercial dog-treats

now and then and sometimes munch on some myself, if they're the " Charlee

Bear " cheese-flavored crunchy types that I find sorta tasty. I can't get

any of my fellow dog-walkers to try them, and I really can't understand why.

-- Mike O'Gara, Southern California

>

>>

>> Many CRONies report washing their hands frequently, using

> antibacterial

>> gels, doing all of those things that your typical nurse would

> recommend

>> to keep yourself moderately protected from sickness.

>>

>> However, does anyone take the opposite tack? I eat food off my

> floor,

>> touch my nose/eyes with unwashed hands, eat lots of ethnic food

> from

>> literal holes-in-the-wall restaurants.... When I'm in the company

> of

>> just myself and/or food I'm preparing for myself, it is practically

>> anything goes.

>>

>> Partially I do this out of laziness, but there is definitely that

>> thought in my head of " low exposure garners protection " . I put

> myself

>> in the vicinity of " dirt " and I will be protected from " dirt " in

>> general.

>>

>> Thoughts?

>>

>> , in Albuquerque

[Guest guest]

> I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a good thing.

> Is that a WUSTL thing? Is WBC a function of BMI?

I'm not saying that a low white blood count is necessarily a good thing.

Actually, I was

alarmed by mine until I read about the CRON connection. I read that a low WBC

is very

common in people practicing CRON.

Ironically, it is also typical for a CRONie to be relatively free of colds and

other common

infections, even though his or her WBC may be quite low. As far as I know, no

one knows

how this works.

[Guest guest]

JW and gd: a low white blood count is one of the biomarkers that you are doing CRON correctly. It's emphasized in Dr W's books. It's a good thing (as Martha says).

on 5/12/2006 2:06 PM, gdmedia1 at garybiz2@... wrote:

> I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a good thing.

> Is that a WUSTL thing? Is WBC a function of BMI?

I'm not saying that a low white blood count is necessarily a good thing. Actually, I was

alarmed by mine until I read about the CRON connection. I read that a low WBC is very

common in people practicing CRON.

Ironically, it is also typical for a CRONie to be relatively free of colds and other common

infections, even though his or her WBC may be quite low. As far as I know, no one knows

how this works.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

The logic behind a low WBC count may be as follows:

The body only feels it necessary to devote (waste) a whole bunch of

resources to the creation of WBCs if it DETECTS A BUNCH OF PROBLEMS

that require white blood cells to fix.

If there is little sign of any problems then there is no need to

create lots of these 'little policemen' whose job it is, largely, to

round up the bad guys, of which CRONistas have many fewer.

A high WBC count is, I believe, like high hsCRP, associated with

inflammation as well as infection. Neither of which we would wish to

see evidence of in our biomarker tests - except, of course, as

evidence that there is a problem that needs fixing.

(Correction welcome from those with better knowledge than mine of the

details of this stuff.)

Rodney.

>

> > I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a good

thing.

> > Is that a WUSTL thing? Is WBC a function of BMI?

>

> I'm not saying that a low white blood count is necessarily a good

thing. Actually, I was

> alarmed by mine until I read about the CRON connection. I read

that a low WBC is very

> common in people practicing CRON.

>

> Ironically, it is also typical for a CRONie to be relatively free

of colds and other common

> infections, even though his or her WBC may be quite low. As far as

I know, no one knows

> how this works.

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Your arguments below are more applicable to showing the benefits of

not having a high WBC count. I don't think that your arguments

necessarily apply to having a *normal* WBC count.

One wants a certain minimum level of WBC to fight infection. For

persons undergoing chemotherapy, if the WBC falls below a certain

threshold (eg 4 K/uL), the oncologist will postpone the next treatment

to allow the body to recuperate and regenerate more WBCs.

I'm not sure where this threshold came from, but I for one would be

disturbed to see my WBC count drop below 4.

Diane

> >

> > > I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a good

> thing.

> > > Is that a WUSTL thing? Is WBC a function of BMI?

> >

> > I'm not saying that a low white blood count is necessarily a good

> thing. Actually, I was

> > alarmed by mine until I read about the CRON connection. I read

> that a low WBC is very

> > common in people practicing CRON.

> >

> > Ironically, it is also typical for a CRONie to be relatively free

> of colds and other common

> > infections, even though his or her WBC may be quite low. As far as

> I know, no one knows

> > how this works.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane:

I guess it depends on how you define " normal " . Normal total

cholesterol not too long ago was defined as 250 - because most people

then had cholesterol levels about that high ........... and 55% of

the population at that time were dying of CVD. But 'normal' then

should not have been confused, as indeed it was by pretty much

everyone, with 'good'.

As for WBCs, if you define your current typical north american

individual's BMI = 29, SAD diet average WBC count as 'normal' and

therefore being 'good' or 'appropriate' (I don't know if you do) then

I would not agree with you.

I think the typical CRON WBC level is much more likely to be

associated with good health than the current population average.

Unfortunately I don't think WUSTL published the average CRON WBC

level. But from some exposure to data for healthy CRONistas WBC

counts I believe none are below 2 or above 4. Quite a few are below

3, and the rest are between 3 and 4 ....... is my impression.

So, until I see evidence to the contrary (and who knows that may be

tomorrow!) I believe a WBC above 4 indicates issues (caused by

inflammation, infection or whatever, perhaps often because of

overweight) and a level between 2 and 4 as healthy. But PERHAPS a

number below 2.5 should be taken as suggesting CRON is being a bit

overdone.

Stuff has been posted here within the last month that links higher

WBC with inflammation. But if there is contrary evidence, that

suggests low WBC ***IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS*** is harmful let's take a

look at it.

Clearly I agree with you that anyone with clear evidence of cancer,

inflammation or infection whose body is unable to respond by creating

WBCs when they are required is in trouble. But I do not believe that

is the issue among healthy people with very low levels of

inflammation and no current infections.

Jmo. If there is contrary evidence let's discuss it further.

Perhaps I am guilty of expecting whatever happens to biomarkers under

CRON as being good? And if that is not the case with WBC then it is

certainly something we should all be made aware of.

Rodney.

> > >

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

wrote:

> > >

> > > > I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a

good

> > thing.

> > > > Is that a WUSTL thing? Is WBC a function of BMI?

> > >

> > > I'm not saying that a low white blood count is necessarily a

good

> > thing. Actually, I was

> > > alarmed by mine until I read about the CRON connection. I read

> > that a low WBC is very

> > > common in people practicing CRON.

> > >

> > > Ironically, it is also typical for a CRONie to be relatively

free

> > of colds and other common

> > > infections, even though his or her WBC may be quite low. As

far as

> > I know, no one knows

> > > how this works.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Diane:

Although I do not see specific numbers in BT120YD for WBC levels, I

do see the following on page 44 of my copy:

It is a table (Table 2.3) of " Biomarkers of Success: Average changes

in the Eight Crew Members on CRON in Biosphere 2 ............. "

Among these biomarkers of " SUCCESS " in pursuit of CRON, it shows an

average decline in WBC of 31% **in just the first six months**. So

it seems that Dr. Walford was pleased to note an appreciable decline

in WBCs in Biosphere.

And these people were thoroughly healthy at the start, so they were

likely to have been at the lower end of the generally accepted range

(no cancer or infections or unusual inflammation) when they entered

Biosphere.

The decline seen later would be even more interesting, and presumably

would have been appreciably greater than 31%. Supposing the decline

was just 50%, and if they had started out around 5, then they would

have ended up with a number between 2 and 3.

By the way, on the M.D. Cancer Centre website I see they

define neutropenia (low WBCs) as a number below 1. Which is a long

way below the standard range of 4 to 10, and appreciably below any

number I have seen for any CRONista.

I will try to find the numbers for the Biospherians after the first

twelve months, but before they started experiencing the breathing

problems that eventually forced them to evacuate (because this might

conceivably have had some weird effects on WBCs, and we are

interested in the effects of CRON on WBCs, not the effect of oxygen

starvation).

If I find more Biosphere WBC data I will post it.

Rodney.

> > >

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

wrote:

> > >

> > > > I'm not understanding your point of WBC below normal being a

good

> > thing.

> > > > Is that a WUSTL thing? Is WBC a function of BMI?

> > >

> > > I'm not saying that a low white blood count is necessarily a

good

> > thing. Actually, I was

> > > alarmed by mine until I read about the CRON connection. I read

> > that a low WBC is very

> > > common in people practicing CRON.

> > >

> > > Ironically, it is also typical for a CRONie to be relatively

free

> > of colds and other common

> > > infections, even though his or her WBC may be quite low. As

far as

> > I know, no one knows

> > > how this works.

> > >

> >

>