From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Wed Jan 30 2002 - 12:20:26 MST
In a message dated 1/30/02 3:21:28 AM, alex@ramonsky.com writes:
>I believed CR was about controlling carefully the insulin levels in your
>bloodstream in order to avoid tolerance; thus keeping the blood chemistry
>within certain parameters conducive to anti-aging?
The mechanism is not yet known. Yeast and nematode longevity mutations
have been linked to a pathway by which reduced insulin growth factor, or
reduced response to growth factor, increases transcriptional and replication
repression.
>Eating 'less' is not as useful as eating the 'right' things to achieve
>that balance, ie low-density carbohydrates, omega3 fatty acids, just enough
>protein, and no junk.
Eating less, and basically only that, produces the CR effect. Lab animals
get
powerful CR effects from diets of sugar or fat, plus vitamins and minimal
protein. Low-quality eating, however, can kill you, and your safety margin
goes does as you eat less. Abrupt onset of CR is linked to death from heart
trouble. I have also noticed that quality food is more satisfying than junk
food; I believe the body has hunger signals for nutrients besides calories.
>If I'm wrong, I'm going out for chips & ice cream right now, so please let
>me know any evidence to the contrary!
Well, I'm disagreeing with some of your points, but I'd still recommend
skipping the ice cream and chips! Supplementation regimes have been
far less rigorously tested on humans than animals, for both ethical and
practical
reasons (who wants to dozens 100 year cohort longevity studies ? (shudder))
So while rats do well on one serving of ice cream per day plus supplements,
I doubt humans would.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST