Weston-Price conspiracy poll

[invisible]

I don't see how caloric restriction can benefit the body in ways other than speeding up the removal of toxins.

I gave my opinion before. It's like a car. Drive it less, it last's longer. I really think it is that simple, though still there is much debate.

For one thing, caloric restriction is very harmful in and of itself, with people doing long-term serious caloric restriction suffering from severe muscle-weakness/issues and general fatigue/ill-health , which would not help prolong lifespan in and of itself, quite the contrary. For example, lifespan/aging has been directly correlated to the extent of muscle in the body(in other words, the more developed the muscles are through exercise, the lower the risk re mortality). So, IMO, the issue re lowering AGEs and other heat-created toxins seems more relevant than the claimed more efficient use of nutrients.

That's really not true. CR reduces muscle breakdown. Muscle mass of course initially decreases due to lack of calories, but CR consistently results in less age related muscle atrophy and more muscle mitochondrial with CR conserving skeletal muscle fibre due to aging.

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2CA3E.htm
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/18/3/580.pdf
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040076

Here is one showing the CR mimicking effect of LC where some beneficial muscle effects of CR are more profound if the diet is CR but also LC
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/04/49107.aspx

Personally I don't like finding positive things about Calorie Restriction, because I don't want to look that skinny! But unfortunately (?) it does seem to be an additional bonus to the types of food you eat.

[TylerDurden]

More muscle mitochondria doesn't offset muscle-breakdown.As shown here, serious caloric restriction results in lower muscle mass etc. :-

"The researchers also found that "excessive calorie restriction causes malnutrition and can lead to anemia, muscle wasting, weakness, dizziness, lethargy, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, gallstones, irritability and depression". The study was published in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association. taken from:- 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20746251/

The real problem seems to be that there are no long-term human studies done on CR despite 70 years of research into it. And the multiple disadvantages easily counteract any beneficial effects re reducingt some aspects of mortality.

[William]

I gave my opinion before. It's like a car. Drive it less, it last's longer. I really think it is that simple, though still there is much debate.

True as far as it goes, but there is also the mighty immune system, which seems to be designed to rebuild the body every night into a perfect state of health - NO aging.
We support the immune system with paleofood in an attempt to reverse the damage of thousands of years of poisoning.

Personally I don't like finding positive things about Calorie Restriction, because I don't want to look that skinny! But unfortunately (?) it does seem to be an additional bonus to the types of food you eat.

Me too, but it is a question of restricted compared to what?

[Raw Kyle]

Such certainty! None of this is yet proven.

How does raw paleo lifestyle prevent the shortening of DNA telomeres?

[William]

How does raw paleo lifestyle prevent the shortening of DNA telomeres?

We would need to know what causes that shortening to answer.

[Raw Kyle]

We would need to know what causes that shortening to answer.

Well we do know, it's because DNA polymerase cannot start replicating a strand of DNA right away and has to coast along the first few nucleotides. So every time a cell replicates it's DNA to divide, it loses some nucleotides.

The exception to this rule is bacteria, who have a circular DNA structure, so the entire thing can be copied. All eukaryotes, which include every other organism other than bacteria, have straight strands of DNA that are not circular but have a beginning and an end point.

[William]

Well we do know, it's because DNA polymerase cannot start replicating a strand of DNA right away and has to coast along the first few nucleotides. So every time a cell replicates it's DNA to divide, it loses some nucleotides.

Suspiciously like the propaganda we've had for millennnia - you can't win/sinner/need help etc. and so forth.
The trick is to create the wretched circumstance by making people eat cooked "food", especially wheat, then describe the result as inevitable.

[Raw Kyle]

Suspiciously like the propaganda we've had for millennnia - you can't win/sinner/need help etc. and so forth.
The trick is to create the wretched circumstance by making people eat cooked "food", especially wheat, then describe the result as inevitable.

It doesn't appear like propaganda to me. Note that cancer cells are unique in that they can preserve their telomeres infinitely. In that one case, the "cure" (cancer) is worse than the "disease" (normal aging).

Is there any example in nature you have to point to of immortality, or free lunches? My study of biology, and my life's observations, show me that in order to get any thing you have to give something else up. Your shirt can't be both black and white in the same place. You can't eat and not eat at the same time. No machine works forever, it either breaks down and stops working or needs regular maintenance and repair from outside parties and with outside materials.

[William]

It doesn't appear like propaganda to me. Note that cancer cells are unique in that they can preserve their telomeres infinitely. In that one case, the "cure" (cancer) is worse than the "disease" (normal aging).

Is there any example in nature you have to point to of immortality, or free lunches? My study of biology, and my life's observations, show me that in order to get any thing you have to give something else up. Your shirt can't be both black and white in the same place. You can't eat and not eat at the same time. No machine works forever, it either breaks down and stops working or needs regular maintenance and repair from outside parties and with outside materials.

Propaganda that looks like propaganda tends to be ineffective, therefore we should not expect it.

True, machines break down, that's because they have no immune system, what you are ignoring.

[Raw Kyle]

How am I ignoring the immune system? It's made up of cells, that live by the same laws as others.

[William]

We don't know all those laws, and cell replication or replacement depends on the environment, which is neolithic.
Nobody has studied cells in a paleolithic body.

[Raw Kyle]

What are you talking about? We can study cells in animals from the wild, have done this, and it all works the same way.

It seems like you're putting the burden of proof on me, but really I think you have nothing to base your immortality of paleolithic peoples on, especially since they're all dead.

[William]

Neolithic creatures have been studied. To assume that nothing has changed since the paleolithic is assuming too much.

Immortality? What immortality?

Although, since you mention it, there are not a lot of bones of paleolithic man found, said to be enough to cover the floor of an ordinary room. Considering that there were millions of us and many generations, there should be a lot more bones.

Maybe those bones are still walking around clothed in flesh, and their owners have learned not to post on the internet. 

[Raw Kyle]

There are only a few fossils of most animals, does that mean the dinosaurs are hiding cause most of them are still alive? And also, if there's no fossil record, how do you know how many humans there were at a certain point in history?

[PaleoPhil]

Heh, heh. It doesn't pay to debate William on evolution or immortality (remember, from his perspective, all things are possible with God--did I get it right William?). Take it from someone who loves learning about and discussing evolutionary biology and who witnessed his debates on evolution at another forum. I decided to agree to disagree with William and just enjoy his wry sense of humor.