I really shouldn't be responding here, as I said I would only reply to this in the low carb war zone. But I never made the initial post.



How is a CRer who has an average BMI of 19.6 [3] considered emaciated or in anyway relfective of being starved ? A BMI of almost 20 is absolutely considered normal and healthy (Normal healthy range BMI is between 18.5-25.). A CRONie does not meet the critera for anorexia at all. Some differences become apparent when you look at oxidative stress markers, inflammation, nutritional status, BMI, cholesterol levels etc... Anorexics will typically have

- Increased inflammation
- Increased oxidative damage
- Organ failure or disease at some point
- Elevated cholesterol levels
- A BMI below 16
- Deficiencies in many minerals
- Low antioxidant levels
- Orthostatic hyoptension
- Decreased immunity
- Increased DNA damage
- edema caused by starvation

In contrast a person who does CR will experience

- Increased antioxidant levels
- No nutrional deficiencies
- No organ failure
- No orthostatic hypotension (adaptational mechanism)
- Low Cholesterol levels
- No inflammation or very little inflammation (markers such as TNF-a, CRP, IL6)
- Better heart function, kidney function, and other organs [4]
- Improved viral immunity
- Decreased DNA damage [5]

Although there are similar things going on in anorexia and CR, the important thing is that CR(ON) extends lifespan in animals, anorexia in animals kills them. A big difference. Tell me, how is it that those animals, and rhesus monkeys that go on Calorie Restriction also live significantly longer lives. And they have "very low cholesterol" and are very thin. Two rhesus monkey studies on 30% CR relative to ad lib lived 30% longer[1, 2]. And yes, they had low total cholesterol! They had less cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes and slowed age related muscle mass and bone density decline. More significant CR rhesus monkey studies to come soon, one of them which is a true CR life extension study (and are very thin) is showing that 30% CR are experiencing half the mortality of the ad lib group. Preliminary evidence suggests that CRON in Rhesus monkeys is preventing loss of muscle mass, arthritis, menstrual irregularities, and other signs of aging.

If CRON was unhealthy then why are reports on humans coming out showing exactly what we want. Such as metabolic changes similar to those of long lived *humans* and long lived animals?



CR prevents dementia, does NOT cause weakness, is certainly SHOULDN't be filled with hunger, and does NOT produce erectile disfunction. In the large majority of CRers they do not go below the healthy BMI, and there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT CR WILL ONLY GAIN A PERCENT OF LIFE EXTENSION. These are symptoms of Calorie Restricted Inadequate nutrition diet. You are way too ignorant mutant, you will not even listen to those that ACTUALLY do CR. I think most people here are smart enough to actually understand that what mutant is saying is mostly not true and the average CRer is not experiencing these things. Maybe what he comes out with might even be based on his own failure? Your claims are an example of true starvation and inadequte nutrion studys done on animals and humans such as the Minnesota experiment [8] where they experienced Dizziness, tiredness, muscle soreness, hair loss, reduced coordination, and tinnitis. Whereas Calorie restriction in the biosphere two study did not show any of this, with calorie levels similar to that early experiment, and they even had increased level of activity! [9]. Also take note that NONE of the women experienced the menstrual irregularities. The level of restriction would have to be far more severe.

Also consider all the studies cited below which show that lower body mass index is associated with longevity and lower morbidity. CR lowers body temperature in humans, and in the study of men in the US showed that those with lower body temperature, high insulin sensitivity increase life expectancy significantly! [17] " On average, people who have a lower body temperature live longer, as do those with lower levels of insulin, and those with higher levels of DHEAS."

watch and listen to people that do CR http://cbs3.com/health/local_story_031211552.html - This is a very recent interview with a couple who both do CR. They say they feel so much better, and their sex life has improved.

