Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

In sci.med.nutrition Wayne S. Hill <hillw4 DeleteThis @asme.org> wrote or quoted:
> 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
> 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

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.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim DeleteThis @tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

"Tim Tyler" <tim.DeleteThis@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:HMFL63.n1q@bath.ac.uk...
> In sci.med.nutrition Wayne S. Hill <hillw4.DeleteThis@asme.org> wrote or quoted:
> > 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
> > 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
>
> 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.

You forgot to mention vitamin K at doses equal to or greater
than a milligram for maximum benefits. The so-called
RDA for K is just way low. "Low" protein diets are associated with
reduced bone strength and density in the elderly.

DHEA supplements should help preserve bone density
as it is converted to estrogen in the bone. In men
replacement testosterone is also useful in preserving
bone mass.

As I recall, CR benefits disappears in animals when they
return to an ad libum diet. Which suggest one could
be hunger for a life time and then go on a diet vacation
can lose the effect:-(

Taking 10 milligrams of vitamin K per day....
.........................................William A. Noyes
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

In sci.med.nutrition DRS <drs.DeleteThis@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote or quoted:

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

? My sources say "priest's disease" -> "non-specific prostatitis".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim.DeleteThis@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

"John M. Williams" wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <cardiologist.TakeThisOut@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >DRS wrote:
> >
> >> Proton Soup <proton.TakeThisOut@soup.org> wrote in message
> >> 9rv5ov09lr2b0qm1au032jchabocsq45ri.TakeThisOut@4ax.com
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <cardiologist DeleteThis @heartmdphd.com> 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?

That is unlikely to be the case.

However, I don't think prostate cancer /is/ known as the priest's disease
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim DeleteThis @tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

"John M. Williams" wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew.TakeThisOut@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Proton Soup wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:48:31 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> >> <cardiologist.TakeThisOut@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >DRS wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Proton Soup <proton.TakeThisOut@soup.org> wrote in message
> >> >> 9rv5ov09lr2b0qm1au032jchabocsq45ri.TakeThisOut@4ax.com
> >> >>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

In sci.med.nutrition roger <roger RemoveThis @rammjet.com> wrote or quoted:
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <cardiologist RemoveThis @heartmdphd.com> 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.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim RemoveThis @tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

Tim Tyler <tim.RemoveThis@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<HMFLK1.CF.RemoveThis@bath.ac.uk>...
> In sci.med.nutrition roger <roger.RemoveThis@rammjet.com> wrote or quoted:
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <cardiologist.RemoveThis@heartmdphd.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew.TakeThisOut@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> "John M. Williams" wrote:
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <cardiologist.TakeThisOut@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >
> > >DRS wrote:
> > >
> > >> Proton Soup <proton.TakeThisOut@soup.org> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

Tim Tyler wrote:

> In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <cardiologist DeleteThis @heartmdphd.com> 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

Tim Tyler wrote:

> In sci.med.nutrition roger <roger DeleteThis @rammjet.com> wrote or quoted:
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <cardiologist DeleteThis @heartmdphd.com> 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

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). 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?

> 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?

--
-Wayne
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment 

Wayne S. Hill <hillw4.TakeThisOut@asme.org> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment