The CRAN Archives -- November 1997
From Majordomo@ListService.net Wed Dec 3 00:50:22 1997
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:14:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Majordomo@ListService.net
To: benbest@benbest.com
Subject: Majordomo file: list 'cran' file 'cran.9711'
--
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 04:44:50 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id EAA12714; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:44:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id EAA12690; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 04:44:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id GAA24010; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:44:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA14880;
Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:42:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:42:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I am going to give a broader answer to Derek's questions about the
existence of two lists than the ones he asked:
WHAT DOES THE CRAN LIST OFFER THAT IS SPECIAL?
(1) A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY
Although I'm not trying to start a "religious war", the CRSOCIETY
seems to be "monotheistic" wheresas I intend this list to be
"polytheistic". Brian Delaney seems to believe that Caloric Restriction
and ONLY Caloric Restriction can extend lifespan (and he seems only
concerned with MAXIMUM lifespan rather than MEAN lifespan). The God
of CR is a jealous God -- wishing no other gods before Him.
By contast, I am a "polytheist": I believe that many supplements
and dietary practices can extend lifespan -- and I place great value
on extension of *both* MAXIMUM and MEAN lifespan. Nonetheless, unlike
Douglas Skrecky -- who seems to think that the benefits of CRAN can
be realized through low Glycemic Index foods, chromium picolinate, etc.
-- I regard CRAN to be the Zeus of the pantheon. I believe CRAN operates
by distinct mechanisms which cannot be replicated by supplements. Douglas
is welcome here for the contributions he makes, but I hope that interest
in supplements does not undermine a primary focus on CRAN.
(2) EXPERIENCED MEMBERSHIP
I am not actively engaged in "outreach". At present I expect that
nearly all, if not all, subscribers to this list have been seasoned
subscribers to CRSOCIETY. Thus, I expect few postings of the "I'm new
to CR" variety on this list. I am hoping that discussions here will
be on a more "advanced", rather than on a "beginner" level. I don't
discount the value of outreach, but I think that the CRSOCIETY is a
suitable vehicle for that purpose -- and the CRAN list needn't duplicate
the effort.
(3) ABSENCE OF THE DOMINATING PRESENCE OF BRIAN DELANEY
Virulent attacks and misrepresentations by Brian Delaney against
Douglas Skrecky & me had a lot to do with forming this list. This may
be of little import to the "silent majority" who never locked-horns with
Brian, but it is possible that people have refrained from contributing
after witnessing Brian's attacks. This list may have a "Dominating
Presence of Ben Best", and I do not pretend that I will refrain from
criticism. But I think that my rejoinders will contain more science
and less insult than Brian's.
I would not want Brian on this list. Whatever positive contribution
could come from his knowledge & experience is vastly outweighed (in my
mind) by the negative contribution of his personality. Brian has
recommending boycotting the CRAN list, so I haven't had to deal with
the problem of him wanting to join.
Although I haven't formulated any policy as yet, I may at some point
decide to kick people off the list whose postings are too unscientific,
too hostile or too boring. I hope I never feel the necessity of doing
this.
(4) BETTER SECURITY AND LIST MAINTENANCE
One person subscribing to this list told me that he does not want
his status as a subscriber to be public knowledge. I will not reveal
the names of subscribers and I believe that the configuration of this
list (and the supporting software) will ensure the anonymity of the
subscribers & my control over the list.
By contrast, the CRSOCIETY list is "wide open". Anyone on the list can
send a message to Majordomo@lists.sni.net with a line that reads:
who crsociety
in the body of the message and receive a complete list of all CRSOCIETY
subscribers. Anyone who obtains this list can use it to bombard the
CRSOCIETY subscribers with junk e-mail. Moreover, people like Bob Avery
who have ostensibly been excluded can use this listing to post messages
to all the subscribers. The "who" command has been disabled on the CRAN
list.
Also, I don't think the CRSOCIETY list is maintained at all. My
attempts to send Steve Mahalek a request to remove "benbest@io.org" from
the list have fallen on deaf ears. I think the administrative account for
CRSOCIETY is under constant bombardment with bounced messages that no-one
reads. It is difficult to administer a list under these conditions.
DIVISIVENESS AND CROSS-POSTING
I requested that people not cross-post to both the CRSOCIETY list
and the CRAN list. I expressed the opinion that this would only mean
duplicate messages to members of the CRAN list. However, I can understand
why people would want to include people from both lists in their postings.
Anyone who wants to do this should post to CRSOCIETY, since almost
everyone on the CRAN list is on CRSOCIETY.
The charge that I have been "divisive" in starting this list is
not one that I can easily shrug-off. But I could not continue posting
to Brian Delaney's list -- it was this or nothing. I expect that few
subscribers on this list share that feeling -- so they are welcome
to post to the other list. I won't kick anyone off for cross-posting,
either -- I was just making a request and saying why I think cross-posting
is unnecessary.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 11:42:45 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA17092; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:42:45 -0700 (MST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA17080; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:42:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from ddmcneill1@juno.com)
by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id NwS06602; Sun, 02 Nov 1997 13:42:05 EST
To: CRAN@ListService.net
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:42:25 CDT
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
Message-ID: <19971102.124232.3710.0.ddmcneill1@juno.com>
References:
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,4-6,8,10-11,13-22,24,26-36,38,40-41,43,45,47-48,
50,52,54,56,58-59,61,63,65,67-74,76,78-80,82-95,97-99,101,
103-110,112-115,117,119-121,123,125,127-130
From: ddmcneill1@juno.com (Derek D McNeill)
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ben,
Thank you for answering my question, along with related ones I hadn't
thought
of asking.