REFERENCES

[1] Calorie restriction extends rhesus monkey lifespan by 30%
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1634128

[2]Mortality and Morbidity in Laboratory-maintained Rhesus Monkeys and Effects
of Long-term Dietary Restriction. 30% CR got a 30% life extension
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003 Mar;58(3):B212-9

[3] Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 27;101(17):6659-63. Epub 2004 Apr 19.
PMID: 15096581 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/17/6659
"The CR group were leaner than the comparison group (body mass index, 19.6 ± 1.9 vs. 25.9 ± 3.2 kg/m2; percent body fat, 8.7 ± 7% vs. 24 ± 8%"

[4] Caloric restriction appears to prevent primary aging in the heart (in humans)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...o-cra011206.php

[5] Calorie restriction appears better than exercise at slowing primary aging (in humans)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...o-cra053106.php

[6] Low-Calorie Diet Boosts Immune System
Monkeys on calorie restriction have more youthful and robust immune systems.
http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/17856/

[7]Do Dieting Monkeys Live Healthier and Longer Lives?
http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/17572/

[8] They Starved So That Others Be Better Fed: Remembering Ancel Keys and the Minnesota Experiment
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/6/1347

[9] Calorie restriction in biosphere 2: alterations in physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical parameters in humans restricted for a 2-year period.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002 Jun;57(6):B211-24.Click here to read
Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)--seven of the crew being ages 27 to 42 years, and one aged 67 years--were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a low-calorie (1750-2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs, and meat (approximately 12% calories from protein, approximately 11% from fat, and approximately 77% from complex carbohydrates). They experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 +/- 5%, mostly in the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19% for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of 25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%; T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%; cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes, including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemoglobin, plus others, resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.

PMID: 12023257 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[10] Body mass index and mortality among US male physicians.
Ann Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;14(10):731-9.
PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between body mass index and mortality in a population homogeneous in educational attainment and socioeconomic status. METHODS: We analyzed the association between body mass index (BMI) and both all-cause and cause-specific mortality among 85,078 men aged 40 to 84 years from the Physicians' Health Study enrollment cohort. RESULTS: During 5 years of follow-up, we documented 2856 deaths (including 1212 due to cardiovascular diseases and 891 due to cancer). In age-adjusted analyses, we observed a U-shaped relation between BMI and all-cause mortality; among men who never smoked a linear relation was observed with no increase in mortality among leaner men (P for trend, <0.001). Among never smokers, in multivariate analyses adjusted for age, alcohol intake, and physical activity, the relative risks of all-cause mortality increased in a stepwise fashion with increasing BMI. Excluding the first 2 years of follow-up further strengthened the association (multivariate relative risks, from BMI<20 to > or = 30 kg/m2, were 0.93, 1.00, 1.00, 1.16, 1.45, and 1.71 [P for trend, <0.001]). In all age strata (40-54, 55-69, and 70-84 years), never smokers with BMIs of 30 or greater had approximately a 70% increased risk of death compared with the referent group (BMI 22.5-24.9). Higher levels of BMI were also strongly related to increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, regardless of physical activity level (P for trend, <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality was directly related to BMI among middle-aged and elderly men. Advancing age did not attenuate the increased risk of death associated with obesity. Lean men (BMI<20) did not have excess mortality, regardless of age.PMID: 15519894 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[11] Body mass index and patterns of mortality among Seventh-day Adventist men.Int J Obes. 1991 Jun;15(6):397-406.
This study examines the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and 26-year mortality among 8828 nonsmoking, nondrinking Seventh-day Adventist men, including 439 who were very lean (BMI less than 20 kg/m2). The adjusted relative risk comparing the lowest BMI quintile (less than 22.3) to the highest (greater than 27.5 kg/m2) was 0.70 (95 percent CI 0.63-0.78) for all cause mortality, 0.60 (95 percent CI 0.43-0.85) for cerebrovascular mortality, and 0.80 (95 percent CI 0.61-1.04) for cancer mortality. Very lean men did not show increased mortality. To assess whether the protective effect associated with low BMI is modified by increasing age, the product term between BMI and attained age (age at the end of follow-up or at death) was included as a time-dependent covariate. For ischemic heart disease mortality, age-specific estimates of the relative risk for the lowest quintile relative to the highest ranged from 0.32 (95 percent CI, 0.19-0.52) at age 50 to 0.71 (95 percent CI, 0.56-0.89) at age 90. Interaction was also seen for the next lowest quintile (22.4-24.2). There was a significant trend of increasing mortality with increasing BMI for all endpoints studied. For cancer and cerebrovascular mortality the P-values for trend were 0.0001 and 0.001 respectively. For the other endpoints the P-values were less than 0.0001. Thus, there was no evidence for a J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in males. While the protective effect associated with the lowest BMI quintile decreased with increasing age for ischemic heart disease mortality, it remained greater than one at all ages. The relatively large number of subjects who were lean by choice, rather than as a result of preclinical disease or smoking, may explain these findings.PMID: 1885263 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


