None of which means PX isn’t lying, though. Of course, it’s worth considering that most people of great age will have a quite a large number of people related to them.[/quote]
On my mother’s mother’s side alone there were six daughters and 3 sons. Her mother had 10 children before that. That makes for one hell of a family reunion and the fact that there are many people related means somewhere down the line, most of the people on this forum are probably somehow related to someone who lived to an extreme old age. Of course, according to our friend above, this is simply impossible.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
most of the people on this forum are probably somehow related to someone who lived to an extreme old age. Of course, according to our friend above, this is simply impossible.[/quote]
Yep. My great-grandparents on my mother’s side (still living until I was ten or so) have 500 living descendents.
If you go back one generation further, which would put you in the same generation as someone old enough to qualify as supercentenarians, you get better than 2000 people.
(I did a geneaology project in college so I once knew the exact number, but it’s since grown.)
Which, as you say, means if one of them were still living, they would have a LOT of people who could claim a relationship.
Not every family is going to that, er, fertile, obviously, but the point’s the same.
The other thing about it is that while most people don’t know their great great grandparents or relatives’ names, they’ll likely know it if that person is extraordinary or, in this case, extraordinarily long lived.
[quote]cakewalk wrote:
While many older people become frail as they age, 108-year-old Ethelyn Lamar has a robust figure. She likes pinto beans, protein drinks and oatmeal with brown sugar.
…Her first husband, Paris, was a musician. They eventually divorced. She has had several relationships over the years. When asked what makes her happy, she replies, “my men folks.”[/quote]
[quote]JWJordan wrote:
Two, there’s not a game in Vegas that gives you fifty-fifty odds,
[/quote]
Actually, there is one thing. In roulette you can bet even money on either black or red, but the minimum bet is $10,000, so it’s one hell of a coin toss.
Calorie Restriction will almost certainly work to some extent in humans, although no one yet knows by how much. Okinawans who were restricted for half their adult lives and up until the late 1960’s have experienced an increase in maximum lifespan. Now their CR was mild compared to CRONies, so the CRS group should experience much better results.
The good thing about CR is it extends youthfulness, extends middle age, and it compresses morbidity. Looking at the data from Human CR over the past few years it looks promising. CRers are shown to have hearts that function 15-20 years younger than their age, they have less DNA damage, Lower body temperature and very low insulin (two markers of longevity). We have virutally no risk of heart disease, diabetes, or stroke. Cancer incidence should be far less and the risk of Parkinsons, alzheimers is also low.
Calorie Restriction also is able to slow the age-related loss of muscle mass and function, and slow age related bone loss. So CRONies bones may be a bit thin, but the quality is rather good. The average BMI for a CRONie is 19.6 ~ and this is within normal range, although we do have extreme CRONies like myself.
Its a misconception that CRONers are always hungry, I assure you, we eat LOTS of food, its just low calorie… I personally only eat 1700k/cal a day and have been doing CR for 2 years… but typically get mistaken for being around 7 years younger on a regular basis.
CR doesn’t ‘reverse’ aging so the CRONies you see in pictures, like the elder ones may not exactly be the picture of health because they weren’t healthy when they started and they were already quite old… aging already showed up decades before initiation of CR.
The long term ‘young’ CRONers are looking quite well actually, most seem to be erm, ‘frozen in time’ to when they started their CR. We have some guys pushing 40 and only looking around 23 years old.
I do admit that being really thin does look ‘frail’ and that isn’t really disputed among CRers either… but the health markers prove us to be rather healthy for our respected age groups.
I myself feel that I’ve gone too low in weight and am now doing a lot of exercising to build up 5-10lbs of muscle mass back again… but CR is an easy way of life and a healthy one, according to the research. Average calorie consumption among males in our group is around 1800-2100k/cal a day.
CRers also report to have increased energy… this may sound a bit weird considering the low calorie intake but if you look at the recent study on resveratrol and SIRT1. The increase in Mitochondria was directly linked to SIRT1 activation (which is what CR basically does).
[quote]matthew182 wrote:
Calorie Restriction also is able to slow the age-related loss of muscle mass and function, and slow age related bone loss. [/quote]
This statement makes little sense…considering you all don’t have much muscle mass to lose in the first place. Is this based on an average starting level of lean body mass compared to people who don’t restrict calories? Would you mind showing proof that eating less somehow causes the body to lose less muscle with age?
