MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nutrition : Interesting new "caloric restriction" study.
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 2 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  (Original Message)Sent: 5/16/2008 6:33 PM
From a report on sciencedaily.com:

QUOTE: A study investigating aging in mice has found that hormonal changes that occur when mice eat significantly less may help explain an already established phenomenon: a low calorie diet can extend the lifespan of rodents, a benefit that even regular exercise does not achieve.

“We know that being lean rather than obese is protective from many diseases, but key rodent studies tell us that being lean from eating less, as opposed to exercising more, has greater benefit for living longer. This study was designed to understand better why that is,�?said Derek M. Huffman, the study’s lead author...

They found:

* Mice allowed to eat as much as they wanted had higher insulin levels, regardless of whether they exercised. That is, how much the mice ate determined their insulin level, while exercise did not have much effect. High insulin levels are associated with a risk of diabetes.
* The animals that ate as much as they wanted and did not exercise had the highest levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which plays a key role in regulating cell growth and cell death. The animals on caloric restriction had the lowest levels of IGF-1. Exercise also seemed to play an important role in regulating IGF-1 levels.
* There were some elevated levels of heat shock proteins, a measure of oxidative stress and possible tissue damage among the exercising mice. But total protein carbonyls, another stress measure, were not significantly different.
* Both exercise and caloric restriction moderated the level of 8-hydroxyguanosine (8-OHdG), a marker of DNA damage. Among the animals that ate all they wanted, those that did not exercise had the highest levels of 8-OHdG and those that exercised had much lower levels. The researchers concluded that DNA damage increases with age and is accelerated by obesity but could be slowed by caloric restriction and/or exercise. The researchers noted, however, that the results may differ if they had used older mice or subjected them to greater caloric restriction than the mild (9% fewer calories) or moderate (18%) restriction this study employed.

... the study suggests that caloric restriction creates beneficial changes in the body’s hormone levels which exercise does not. The researchers concluded that these metabolic changes play a role in extending life... UNQUOTE.

Souce: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514064921.htm


First  Previous  2 of 2  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 2 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknametaka00381Sent: 5/17/2008 2:25 AM
I am wondering what's really behind all these CR benefits ... Barja et al. shows that methionine restriction does the same as CR or protein restriction but that carbohydrate or fat restriction had no effects. But nobody ever tried the saturated versus polyunsaturated fat ... Of course long living humans may not respond the same as laboratory rats. Also I have learned the hard way that exercise and Omega-3 supplementation is a really bad combination.