Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

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

AOTBE! There are a host of other factors that affect lifespan. Aneuploidy
alone will be a limiting factor!

I think you may be a bit too narrow in your extrapolation of results of
caloric restriction in animals to lifespan increases in humans. Way too
narrow.


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

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

I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously prone to
getting it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
message
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Bill Lumberg wrote in message


[...]

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.

Been tried, doesn't work. For every one who says their longevity is due to
moderation and clean living there's another who'll swear it's due to a
bottle of gin a day. All other things being equal, genetics is clearly very
important here.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote
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!

Only if you interpret that statement as an attempt to prove a
hypothesis, which I doubt it was. The hypothesis is: "CR increases
lifespan in humans". Before the data on variety of organisms from
worms to monkeys were collected (or presented to one), one subjective
possibility would be "the probability that this hypothesis is true is
50%". Or if one liked (or was otherwise motivated) to eat a lot, this
subjective probability perhaps would be considerably smaller.
However, in light of the available data, one must reconsider and
update his prior odds in favor of this hypothesis. Biology,
evolutionary similarity of humans with other animals, and indirect
experimental evidence collected so far suggest its higher likelihood
than the subjective prior would imply.

My own "I don't know" in this regard is 50%. What's known on CR,
however imperfect, biases the odds upward, in favor of the proposition
that it works in humans. Now, would it be far off to suggest that a
high proportion of CR opponents are motivated to have high food
intake, demanded by their life styles - for example associated with
trying to reach and maintain the peak athletic performance?

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.

It is still likely that a drug would work similarly in humans. You
need to look at the proportion of those that don't work. As well as to
keep in mind efficacy/safety balance and the severety of the condition
the drug's supposed to treat, as these highly affect whether it's
going to make it through. "A lot of them don't work" makes no sense as
an argument since it depends on the number of things tried.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department

OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"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.

There is not anything else. We have a street here in Atlanta named Ponce de
Leon to remind us about the search for the "fountain of youth."


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

DRS wrote:

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

I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously prone to
getting it.


If that were true, it should be easy for you to provide a Google cite of a
post by a physician who has written that Roman Catholic priests are prone to
getting prostate cancer..

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

DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
message
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.


Why should I?

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

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

DRS wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
message
rosie read and post wrote:

[...]

i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
are so unlike your christ.
.............................................gandh i

Ghandhi's dead.

Christ lives.

Prove it.

Why should I?

Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

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

DRS wrote:

[...]

I know doctors who disagree with you. RC priests are notoriously
prone to getting it.

If that were true, it should be easy for you to provide a Google cite
of a post by a physician who has written that Roman Catholic priests
are prone to getting prostate cancer..

I said I know the doctors. I never said they posted on the net.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?