[12] Relationship between morbidity and body mass index of mariners in the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force fleet escort Force
To establish a practical weight management program for mariners in the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Fleet Escort Force, the relationship between morbidity and body mass index (BMI) was studied. To estimate morbidity, 10 medical problems were used as indices (hyperlipidemia, hyperuricemia, diabetes mellitus, lung disease, heart disease, upper gastrointestinal tract disease, hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, and anemia). A curvilinear relationship was found between morbidity and BMI, in which a BMI of 17.5 was associated with the lowest morbidity. This curvilinear pattern was more complex than a curve reported previously for Japanese civilians. Using the present curve and aiming for a BMI of 17.5 will help in the design and implementation of a practical management program for health promotion in the JMSDF.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1101215


[13] NIHNC, CDC, & DHHS. (1985). Body weight, health and longevity: conclusions and recommendations of the workshop. Nutrition Reviews, February, 43(2), pages 61-3.
In 1985, the National Institute of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Health and Human Services published a "special report" stating: "[S]tudies based on life insurance data, the American Cancer Society Study and other long-term studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study and the Manitoba Study, indicate that the weights associated with the greatest longevity tend to be below the average weights of the population as long as such weights are not associated with concurrent illness or a history of medical impairment.


[14] Lee IM. et al. (1993). Body weight and mortality. A 27-year follow-up of middle-aged men. Journal of the American Medical Association, December 15, 270(23), pages 2823-8.
In 1993, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study that concluded: "In these prospective data, body weight and mortality were directly related. After accounting for confounding by cigarette smoking and bias resulting from illness-related weight loss or inappropriate control for the biologic effects of obesity, we found no evidence of excess mortality among lean men. Indeed, lowest mortality was observed among men weighing, on average, 20% below the US average for men of comparable age and height.

[15] Manson E. et al. (1995). Body wight and mortality among women. New England Journal of Medicine, September 14, 333(11), pages 677-85.
In 1995, a study published in New England Journal of Medicine concluded: "Among women who never smoked, the leanest women ... had the lowest mortality, and even women with average weights had higher mortality. Mortality was lowest among women whose weights were below the range of recommended weights in the current U.S. guidelines. Moreover, a weight gain of 10 kg of more since the age of 18 was associated with increased mortality in middle adulthood. These data indicate that the lowest mortality rate for U.S. middle- aged women is found at body weights at least 15 percent below the U.S. average for women of similar age.


[16] Solomon CG. (1997). Obesity and mortality: a review of the epidemiologic data. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October, 66(4 Suppl), pages 1044S-1050S.
In 1997, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study on body weight and mortality stating: "We conclude that when appropriate adjustments are made for effects of smoking and underlying disease, optimal weights [for longevity] are below average in both men and women; this appears to be true throughout the adult life span.

[17] Scientists unravel secrets of long life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2167316.stm

Excellent reply Matt.

If I were not 65 years old and beyond the point of any meaningful benefit, I'd jump on your CRON wagon in a heart beat.

Best to you.

Bo

Yup!! They are back with a vengeance ....and I'm wearing them today with a long sweater and my Ugg boots...and I love the way I look in them!!

Lucky us! So sorry you had to break your word.



Is there a study of anorexic animals? I'm curious why they are presented food and refuse to eat! Those starving monkeys you are so fond of posting (makes a great screen saver!) sure look like they want a bite to eat!



