Maddy Mason wrote:

> What is there to debate?????? I'm not going to spend the next 24 hours
> quoting and referencing the thousands of studies showing positive benefits
both in
> terms of health improvements and life extension (or rather, youth
extension)
> benefits of various forms of CR, but I did look up just a few to make my
point.

I looked at your references and not one is a paper from peer reviewed
literature.
Your references appear to be from books that seem to speculate on some
results of
CR research and report their speculations as truth.  They couch their
'conclusions'
with lots of 'may be', 'I think', et cetera but bottomline, the research
they
are obliquely referencing, doesnt suport their hopes.  Peer review
literature has
its problems, but what you have given doesn't come close.

> Many people think CR means that 1) It
> must be started in infancy to be effective, (untrue) and, 2) Animals
maintained
> on this regimen live in a state of emaciated near starvation. (also
untrue)
> The salient point here is that any human/animal eating fewer calories than
it
> might otherwise consume, is in a state of CR. In other words, if a mouse
or
> person is 50% above ideal body weight, and embarks on a "diet" to lose
weight,
> that individual is calorically restricted.

We may be talking about seperate issues.  If you are defining CR as any
'diet' where
you lose weight, that will equate approaches like Ornish and Atkins.  Your
definition
seems so broad as to be largely meaningless to me.  If CR is indeed just
another  buzz
word for 'diet' then you are including any and all bariatric research?

> Therefore, those of us who have a tendency to put on weight, but eat less,
lose
> weight and keep it off, will have a longevity/health advantage over those
who
> can eat all the food they want and stay slim. Please see Walford, Beyond
the
> 120 Year Diet for thorough discussion of this concept.

One, if you are saying that people that are normal weight are healthier and
will
tend to live longer than those that are not, no argument here.  In fact, I
dont
think you will have anyone disagree with that conclusion.  Second, please
provide
peer review research.

> I find it the height of irony that nearly every paper on CR states that
such
> studies have never been done on humans, because few, if any, would ever
have
> the fortitude to maintain a reduced calorie diet long term. HOWEVER, what
are
> we overweight folks told until we want to scream? EAT LESS FOOD! Why is it
> deemed OK for fat folks to be expected to suffer constant hunger while
naturally
> thin people are admonished that they will never be able to stick to eating
> fewer calories! (Rhetorical question!)

So you don't recognize that lack of any human studies is a weakness of the
CR
arguement?


> It is *I*, I am convinced,
> who will outlive the naturally slim, as long as I maintain my calorically
> restricted, Paleo type diet, with all its well known health benefits. So,
you eat
> your unrestricted diet, and I'll eat my CR diet, and we'll see who gets to
the
> finish line last, and healthiest!

Even though you have no human subject tests to show any value of CR wrt
longevity, I
am not one to stop you.  You share an enthusiasm that I've seen before with
those that
drink their own urine for health and post pictures of the creatures and
'toxins' washed
from deep in their bowels.

<deleted various non-peer reviewed references, spurious conclusions and
unfounded speculations>


  Wade