X-Message-Number: 13870
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:22:57 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: More CR

In message #13867 Doug Skrecky wrote:
>Subject: None of the CR research on lab animals is valid.
>In Message #13865 Mike Perry <> wrote:
>> It could certainly be the case
>> that the lifespan increase is entirely due to the poor diets the lab mice
>> have been exposed to, but this must be so for many, many experiments over
>> the several decades that CR has been studied. I'm sure many diets were
>> tried, and to me it seems unlikely that all of the observed increases in
>> lifespan can be attributed entirely to poor food.
>Diets tried are based on table sugar, or cornstarch. Both are very
>unhealthy. None of the CR research on lab animals is valid.

This strikes me as something of an extraordinary claim. With all the testing
of different diets (I can give a reference if you like) every diet always
included the compromising component of sucrose and/or cornstarch, and as
soon as that is substituted the old results no longer hold up?

>> thinner people with adequate nutrition are longer-lived." A
>> reference I was given on this is: NIH National Task Force on the Prevention
>> of Obesity, "Very Low-Calorie Diets," JAMA 270 #8 (1993) 967-74.
>Old research, new research has found physical fitness drives mortality,
>and not body weight. 
"Physical fitness" though is not independent of body weight. If you are
physically fit, granted, you aren't as likely to die, so certainly it
"drives" mortality. But it seems entirely plausible to me that you are more
likely to be physically fit or have greater fitness if slim than obese.
Great extremes in either direction might be expected to correlate with
diminished fitness too, of course.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13870