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