Well, at least two differences. They have been discussed before, but you conveniently forget them over and over. Maybe you need to up your cholesterol? It's well established that low cholesterol leads to memory problems. In humans. (1) We don't know what the 'natural' lifespan of monkeys really are on a natural diet. As a comparison, if we were to judge what the average human life span was using the Standard American Diet, would that be fair? What you show is that a starved monkey lives longer than a monkey fed 'Monkey Chow'. Golly Gee. I am underwhelmed. Humans usually fair better on a raw vegan diet than the Standard American Diet, but it is hardly 'optimal'. Drop your cholesterol another 10pts, you quickly forget this. (2) It is strongly suggested that longer lived animals will not benefit to the extent as shorter lived animals with regard to calorie restriction.



Maybe cause the 'long lived' humans are really living all that long. The average life span differences for people of any diet really aren't that different. You talk about 30-50% differences in the cruel monkey experiments, do we see anything occuring in all of the different diets on the planet for humans approaching any where near these values? I like how the CRONbie Cult focuses on the number of centarians in Okinawa when the average life span numbers really aren't that great for having so many centarians...



Low cholesterol numbers (common to CRONbies) are STRONGLY associated with mental deficiencies. You admited as much in a thread some time ago but are forgetting (conveniently?) now. CRONbies often complain of needed to restrict activities that they did before CRONbie Cult, you admited as much in a previous thread, you remember? A post that YOU made about a CRONbie 'muscle man' in a previous thread talked about how he 'charged the kitchen' at a dinner party when the eats were delayed (also, hunger is a common complaint and reason for quitting CRON). Also, CRONbie eating causes testosterone to PLUMMET resulting in erectile disfunction and other physical characteristics of being a man. BTW, erectile disfunction is a common complaint of the CRONbie afflicted.



A few percent life-extension is the best estimate of those that are in the field. There IS evidence to suggest this result, including the Okinawan data. Really, there is no evidence to suggest that human CRONbie-ism will extend life beyone this.



I've read the inverviews and seen the tapes; CRONbies are wack. Hunger, lack of energy and erectile disfunction are common complaints. ItsTheWoo said the same thing before she got chased off the board by someone who compulsively posts on a LOW CARB SUPPORT BOARD and doesnt even have the decency to read a SINGLE low carb book. I came to this board for low-carb support, instead I have to read silly CRONbie postings. I guess I'm resigned to getting suspended, but maybe will take up posting harassing posts on CRONbie Cult boards. Oh! wait! that's right! I got a life!



You chased off a valuable resource with ItsTheWoo with your prattle; I won't be missed. ItsTheWoo had a lot of experience with the CRONbie boards and posted such. You of course ignored it. I came to this board for LOW-CARB SUPPORT and have to listend to CRONbie propaganda from someone who can't even make the effort to read a single low-carb book...



I love the CRONbie interviews! One of the best resources of why someone wouldn't want to become a CRONbie.

Yes animals refuse to eat. There are many forms, or ways of inducing anorexia. The point is, you can't diagnose someone with anorexia just based on weight alone.



Maximum lifespan for a rhesus monkey is 40 years, which corresponds to 120 year human years. We both have around the same maximum lifespan.



The food used in the monkey studies is food less likely to induce things like diabetes and heart disease in rhesus monkeys. This is merely your opinion on the food they're given, it counts for nothing.



Maybe you could drop your cholesterol a little more, might allow more oxygen back into your brain allowing you to think clearly.



That would mean the baltimore study was flawed, it would mean that none of the physiological and biochemical changes in animals are the cause of longer life and would be completely wrong (for 70 years). A recent study was published showing that exceptional survival to 85 years was as high as 69% with none of the risk factors. This is without the help of Calorie Restriction, the only well proven method of extending maximum lifespan.

Men who avoid certain risk factors in midlife may have longer, healthier life
"risk factor models based on cumulative risk factors (survival risk score) suggest that the probability of survival to age 85 years is as high as 69 percent with no risk factors" [CRONies mostly have NONE of the risk factors].
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...j-mwa110906.php



Because they weren't CR'd all their life maybe?



