CR vs Brain Cancer

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sat Jun 29 12:52:40 EST 2002


admitting that i should've quoted what was said in the original post, which
is what you said in your reply to my post, i stand on what i've posted.

i've yet to see any experiment design that cannot be improved.

it could be that something like the requirement for minimal-feeding has the
'inadvertant' effect of diminishing contamination relative to the
all-you-can-eat subjects' food-in-abundance that just sits-there, absorbing
air-born pathogens, chemo and decay factors, etc. in the lab. anyone can
sense this possibility by just taking a wiff of the air in an animal lab.

supplying minimal food, always from a relatively-fresh supply, =might= have
an impact.

it could be that there're nutrients in the food, which in small
concentrations, is 'good', but in larger concentrations, is 'bad'. there're
many such substances. it could be that the minimal-feeding just 'hits the
mark' with respect to such substances.

and it's a =certainty= that the relative-ease of being in an all-you-can-eat
environment results in an artificially-imposed TD E/I-minimization 'state',
and that this 'reverberates' throughout correlated nervous systems,
impacting all manner of neurally-mediated processes.

artificially-imposed relative-ease 'dulls' everything else, including
immune-system function [which, itself constitutes a nervous-system-mediated
form of 'cognition']. could be that the all-you-can-eat rats just die from
'boredom'.

it goes =on-and-on= like this.

be-cause of any individual nervous system's inherent tight-integration,
=every= such problem is tightly-coupled to everything else that's going-on
in-there.

there're loose-ends aplenty.

it's the essence of Science to eliminate them, in all experiments [this,
too, is 'just' TD E/I-minimization].

Cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]

Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1DE589.3020802 at morelife.org>...
>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>
>> there are a lot of 'loose-ends' in what, i agree, is a general approach
that
>> needs to be explored.
>>
>> the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is that simple
>> calorie-restriction doesn't prolong Life [Africa, North Korea],
>
>
>You are confusing calorie restriction (restriction of calories *only*) with
>dietary restriction (restriction of the end spectrum of dietary nutrients.
>Furthermore, the diets of some of the peoples in the regions that you
mention
>are additionally restricted in many of the essential nutrients such as
protein
>for example. So this confusion does not occur some people practicing
calorie
>restriction call it CRAN (calorie restriction with adequate nutrition) and
some
>even call it CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition). However, I
think
>the last is rather pretentious because no one currently even knows what is
>optimal nutrition much less is able to achieve it.
>With respect to calorie restriction, there really are no "loose ends".
>
>
>> so, perhaps
>> what's happening is that calorie-reduction induces an organism to
>> range-more-widely with respect to what it will accept as 'food', and that
>> it's such wide-ranging-ness that results in bringing micronutrients into
a
>> system that would've, otherwise, taken-the-easy-route with respect to
>> 'food'... just eat what's there-in-abundance, missing the micronutrients
>> that're not-there, within the abundance.
>
>
>No. All calorie restriction experiments are done under controlled
conditions on
>laboratory fed animals. No "ranging more widely" is possible.
>
>
>> lab subjects, for instance, might ingest wood-shavings stuff, for
instance,
>> and there might be something in-there that is what makes the difference.
>
>
>Not likely, and they are not always housed with anything which is in any
manner
>edible. The researchers are not so stupid not to have thought of such
things.
>
>
>> i'm not saying that the ingestion of wood-shafvings stuff =is= what's
>> happening.
>>
>> i just wanted to point out all the loose-ends stuff that needs to be
>> controlled.
>
>
>That they have been controlled is proven by multiple repeated experiments.
>
>
>> for instance, it's a virtual certainty that humans who choose to
'restrict'
>> calorie intake do not just restrict calorie intake. they simultaneously
>> choose better foods, containing a wider range of nutrients.
>
>
>Not all of them, but they mainly do so in order to *maintain* their intake
of
>all nutrients *except* calories. To the extent that they select even better
>foods and nutrients they should get effects additive to simple CR.
>
>
>--Tom Matthews
>
>MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
>Reality based tools for More Life in quantity & quality
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list