Age related muscle loss is LARGELY related to decreased activity levels and decreased hormone levels. You are basically making a claim that CR keeps hormone levels high and works against the lack of activity. How ridiculous.
What is the average old age of “CRONies”? How is your quality of life better than a very active and healthy weight lifter who weighs over 200lbs and eats 7 times a day?
It extends youthfulness? I beg to differ considering the ones I’ve seen who are even under the age of 45 look weak and older. Maybe you judge “youthfulness” by different standards. A look of strength and vitality is usually what people associate with “youth”. That is something that CR group seems to be lacking in large amounts.
It is true that hormone levels such as testosterone drops in CR’d animals, and DHEA. But CR once again attenuates this age related decline in hormones, and the ad lib population cross-over and decline further during mid, to late life. You may want to check out the Okinawa Centenarian study (okinawas ate 500 calories less than americans for most of their early adult life).[4]. Rhesus Monkeys on 30% CR also show this slower decline in DHEA [5].
I eat more than 7 times a day too! I don’t know, you may want to check out a few CR blogs to see how CRers live their lives. We have some reporting much more energy and finding it ‘easier’ to do things like rock climbing, hiking or whatever. Some of our members have much more time in the day due to needing less sleep. We have one women who works 60 hour weeks and has gained much more energy from doing CR to do it. I myself am still able to play football for more than 5 hours if I want… I can still do rock climbing no problem! In fact, nothing has changed in terms of what I can and can’t do.
First of all the average age of a CRONer is around 50 years of age. The average time someone has spent on CR is around 6 years… Nowhere near enough time to see any slowed aging. Out of respect for some of the members I can’t just be posting their pictures on the net… but so some of the long term CRers are looking good for their age. CR CERTAINLY extends youth, but not many except me and a few others actually started CR in our early 20’s, most started after aging became apparent.
I’ve included here a picture of an Okinawan ‘skinny’ fishermen who spears his lunch everyday by diving in the water tens of feet down. This was found on the National Geographic website on Okinawa longevity found here:
Check out all the vids by clicking on the calander dates. But this guy is amazing… hes 85 and doing handstands, yoga, swimming and all sorts… while americans are pretty frail at this age. Many of the Okinawa cetenarians advice is “don’t stuff yourself” http://okinawa-diet.com/okinawa_diet/hara_hachi_bu.html
This is all just peachy keen, but long term human data addressing the multitude of variables already touched upon in this thread that could very well account for any or all of these conclusions is not available. That’s number 1. There could, and if history is any teacher, probably will be, new discoveries along the way that reveal the incompleteness of our present understanding.
Number 2, assuming that all this were to turn to be factual I’m still not willing to live like that for the privilege of breathing a bit longer.
If that’s what you want then fine. It’s your right and my hat’s off to ya.
[quote]matthew182 wrote:
The pictures fishermen is 90 years old
[/quote]
I’ve seen some asian women who are that age and look the same. My mom looks about 20 years younger than she really is (one of those people who can go out with her daughter and people assume they are older and younger sisters). I would blame GENETICS for how someone looks at any age along with lifestyle factors like smoking and even sun exposure. Since when has then been narrowed down to simple food intake alone? Hint? It hasn’t.
[quote]
So far the studies are showing that although ad lib muscle mass is higher for most of the natural lifespan, at some point during mid to late life the ad lib cross over and end up with progressive loss of muscle and bone, past that of the CR subject, while the CR subjects do not lose any more muscle or it is markedly reduced.[1,2,3].
Here is a quote from the article
“Scientists from the University of Calgary found that rats fed a nutritious, calorie-restricted diet maintained their muscle mass much better than rats that ate a normal amount of food. “It’s the equivalent of an 80-year-old rat with the muscles of a 20-year-old rat,” said Russ Hepple, a physiologist at the University of Calgary.”
Now this is seen with mice too, and is now actually being seen in Rhesus monkeys according to the latest reports.[/quote]
Guy, that’s RATS. Animal data, while invaluable as far as getting scientists to the next stage of testing, should never be used to directly assign data to humans as if the results would be the same. If that were the case, there would never be a need for human trials for any drug released and so many drugs wouldn’t get recalled after release due to unforeseen affects on live human populations.
If the “average american” is taking in 2,500cals a day or more, a simple 500cal reduction isn’t quite the same as the level you are taking it to. I also asked specifically about LEAN BODY MASS which is what you originally stated somehow doesn’t decrease in CRONies the way it decreases in normal sedentary populations. I made that disctinction because if EXERCISE can be blamed alone for why older populations are losing less muscle mass (which it has), why would I attribute less loss to CR?
[quote]
I eat more than 7 times a day too! I don’t know, you may want to check out a few CR blogs to see how CRers live their lives. We have some reporting much more energy and finding it ‘easier’ to do things like rock climbing, hiking or whatever. Some of our members have much more time in the day due to needing less sleep. We have one women who works 60 hour weeks and has gained much more energy from doing CR to do it. I myself am still able to play football for more than 5 hours if I want… I can still do rock climbing no problem! In fact, nothing has changed in terms of what I can and can’t do.[/quote]
Aren’t weightlifters able to say the same? I don’t sleep much. I never have and have never needed to. I used to blame insomnia but it just seems as if I don’t need much sleep. Should I blame CR? The people claiming they are now “rock climbing”, this is a regular activity? Or did they once or twice go rock climbing in a life time? I know people who have jumped out of airplanes for fun. They didn’t blame the ability to do so on their food intake. Can they lift a couch? Can they carry their groceries to the car without the basket effortlessly? I’m betting not if their arms are about the size of the man in your picture.
[quote]
First of all the average age of a CRONer is around 50 years of age. The average time someone has spent on CR is around 6 years… Nowhere near enough time to see any slowed aging. Out of respect for some of the members I can’t just be posting their pictures on the net… but so some of the long term CRers are looking good for their age. CR CERTAINLY extends youth, but not many except me and a few others actually started CR in our early 20’s, most started after aging became apparent. [/quote]
So, why make claims as if CRONies are simply looking like 20 year olds at the age of 98 and their “youthfulness” is so markedly different than a very active and healthy person who does NOT restrict calories to that level?
[quote]
I’ve seen some asian women who are that age and look the same. My mom looks about 20 years younger than she really is (one of those people who can go out with her daughter and people assume they are older and younger sisters). I would blame GENETICS for how someone looks at any age along with lifestyle factors like smoking and even sun exposure. Since when has then been narrowed down to simple food intake alone? Hint? It hasn’t.[/quote]
Consider the fact that genetics, or the expression or genes are heavily influenced by environmental factors, nutrition, supplementation and certain stressors. When CR experiments are carried out they are usually done on mice with identical genes… yet the undernutrition caues activation of SIRT1 which promotes longevity. From this activation the CRd mice get upto a 50% increase in maximum lifespan, not just an increase in mean lifespan.
This was an interesting article on twins
“genes reveal little on longevity”
“But recent studies find genes may not be so important in determining how long someone will live and whether a person will get some diseases – except, perhaps, in some exceptionally long-lived families. That means it is generally impossible to predict how long a person will live based on how long a person’s relatives lived.”
“esauro does have a living sister, an identical twin. But she and her twin are not so identical anymore. Her sister is incontinent, she has had a hip replacement, and she has a degenerative disorder that destroyed most of her vision. She also has dementia. “She just does not comprehend,” Tesauro says.”
[quote]
Guy, that’s RATS. Animal data, while invaluable as far as getting scientists to the next stage of testing, should never be used to directly assign data to humans as if the results would be the same.[/quote]
Well the same is true in mice, the same is true in DOGS, and now the same is true in Rhesus monkeys. The chances of CR attenuating muscle loss is in humans is obviously very good since rhesus monkeys are more physiologically similar to us than are rats or mice. [1]
But look at the above picture. When you restrict X amount, animals get X amount life extension. Their maximum life and average life extension is proportional to how much they restrict.
Well obviously you can exercise and keep up muscle mass with aging, and I think this is far more important that aerobic exercise. But Ad lib cohorts (animals) show lots of oxidative stress to muscle, and functional capacity decreases. the mitochondria are unable to generate ATP aswell. CR results in less mtDNA and less nDNA damage.
