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