Where is the evidence for this?

Low cholesterol, mortality, and quality of life in old age during a 39-year follow-up
CONCLUSIONS: Low serum cholesterol level in midlife predicted not only better survival but also better physical function and QoL in old age, without adversely affecting mental QoL.
http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/c...tract/44/5/1002



I am constantly busy from 6am to 10pm at night. I have to fit in my exercise either during my hour break at college, or in the mornings if I have time. I said I play sports less because 1) I don't want to get more thin, 2) it isn't because I can't do it, I've just got more important things to do. Power Yoga does enough.



No it isn't



There is no good evidence that it wont work.








It's clearly not getting through to you that hunger is not a problem for CRers who are doing it right.



You both are alike, you don't listen and believe what you want. TheWoo unfortunately had her own problems, and it seemed that she wanted others or believed others were feeling and experiencing similar things to her... (CRers) when in fact, such CR attempts that produce symptoms similar to what you and she describe are considered failures of CRON.

.

I don't want recipes, I like a book like 120 year diet which has scientific evidence, years of research to back up the claims. I read things on life extension. Tell me when low carb diet *MAXIMUM* lifespan, and I'll be interested!

What exactly can a low carb book give me in terms of learning about life extension and known ways to achieve it?



Great

Reduced Decline in sexuality with age
The sexual activity of laboratory animals on an extreme CR regimen actually decreases a bit in their younger years. This is consistent with the theories of why CR would have evolved in the first place: Resources get shifted away from reproduction and growth, toward repair and maintenance. But animals on CR, sexuality does not decrease with age at the same rate as it does in their control group. In fact, this was first noted over fifty years ago in studies by Maurice B, Visscher at University of Minnesota.

From "maximum lifespan"
"there are astonishing studies showing that laboratory animals on CR not only still have sex and otherwise display sexual interest at an age beyond that of animals in the Non-CR group that have died, but they can actually become pregnant and give birth to healthy babies when ALL of the control animals are DEAD! Also CR actually increases follicular reserves--meaning, in human terms, that menopause could be postponed by many years.


Improved Mental functioning with CR
This is a lab finding that is perhaps most important to keep in mind if you're worried about CR simply prolonging old age. It most certainly does not-- it prolongs and restores youth in many ways. That a mouse which in human years would be over one hundred years old can zip through a maze with the problem solving skills of a young adult rodent may seem incredible, but this phenomenon has been documented repeatedly in research studies. CR prevents the brain cell death that normally occurs with age.

References

[1] A. Hiona, C. Leeuwendurgh, "the effects of age and calorie restriction on Brain Neuronal cell death/survival," Annals of new york academy of sciences. (June 2004_ 1019: 96-105

[2] A. M Holehan and B. J. Merry, "Modification of ageing and development (october 14, 1985) 32 (1): 63-76

[3]C. J. Carr, J.T. King, and M.B Visscher, "the effects of dietary caloric restriction on maturity and senescence, with particular reference to fertility and longevity, " the american journal of physiology (1947) 15:511-519.

[4] Roy L. Walford Maximum lifespan. (new york: Norton, 1983): 90.

With apologies to Demi for moving her post, I've solved that problem for you.

CRON Wars, Episode XVII... coming to a War Zone near you.

Whoa, for god sake, look at your own blood test results that you posted on your CR website.

Your ferritin (storage iron levels) are slowly going down ever since you started CR. Same about your red blood cell count. If your continue that way you will end up anemic.
You brag about your low cholesterol level and post as many references as you can find to prove that is healthy. But look at your HDL level. It went from 46 to 39 when it is supposed to be >=40.
Your thyroid function is declining too. Your body temp, T3 and T4 levels are decreasing and it is not a good thing. As someone who is hypothyroid I can tell that my first symptoms were decline in body temp and heart rate.

Your BMI is NOT in a healthy range - it is 17.2. It should be above 18.5.

