Zeta Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Well, answer: anything, here in Chitchat! But main point: All: [suffering a bit less premature mortality] may represent something useful in the context of the average (or slightly below-average) American's disease risk, due to smoking, overweight, poor overall diet, inactivity, and inadequate access to healthcare: it doesn't represent a health-conscious person with education and insurance. You mean a health-conscious, educated person and with healthcare resources (via insurance or whatever it be) who's healthy. A frequent refrain around here is: ~"It only works for unhealthy or genetically screwed up rodents". Well, a lot of us are unhealthy or genetically screwed up. While in no way dismissing the challenges faced by those who face specific and difficult-to-treat or unmodifiable disease states or risk factors, I actually wouldn't say "a lot of us" are — but that's really a side issue. That doesn't square with what I see in the archives. Indeed, many CR Society members were motivated to start CR because they thought it might address health issues they were suffering from now, or might mitigate risks of aging-associated illness, esp. heart disease. And while it may be a side issue in the discussion about FMD, it doesn't seem like an unimportant issue. The reasons that I'm drawing the distinction are twofold. First, the whole point of the FMD — and all the enthusiasm around various IF/EOD approaches — is that they are proposed to deliver the almost unique anti-aging benefits of CR with less hunger and/or hassle and/or side-effects. If FMD is really just correcting for the specific health problems of a particular mouse strain or laboratory husbandry practices, it doesn't meet the bar. Doesn't seem like the WHOLE point, based on what I've read by the authors, and by people excited by the findings. Second: of course, this is the CR Society Forum, not the "discuss every therapy for every health condition that plagues human life" Forum. The fact that a diet is good for coeliac, or diabetes, or phenylketonuria, or multiple sclerosis isn't a good reason to be discussing it here. Obviously, in the case of non-aging related diseases. But it would require a rather tendentious definition of aging to contend that the fact that CR in humans can (likely -- we of course don't know yet...) push back Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and most forms of cancer, and so on, is irrelevant in determining what should be discussed here. (I meant to say this in connection wth above point as well, but moving quoted material around in this edit window is so tedious). Zeta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 I agree with Zeta on this one. We should have a "big tent" definition of what's relevant, and therefore what should be considered legitimate topics for discussion on the CR forum lists. Michael, doesn't the SENS Foundation identify several of these diseases (e.g. heart disease, cancer, alzheimer's) as part of the aging process, and falling into one of the seven categories that need to be tackled on the road to defeating aging? Further, if dietary manipulations like intermittent fasting or time-restricted feeding put the body into a state similar to CR (e.g. reduced IGF-1) and have some of the same effects on biomarkers associated with diseases of aging (lipid profile), they seem to me to be completely appropriate for topics of discussion on at least the CR Practice forum, and perhaps even the CR Theory & Science forum, even if they don't result in a net decrease in energy intake. As for diseases not commonly associated with aging, if they can be ameliorated by CR, they too would seem like fair game for forum discussions. After all, it is the "Calorie Restriction Society", not the "Calorie Restriction for Life Extension Society". Case in point, you suggest MS as one of the topics that wouldn't be appropriate for discussion here, presumably because it doesn't have to do with aging. But some studies (e.g. [1]) have shown that CR (interestingly, via intermittent fasting) may be effective for the treatment of MS, and researchers at WUSTL are currently recruiting human subjects for a clinical trial to investigate the efficacy of CR for treating MS. The same is true for reducing seizures in epileptic patients via CR - another condition not associated with aging. Shouldn't these also be legitimate topics of discussion on the CR Society forums? I would go even further and contend that some (many?) of us practice CR at least in part for reasons that are independent of its potential to extend lifespan or avoid disease (e.g. psychological benefits), and that these too should be considered reasonable topics of discussion. The CR Society mission statement and about page would seem to support this "big tent" perspective, at least implicitly, since they focus on the goal of promoting longevity AND health (arguably including psychological health) via the practice of CR. --Dean -------------- [1] J Leukoc Biol. 2008 Oct; 84(4): 940–948. Published online 2008 Aug 4. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0208133 PMCID: PMC2638732 Chronic calorie restriction attenuates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis Laura Piccio,*,1,2 Jennifer L. Stark,*,2 and Anne H. Cross*† Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2638732/ AbstractCalorie restriction (CR) prevents many age-associated diseases and prolongs the lifespan. CR induces multiple metabolic and physiologic modifications, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and neuroprotective effects that may be beneficial in multiple sclerosis (MS). The present studies sought to determine whether CR or increased calorie intake alters the course of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the leading animal model for MS. SJL and C57BL/6 mice were subjected to 40% CR beginning at 5 weeks of age. After 5 weeks of CR, EAE was induced by immunizing with proteolipid protein in SJL mice and with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein in C57BL/6 mice. Clinical, histologic, and immunologic features of EAE were compared with mice fed ad libitum and to SJL mice fed a high-fat, high-calorie diet. CR ameliorated clinical EAE in both mouse strains with less severe inflammation, demyelination, and axon injury. No suppression of immune function was observed. A high-calorie diet did not alter the EAE course. CR was associated with increased plasma levels of corticosterone and adiponectin and reduced concentrations of IL-6 and leptin. The CR-induced hormonal, metabolic, and cytokine changes observed in our studies suggest a combined anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effect. CR with adequate nutrition and careful medical monitoring should be explored as a potential treatment for MS. Go to:Abstract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 I agree with you 100% on this one. :) -- Saul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholson Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Well to add my two cents (or maybe five?) to this - I have been meaning to raise this issue for a while (!) - I frequent CRSociety because I am completely sold on the concept of CRON's benefits for health, for the so called 'diseases of aging' and for extension of lifespan. And I think I know pretty much what I need to do in terms of practicing it (even though I am still not fully compliant with my own goals in this respect). I also believe - based on what we think we know now - that 'restriction of calories without malnutrition' probably accounts for at least 80% of the health benefits to be obtained from currently known dietary/nutritional 'interventions'. But what I am very much hoping to get more and better information about (my primary purpose in being here) is how to get the other - non-CR 20% - 'little details' figured out as well. To take just one example, how to avoid the most common cancers that even those on CR are likely prone to: breast cancer and prostate cancer being two examples. Given the above background the list of forums (fora?) available to read and post at at CRSociety does not really satisfy my needs, and I don't know of a better place (of serious-minded people) where I might hope to find what I need. Running down the list of forums: I don't often read, and am never likely to post to, the 'CR science and theory' forum because, interesting as it sometimes is, it is largely fairly esoteric stuff which I generally do not find I can apply in life to improve my health. Nor do I have the qualifications to post stuff there either. The 'CR Practice' forum I take to cover the issues of how to implement restriction of calories while ensuring adequate nutrient intake - something I think I already understand well enough for government work. So I don't expect to find much there to read or to contribute. The Chitchat forum, based on its name, I take to be a forum for off topic stuff. For example when astronomers finally detect signals from an intelligent civilization I expect Warrren to keep us right up to date on the Chitchat forum daily as more information comes in. And I might update people on the astonishing stuff that is coming out on LENR research (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, often termed 'cold fusion') issue. The 'CR Recipes' forum descriptor seems self explanatory. The 'Members-only area' - "for issues of general interest", based on its name, seems not much different from the Chitchat forum except only for paid up members. Now here is the punchline. Suppose I were to discover some tantalizing information about how to very dramatically reduce one's PSA test results and risk of prostate cancer, where should it be posted? It would certainly be highly relevant (implementable) to those reading at the forums, but it is not 'CR science and theory'; it is not 'CR practice'; it is not 'CR recipes'. Should it really fit in merely to chitchat or issues of general interest? =========================== So, here is my point: I believe there should be a forum specifically for 'Non-CR methods of health preservation' (I am sure there is a better name for it). Issues on breast and prostate cancer, for example, clearly would fit in there. So would all the other non-CR health 'little details' health topics. In addition, I think it would be helpful if all the discussions on the same topic (prostate or breast in this case) should be in the same thread. Right now it seems there is a bit of a