No, we still have people doing vigorous activity. I’ll state it again, most CRers have a normal BMI close to 20. They are not exactly ‘rail thin’.
Why not? But is that required to live a long time?
LoL… Yes of course
Well most of us do a lot of resistance training, so we are not as ‘frail’ as you may believe. I personally do power yoga, resistance training everyday, running 3 times a week. College and work from 9am to 9pm. I can still live a life worth living…
I didn’t say they were looking 20 at 98. I said the long term CRONers seem to have erm, not stopped aging, but seem to look far younger than their peers.
CR is still the best and most well documented method to extend both mean and maximum life span in all animals ever tested. You cannot say the same for exercise, as it has only been shown to increase average lifespan, thus not slowing down aging.
Calorie restriction works all the way down to almost frank starvation of the organism. Although for humans the level of CR mice go under would be unbearable for humans and no CRer that I know are would dare to CR at the levels rodents are under.
CR has its risks, but also has potentially huge pay offs. Our CR group are always discussing the risks and benefits associated with various levels of CR.
I personally feel its a risk worth taking because there is a mountain of evidence our side.
Consider the fact that genetics, or the expression or genes are heavily influenced by environmental factors, nutrition, supplementation and certain stressors. When CR experiments are carried out they are usually done on mice with identical genes… yet the undernutrition caues activation of SIRT1 which promotes longevity. From this activation the CRd mice get upto a 50% increase in maximum lifespan, not just an increase in mean lifespan.[/quote]
It is odd that you admit that environmental factors, nutrition, and many unaccounted x-factors attribute to the expression of traits and even how long someone can live…but then try to use mice studies where only one factor is tingled with to come to the conclusion that eating less everyday will make a human being live longer. The proof just isn’t there and human beings are not dogs, mice or rats. In this thread we discussed placebo affects.
By all rational reasons, and I am sure animals have shown nothing of the sort, placebo effects should simply not exist. People should never get an effect from a suger pill. However, in countless studies, there is an effect if the person believes there will be one. I could use that aspect of our make up alone to discount some belief that life explansion studies on rats relate directly or even partially to humans. What if the human being simply has a more positive mental state over a life time and less stress in life?
You mentioned that CRONies are able to carry their groceries out…and you obviously thought I meant a tiny bag of groceries. I wasn’t. I don’t know what your bags look like when you go shopping, but I would love to see some of them carrying a 20-30lbs bag to the car effortlessly due to their amazing eating habits. I mentioned that because QUALITY OF LIFE is a great factor to many people. Being the lightest weakest person around doesn’t exactly equal that to me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would love to see some of them carrying a 20-30lbs bag to the car effortlessly due to their amazing eating habits. I mentioned that because QUALITY OF LIFE is a great factor to many people. Being the lightest weakest person around doesn’t exactly equal that to me.[/quote]
You are obviously neglecting the fact that “CRONies” don’t have to buy as much food - so their shopping bags are lighter.
[quote]Unisonus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I would love to see some of them carrying a 20-30lbs bag to the car effortlessly due to their amazing eating habits. I mentioned that because QUALITY OF LIFE is a great factor to many people. Being the lightest weakest person around doesn’t exactly equal that to me.
You are obviously neglecting the fact that “CRONies” don’t have to buy as much food - so their shopping bags are lighter.
[/quote]
Aaaah, thank you for pointing that out. Cleary, CR is the way to go as everything I need will be lighter equally matching my failing strength thus allowing me to THINK I’m not weak yet. Cool beans.
A fine choice as they are much less likely to be overeaten than if served at a more palatable temperature.
The literature on this is filled with phrases like “may not be as once thought” and “seems to suggest” which isn’t an out of hand condemnation, but simply reveals that, like so many other things, that is a whole lot we don’t know.
The western world is still barely recovering from long held “facts” about dietary fat and cholesterol for instance. If modern medical science has taught us anything it’s the undeniable truth about how little it’s yet taught us. Many once revered seemingly undeniable self evident discoveries have, on further study shown to have been either only partial explanations or entirely misapprehended.
I’m not ready to cut my daily calories by over half based on what’s presently actually known and doubt if I would anyway.
It would be interesting to see if any CR participants lift - and, if so, how much. No one expects a 400lb squat - but I’d like to put to question the assertion that they can’t carry 40lbs of groceries.