I could go on and on about your WBC, potassuim and other health markers, but I am not that into typing.
My point is:
you artificially create this low metabolic state in your body and think it is benefiting you, while in reality it does not do you any good. I think you are not going to listen to me now, but in about 10-20 years when your adrenals are trashed (from working overtime due to your lifestyle) you will finally get it.

Iron increases oxidative damage... bad. My Fe levels are at 85, i'm fine... and no I will not end up anemic as I get tested often.



My LDL decreased from 65 to 58 also. To put it in simple terms. Why the need for increased garbage trucks if there aint much garbage, right? My Total cholesterol to HDL is 2.8. Thats fine.



I want reduced T3. Lower body temperature and less damage to DNA is a good thing! Please take a read of this (in full if you can). The point is, CRers, including me, have not got clinical hypothyroidism.

Calorie Restriction Appears Better Than Exercise At Slowing Primary Aging
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...60531164818.htm

"The researchers found reduced T3 levels -- similar to those seen in animals whose rate of aging is reduced by CR -- only in the people on CR diets.

But their serum concentrations of two other hormones -- thyroxin (T4) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) -- were normal, indicating that those on CR were not suffering from the thyroid disease of clinical hypothyroidism. The findings are published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism."



And lower body temperature has now been INDEPENDANTLY correlated with longer lifespan, in animals and humans.

"Science magazine from researchers at the National Institute on Aging observed that men with lower body temperatures tended to live longer those with higher body temperatures."

Also Cool mice live longer
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2900

"Mice cooled by half a degree below normal had a life expectancy 20 longer, or the equivalent of 7-8 additional human years."

Recently there was a study showing that those who had a slower heart rate had a decrease in mortality by 18%.

SLOWER HEARTBEAT COULD MEAN LONGER LIFE
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/20...uld_mean_lo.php



Those studies in one of my previous post disagrees with that. AND CR has nothing to do with weight either.



So can I. Did I mention that lower white blood count is an indicator of less inflammation? Less cancer, less heart disease and less all-cause mortality? [1, 2, 4, 5, 6]. And dog immune system is improved by CR [3], Rhesus monkey immune system is improved by CR [7], Rodent immune system is improved by CR...

REFERENCES

(1)Association Between Circulating White Blood Cell Count
and Cancer Mortality
Association Between Circulating White Blood Cell Count
and Cancer Mortality: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Anoop Shankar; Jie Jin Wang; Elena Rochtchina; Mimi C.
Yu; Richard Kefford; Paul Mitchell
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:188-194.

ABSTRACT

Background Inflammatory processes are implicated in
the development and progression of cancer. However, it
is not clear whether systemic markers of inflammation
predict cancer. We examined the prospective
relationship between circulating white blood cell
(WBC) count and cancer mortality.

Results Higher WBC count was found to be associated
with all cancer mortality. In proportional hazards
models adjusting for age, sex, education, body mass
index, hematocrit level, alcohol consumption, physical

Conclusion These data provide new epidemiological
evidence of an association between circulating WBC
count, a widely available marker of inflammation, and
subsequent cancer mortality.

(2)Forecasting Heart Disease in Women: Will White Blood Cells Count?
http://www.healthology.com/womens-health/article235.htm

(3) It appears that the immune system of dogs is improved by CR.
Greeley EH, Spitznagel E, Lawler DF, Kealy RD, Segre M. Modulation of canine immunosenescence by life-long caloric restriction. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2006 Jun 15;111(3-4):287-99. Epub 2006 Mar 29.
PMID: 16567002 http://tinyurl.com/ychkmo

Caloric restriction (CR) has been shown to retard immunosenescence and to
extend median and maximum life span in rodent species. Longitudinal effects
of CR on the canine immune system are presented in this report. A group of
48 Labrador Retrievers, divided at weaning into weight- and sex-matched
pairs, were maintained on a diet restriction protocol from age 8 weeks until
death. Each restricted dog received 75% of the total food consumed by its
control-fed pair mate. Immune parameters were monitored from 4 to 13 years.
CR retarded age-related declines in both lymphoproliferative responses and
absolute numbers of lymphocytes and the T, CD4, and CD8-cell subsets. In
females, CR attenuated the age-related increase in T-cell percentages and
marginally retarded the age-related increase in memory cell percentages.
Age-related changes in B-cell percentages and numbers were augmented by CR.

(4) White Blood Cell Count and Risk for All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality in a Cohort of Koreans
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/162/11/1062

(5)White blood cell levels are a good predictor of strokes, heart attacks, and fatal heart disease in older women, according to a nationwide study (probably applies to men also)
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/...whitecells.html

(6)WBC Count and the Risk of Cancer Mortality in a National Sample of U.S. Adults: Results from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Mortality Studyhttp://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/13/6/1052

(7)Low-Calorie Diet Boosts Immune System
Monkeys on calorie restriction have more youthful and robust immune systems.http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/17856/

That's the point. If animals are 'induced' not to eat, it really isn't anorexia is it? Do you get to take a logic class in school?



Really, put away the airplane model glue. The point being, this is a maximum lifespan for a monkey raised in a cage eating monkey chow, not a natural lifespan of a monkey living naturally on a natural diet. It's really not that hard of a concept for the properly fed brain. That was my point, I'm pretty sure you got it but chose an end run. I don't even know how to address 'both have around the same maximum lifespan' falsity. Maybe they do maths different across the pond.



It's a valid criticism that you won't admit and can't answer. Don't you have the least bit of intelectual curiousity? Isn't it strange that humans fed a natural diet don't seem to develop diabetes or heart disease at all? I suspect that monkey fed a natural diet would fare as well, not merely 'less likely'.



Sorta. For lab raised mutant rodents and monkeys where the control group is fed an unatural diet and kept in unatural conditions this might be true. Oh! And the noseless fruit flies! How did I forget! Where are the human trials? They didn't all come to their senses and quit?



Wow, that is big news. Lifestyle choices can affect your lifespan. *yawn*




It's your freaking data that you mention every other post, don't ask me to explain the poor results. MAYBE it's because CRON doesn't work well?



Been posted before, but you didn't read it that time and you wont read it this time. Curiously, you did admit at one time that low cholesterol was associated with some mental problems. Anthonly Colpo's book would be a good general reference tho, lots of studies you wont read. Of course it is kind of a LOW-CARB reference, so you won't want to read that, eh?



Curiously, you did admit at one time that CRON REQUIRED you to curtail some of your soccer. I don't know what changed between now and then, but I will be kind and assume you 'forgot'.



I didn't say it wouldn't work. But a PhD expert said that the expected return for a lifetime of denial, obsession, compulsion and starvation induced chastity was a few percent increase in maximum lifespan using, in part, the data from the vaunted skinny Okinawans of yore. You could address his analysis but that would require critical thinking skills.



It's a common complaint, and many quit because of the hunger. The particular person I referenced was from an article you posted. Maybe you could send him an email and tell him he doesn't know what he is doing.



I take that as a compliment, though I'm not sure it's deserved in my case. It's called "Critical Thinking Skills", you ought to get some.



Well, you might not have noticed (it certainly seems you oblivious) that this is a LOW-CARB SUPPORT FORUM. It would certainly seem polite to read at least one freaking book on low-carb so you could (hopefully) intelligently discuss low-carb, regardless if you agreed or not.

On another note, why are unable to post without repeatedly editing your posts? It's very rare you can get through a post without editing it, usually within the hour. Is that a positive sign of the CRONbie mentality?

Whoa,
I won't go in to explaining why the lowest levels are not the best (I refer to T3, WBC, body temp etc.). Others told you that already, but you don't seem to understand the difference between optimal and low.

Whatever dude.. You are destroying your health, not mine, so I could not care less.


P.S. The normal range for TSH levels is 0.3-3.0 now (it was approved by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) in 2003). So the range you are using on your website is outdated. As of December '05 your TSH is 2.66 (a little bit more and you are hypothyroid). What is it now? I am curious b/c based on your blood tests it seems to be increasing since you started CR.

Why isn't low body temperature best if what it does is extend lifespan?