proliferation of quite closely related issues on several different threads. Perhaps this is because it is a bit tedious sifting through every thread to see if there is one where a planned post would be a good place to add. So, It would be helpful to me if each of the topics raised in my suggested 'Non-CR Health' issues forum had one main thread title, perhaps with the title capitalized, so it is easy to find if one wants to add another post on the same issue. Actually, people may have noticed that a few posts I have made recently I did capitalize the subject heading, hoping people who wished to add another comment on the same general topic would quickly see it and know where to add their post. This way, to take an example, all that anyone who wanted to see all the contributions on prostate issues would have to do is look for a thread titled "PROSTATE" (on teh 'Non-CR' forum) and he would immediately know where to read and/or post. I imagine it might end up with a couple of hundred threads on a couple of hundred different and important Non-CR health issues, each with a capitalized subject heading. This is just my view of course. I realize 'CRSociety' is principally devoted to disseminating information on CR. But should it be doing so to the effective exclusion of everything else? Perhaps the answer is yes? That is not for me to decide. Rodney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Hi Rodney! As I recall, there's some data that suggests that CRON might reduce the likelihood of breast cancer; I think that it was a rodent study. -- Saul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 So, here is my point: I believe there should be a forum specifically for 'Non-CR methods of health preservation' (I am sure there is a better name for it). Issues on breast and prostate cancer, for example, clearly would fit in there. So would all the other non-CR health 'little details' health topics. In addition, I think it would be helpful if all the discussions on the same topic (prostate or breast in this case) should be in the same thread. Right now it seems there is a bit of a proliferation of quite closely related issues on several different threads. Perhaps this is because it is a bit tedious sifting through every thread to see if there is one where a planned post would be a good place to add. Rodney, I like your idea of a "Non-CR health" sub-forum. The thread I started on "Obesity and Genetics" is only tangentially related to CR, and I debated whether to post it to the CR Science (since it was very science-oriented) forum or the Chitchat forum. A "Non-CR Health" forum would have been a much better option. I figured one of the reasons for switching from an email-based forum to this web-based format was because it would be more amenable to a wide variety of topics and discussions. Brian and Tim, what is the management's perspective on adding a new forum along these lines? Thanks, --Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Alos, I'm not sure where (if anywhere) the sort of stuff that used to go to the CRCOMM list should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholson Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 While I am at it, let me add one more suggestion for an additional (yes another!) forum: Anyone coming to CRSociety for the first time must find it a daunting task to get to know the really critical things they need to understand to be confident about adopting CR. There is a great deal of information available to them here, but it is all over the place, and mixed in with it is a lot of other stuff of only peripheral significance. I suggest the following solution: There would be an additional forum which anyone can read but to which only CRSociety management - a committee of perhaps six wise (that rules out most of us!) men and/or women - could post. This committee would decide what are the most important and fundamental papers supporting the arguments for pursuing CR. Most obviously the list would include the mouse studies showing dramatic extension of lifespan; the 2003 Fontana study; the rhesus monkey studies and no doubt quite a few others. Some posts (taken from the archives) not referencing any specific paper might also be appropriate in this suggested new forum. I suggest that anyone would be able to post in Chitchat to make a suggestion about a paper that they believe ought to be in this new forum. The committee would then decide if the paper submitted was considered important enough. The posts management would make to this new forum would not have to be lengthy. Indeed, perhaps the briefer the better. The Pubmed ID number would be essential; the conclusion from the abstract; and if considered necessary a translation of it into plain english so people can understand the significance of it; and perhaps a one paragraph comment if considered helpful. Although I feel I probably will know most of the information that would end up in there, I would certainly be very interested to check it all out to discover what I may have missed that those most into CR consider to be the most important information to them. Finally, I promise not to suggest any more new forums for at least three months ;; ^ ))) Rodney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.