X-Message-Number: 27911
From: "Hare, Tim R" <>
Subject: RE: [CN] CR and brain aging (some aging brains aren't engaging
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:33:18 -0400

[NOTE: you appended abstracts, all very good, exceed the 2KB limit, so need
to truncate to send or listsrv rejects]

-----Original Message-----
From: CryoNet F [mailto:] On Behalf Of Doug Skrecky
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:04 AM
To: CryoNet F
Subject: [CN] CR and brain aging

Message #27888From: "Hare, Tim R"
> While a selection of recent literature wrt CR's impact on brain aging is
> compelling,
Not so compelling, Tim. 

[TRH: In the absence of counter point, this opinion, which won't help anyone
on the listsrv.  Also, you don't actually read or respond to the details of
the post, so it makes it just a tad hard to engage in meaningful dialog, or
move toward any consensus view.  Try *reading* the post, and make sure you
understand the intent, and the multiple positions.  You *seem* to suggest
I'm defending CR as an antidote for the aging brain, where as the post
clearly shows that consideration is being given to pharmaceutical, dietary,
CR/DR, fasting, etc, etc, wrt to potential interesting ****connections****
between all.  Re-read!  :) This is key!!!]

Caloric restriction has been vastly over-rated as
an anti-aging strategy. 

[TRH: Citations to support "vastly over-rated" would help. What body of
evidence are you referring to? If it is vastly over-rated, then all the
studies, especially the ongoing primate studies, recent human studies, and
planned human studies, are ill-advised and not predicated on anything, but,
as you suggest, a slippery slope of bad science?  Wow.  That's not good, so
please cite, cite, cite, me to the truth!!!  :) ] 

Many people are interested in losing body fat, so
as to increase their percieved sexual attractiveness. This deep seated
bias in favour of fat loss has found it's way into the medical journals,

[TRH: Speculative! ...at best... and likely not supported by the literature
at all, IMO, however, I am *very* curious so, you *might* want to point us
to a review article that purports to show peer reviewed processes being
derailed by such concerns, or even individual reports you consider to be
unduly biased by such issues.  If true, damning, as you say.  :) Arguably,
there's reason for concern given obesity levels and links with disease.
Less evidence for bias, and more unstandable as a legitimate health concern,
seems the parsimonious position. ]

where CR related articles readily find an audience, but where CR's
numerous failures 

[TRH: Citations for these "numerous failures"?  Even selective citation
would help support your point about numerous failures.  Unfortunately, the
literature is rife with not only with studies that support CR in multiple
species, but also suggestions that CR has been conducted non-uniformly in
studies, making interpretation difficult, at best.  More to the point,
what's *fascinating* is not a debate on the absolute merit of any one
approach, especially CR, but the connections!....especially recent gene
expression studies in fasting, which I can cite, if you like.  These
connections are essential to establishing the pharmaceutical/nutriceutical
targets you mention below, so I think we're on the same page in that

to conform to expectations are often ignored. (see below
for a particularly damning example) Unfortunately (and tellingly) much
more powerful inhibitors of brain aging are mostly neglected. 

[TRH: "neglected"?  Are you suggesting a conspiracy in academic peer
reviewed publication or private research?]

A wise move
would be to forget calories, 

[TRH: In your opinion, then, why?  Are you suggesting we take this on your
authority?  The listsrv functions best when curriousity is supported, and
ideas are explored.  Anything less is just "idea killing", and bullying.
Citations, would be better.  Also, when one constructs a defense of a
position (however inflammed), it's helpful to the gentle reader to see the
citations in ***context****, and quoted, not copied and pasted en mass, per
below.  Again, you seem intent on taking a position that CR is *not*
beneficial, which, yes (!!!!), one can find literature to support....and
also to refute.  We call can: On any given day reports come out that are
conflicting!  :)  ...hence REVIEW articles are written at intervals.
Regardless, as noted above, I agree with much of your concern about CR, and
if you reread what was written you'll see that the thrust was to examine
potentially interesting connections between the proteome, CR/DR, fasting,
and pharmaceutical/nutriceutical interventions.]

and focus on dietary quality instead. Your
brain will thank you.

Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains 
information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New 
Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United
States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu) that
may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message.  
If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, 
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27911