What I understand is that to demonstrate that CR has a possible chance of working in humans, then the same physiological and biochemical changes are likely to be very similar to animals put on CR. And indeed, they are.



How much research have you done on CR?



The reference range came from the lab I had the report from.



Will be getting more blood tests in feb 07. As long as my TSH and fT4 are within the normal range, I want my T3 and fT3 lower. Why the hell would I want to increase it if it doesn't fit in with what CR animal experiments show?
But I will repeat, NO CRer in this study had clinical hypothyroidism [1]. So whats your point? We don't 'suffer' by having low t3 with normal TSH and fT4

[1] Effect of Long-term Calorie Restriction with Adequate Protein and Micronutrients on Thyroid Hormones
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/ra...2006-0328v1.pdf

[2] CR Biomarkers: People on CR see these physiological changes as reported in peer reviewed articles
http://www.nbrhd.net/CR/Biomarkers/Biomarker.htm

wow. what a fight. ummm, why? at least whoa is relying on studies rather than insults to back up his arguments...I find it disrespectful to this wonderful website that some of the posters above are using insults to make their points.

The truth is, we DON'T KNOW whether CR is going to do what it claims yet. It is too new a practice. The human studies have simply not been done yet. And while animal studies very, very often provide great, and otherwise missing insight into the human condition, there needs to be a HUMAN study with CR. I feel that the individuals who practice CR are doing a service to science by sticking to the diet. In 30, 50, years the scientific community will have a MUCH greater insight into the actual benefits and effects of a CR lifestyle, and this will be the direct result of the dedication current CRers' have-- (i highly doubt it would be possible to pay people to stick to a CR study for the rest of their lives...I know i wouldn't do it...i look forward to spending my 60th birthday in a fancy restaurant, with pizza on the side...) Without these people, the (IMO) very interesting questions raised by CR hypotheses would not be answered! I don't see why anyone has a problem with this.
Especially us, lowcarbers, who follow a strict diet that many people don't agree with or see a point to. We are, for the most part, doing it for health and a long life. Same as CR. Personally, i find it extremely interesting a question. I don't want to live 200 years myself, (and don't neccessarily think that humans should, at all,) but it is none the less very intriguing to me.

And to say that CR is the same as anorexia-- that is wrong and insulting. Anorexia is a DISEASE, a terrible life threatening disease. Most anorexics never eat even CLOSE to 1,000 calories a day, and if they did, you can bet they purged it afterward. There is NOTHING healthy about anorexia, and absolutely NO focus on health and nutrients (as there is with CR). And to say that CRers' and anorexics look the same, is also just wrong. To say this, you've obviously never actually compared someone who eats 1,000 calories a day to an anorexic. There is a huge difference in the way they look, which i won't even go into because it makes me sick to have to explain.

lilli,

The 'battle' has been going on for a long time where Whoa blithely ignores any counter-evidence, unresponsive to criticism of posted studies and often changes the story as time goes on...All of this has resulted in at least one valued member of the LOW-CARB community being suspended and leaving. It seems we disagree on the parallels of CRONbism and anorexia, but I stand by my assessment, and at least a few others agree with me. If it upsets your delicate sensibilities, maybe it's best you steer clear, insult was not intended.

As far as 'disrespect'... how would you judge someone who is clearly not interested in low-carb dieting, has not bothered to read a single low-carb book that compulsively posts to a LOW-CARB SUPPORT FORUM on subjects unrelated to low-carb dieting? I have my own arm-chair psychologist diagnosis, but will leave it at that. The guy is a CRONbie evangalist that evidenced by his long history on this board is not interested in any discussion but rather spreading the 'Good News'. Perhaps he is working on a merit badge and this is part of a public service requirement? How long do you think a low-carb evangalist would last on a CRONbie forum?

Kind regards

CRON and anorexics shouldn't be lumped together. The CRON devotee is still trying to consider their food intake from a nutritional standpoint, while the anorexic is focused on the extreme weight loss, regardless of nutritional intake. I think the CRON person can still be in the healthy BMI range, while the anorexic is underweight.