Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

Wayne S. Hill wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:

Wayne S. Hill wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Ignoramus wrote:

I am aware that there is some scant evidence that living
on calorie restricted diet (1500 or so calories per day
all the time) also can help one live longer.

There's better evidence for that than for practically any
other intervention. Maybe more evidence for it than all
other interventions combined!

I think this conclusion will be reversed when researchers
realize that sarcopenia and osteopenia are much greater
threats to longevity in people over, say, 60 years of age
than bodymass per se. IOW, extrapolating animal models to
humans is not reasonable here.

``Calorie Restriction Reduces Age-Related Muscle Loss''

- http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=4748

In rats. IN RATS! RATS! RATS!RATS!RATS!RATS!RATS!RATS!

For cryin' out loud, studies have shown that elderly people
increase their lean body mass only with a combination of increased
protein intake and increased exercise (not one of these alone).

How does this contradict CR?

I sincerely doubt there's any evidence that shows that feeding
people less will reduce their loss of lean muscle mass. If it's
true in rodents, doesn't that tell you something about using rats as
a model of elderly people?

In the absence of other information available this far, yes it does
tell me - chances are it should work in humans too.

DZ


Osteopenia might be a bit of a problem. However I strongly
suspect that a technological solution to this one is
imminent, or is already in use - and thus that young people
approaching CR should not be overly concerned about it.

Low calorie intake is a minor risk factor anyway. Take your
vitamin D, avoid your retinol, get a good dose of minerals,
do weight bearing exercise, and you should not have too much
to worry about.

Hey, you're talking about trying to live to unheard of ages
here. Once someone gets beyond the age of about 70, the
number 1 concern is maintaining mobility. If you consider
that the main factors in maintaining mobility are maintaining
muscle and bone mass, why (oh, why!) would you consider it
logical to tell people to eat much less, and to claim that the
great body of research supports this contention?



--
Wheel discovery department

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

Tim Tyler wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Ignoramus wrote or quoted:

I am aware that there is some scant evidence that living on
calorie restricted diet (1500 or so calories per day all
the time) also can help one live longer.

There's better evidence for that than for practically any
other intervention. Maybe more evidence for it than all
other interventions combined!

I think this conclusion will be reversed when researchers
realize that sarcopenia and osteopenia are much greater

When there is disuse atrophy. This does not occur with modest reduction
of food intake.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"John M. Williams" wrote:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

DRS wrote:

Proton Soup wrote in message


[...]

Masturbate daily to lube the prostate and prevent cancer.

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

Physicians should read the literature rather than speculating:


Physicians do that. Then they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs.

Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"John M. Williams" wrote:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

Proton Soup wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

DRS wrote:

Proton Soup wrote in message


[...]

Masturbate daily to lube the prostate and prevent cancer.

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.


Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

This is what we're talking about. I'm sure more studies will follow.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993942


Retrospective questionnaire type studies brought us the information that
Vitamin E and C may prevent heart attacks. We now know better.

If cigarette smoke carcinogens are concentrated in prostatic fluids (as an
explanation for the cancer), the solution is to stop smoking instead of
masterbating.


Proton Soup

Here's a review about prostate cancer from a more reputable peer-reviewed
source:

http://tinyurl.com/q4kl

Since when is the British Journal of Urology International not a
reputable, peer-reviewed source?


It actually isn't.


And since when do things like "cigarette smoke carcinogens ... in
prostatic fluids" have as much effect on prostate cancer as DHT levels
and 5-alpha-reductase gene expression?

Ask the author(s) of the newscientist.com article.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

DRS wrote:

Proton Soup wrote:

[...]

Masturbate daily to lube the prostate and prevent cancer.

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

Physicians should read the literature rather than speculating:

Physicians do that. Then they treat prostate cancer with
anti-testosterone
drugs.

And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

Tim Tyler wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote or quoted:
DRS wrote:

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

Are you assuming testosterone is the *only* risk factor?


Is that what I have written?


That is unlikely to be the case.


Correct. However, we do treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone drugs that achieve chemical
castration. Moreover, prostate cancer is virtually unheard of in castrated males.


However, I don't think prostate cancer /is/ known as the priest's disease ;-)


I know it isn't, writing as a physician.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Tim Tyler wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition roger wrote or quoted:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

Mice live *twice* as long in captivity if they are given only half as much
as they would eat ad libitum.

Not only do they live longer but they a physically more active in their
older age. Imagine humans doubling their lifespan to 150 years and
playing tennis when they are 120 years old.

You certainly have an active imagination. There is no objective
evidence that caloric restriction in humans would have the same effect
as in mice.

It almost certainly won't make us live to 150.

That remains to be seen.

However there's good
evidence that it will extend our lives - since it has done so in
practically every other animal tested.

Correct.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message

It almost certainly won't make us live to 150. However there's good
evidence that it will extend our lives - since it has done so in
practically every other animal tested.

Tim,

Isn't there an issue concerning *when* and *how* the individual starts their
CR regimen? IANAE, but I've heard that this is a tricky point; it's the
thing that most concerns me about 'adult-start' CR...

Ph.

Tim Tyler wrote in message ...
In sci.med.nutrition roger wrote or quoted:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

Mice live *twice* as long in captivity if they are given only half as much
as they would eat ad libitum.

Not only do they live longer but they a physically more active in their
older age. Imagine humans doubling their lifespan to 150 years and
playing tennis when they are 120 years old.

You certainly have an active imagination. There is no objective
evidence that caloric restriction in humans would have the same effect
as in mice.

It almost certainly won't make us live to 150. However there's good
evidence that it will extend our lives - since it has done so in
practically every other animal tested.

I think the japanese have the highest longevity now. Perhaps we need
to sit down next to one of those 114 year old guys and write down
everything he does.
Ask him if he's keeping his lifts up?

Bill

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...
roger wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:38:32 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:


Mice live *twice* as long in captivity if they are given only half as
much
as they would eat ad libitum.

Not only do they live longer but they a physically more active in their
older age. Imagine humans doubling their lifespan to 150 years and
playing tennis when they are 120 years old.

You certainly have an active imagination. There is no objective
evidence that caloric restriction in humans would have the same effect
as in mice.


There is no objective evidence that it won't.


1) That is not how science proceeds though! Hypothesis thence evidence to
disprove or lead to refinement of the hypothesis. Science proves nothing
(every schoolboy knows - Bateson) as you should know Doc!

2) There are countless thousands of drug trials that theoretically and
clinically worked well in animal subjects but did not make it through human
trials due to mechanisms and confounding factors in humans not present in
the animals.

3) Outside medicine proper, there is no objective evidence that God does not
exist or that there are no purple kanifs on the planet that might be
circling Betelgeuse. And any of an infinite number of such hypotheses. But
science does not proceed (see 1) by trying to prove negatives.

That said, a reasonable extrapolation could be made based on the evidence of
calorie restriction in certain animals as long as "AOTBE" strictures are
observed.