I don't want to clutter this list with things other than science, but
maybe just
at the very beginning here it would be good to get straight on a few
things.
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:42:53 -0500 (EST) Ben Best
writes:
| (1) A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY
|
| Brian Delaney seems to believe that Caloric Restriction
| and ONLY Caloric Restriction can extend lifespan (and he
| seems only concerned with MAXIMUM lifespan rather than
| MEAN lifespan).
Both of these statements are not correct, as far as I could see in the
archives. The
first statement may not be far off, but I think for Brian the issue there
is existence
of evidence.
| (3) ABSENCE OF THE DOMINATING PRESENCE OF BRIAN DELANEY
I hope your phone conversation with Brian clears some of this up.
| Virulent attacks and misrepresentations by Brian Delaney against
| Douglas Skrecky & me had a lot to do with forming this list.
After emailing a little with Brian recently about this, I've discovered
that his
views of you and of Douglas Skrecky are entirely different. I don't think
he
would mind me saying this, since he's been public about it. Someone told
him that D.S. sells chromium, and he is orienting his posts towards him
as
if he is a spammer. To be honest, I think some of Douglas's posts do seem
a
*lot* like those of someone selling supplements. I sincerely apologize to
Douglas if
this is wrong, but Brian's recent lengthy responses to Douglas seemed
appropriate. Why has Douglas or anyone else never provided evidence that
he
does not sell supplements? When Brian says that Douglas is fudging his
numbers,
why do we never here back from Douglas, or anyone, saying, "no, on page
812, 10
lines down, the number actually *is* 44 months."? I'm sorry if I'm being
unfair, but
it doesn't make sense to me that we'd never hear any corrections to
Brian's claims.
But Brian's view of you (Ben) is that your articles are excellent, but
that you
have engaged in non-stop jabs at him for the last two years. He got fed
up,
and started insulting you back. Personally, I can't tell from the older
articles in
the archives who "started it," but, either way, it's definitely not as
clear-cut as
you paint it, IMO.
| Brian has recommending boycotting the CRAN list, so I haven't had
| to deal with the problem of him wanting to join.
Are you thinking of this ===>
BD:
| I would encourage people not to join his list, in the interests of
unity,
| but I'd hate to see anyone deprived of the chance to read Ben's
articles,
| which are often very well-researched.
That doesn't sound like a boycott recommendation to me. Was there
something
else?
| By contrast, the CRSOCIETY list is "wide open". Anyone on the list
| can send a message to Majordomo@lists.sni.net with a line that reads:
|
| who crsociety
|
| in the body of the message and receive a complete list of all CRSOCIETY
| subscribers.
Yes. I *really* don't like that.
Brian is discussing with others what the new form of the CR Society list
will be,
and is planning to have better security. We'll see.
Speaking of security, are you going to post archives of messages
somewhere? If
you are concered with security - which I think is good - maybe you should
make
any archives password protected, or remove the names, or something.
| Also, I don't think the CRSOCIETY list is maintained at all. My
| attempts to send Steve Mahalek a request to remove "benbest@io.org"
| from the list have fallen on deaf ears.
Yep. I've never received any responses from S.M. about *any* of the many
questions
I've asked him.
Anyway, I hope your phone call with Brian clears some of this up. Not
that I care
all that much. But I do think you are quite severely mistaken about him,
in
essentially everyway. (But I know him mostly from the archives.)
(And sorry if I'm sounding too much like an "advocate" for Brian. I'm an
advocate
of truth - at least I try to be - and I think that your views of him are
wrong in a way
that may block the ability of people on CR/CRAN/CRON to effectively trade
ideas
on the science of longevity.)
Derek.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 16:20:44 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA16861; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:20:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA16851; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:20:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
by dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id SAA06540
for cran@ListService.net; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:19:08 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711021820_MC2-267A-22B5@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:42:53 -0500 (EST), Ben Best wrote:
>I believe that many supplements
>and dietary practices can extend lifespan -- and I place great value
>on extension of *both* MAXIMUM and MEAN lifespan. Nonetheless, unlike
>Douglas Skrecky -- who seems to think that the benefits of CRAN can
>be realized through low Glycemic Index foods, chromium picolinate, etc.
A very nice statement which I am in essential agreement with.
>-- I regard CRAN to be the Zeus of the pantheon. I believe CRAN operates
>by distinct mechanisms which cannot be replicated by supplements.
At the present time the weight of scientific evidence supports this.
However, I believe that there are sufficient, intolerable side effects
for many which appear to be unremediatable, that we should continually
seek and be open to the possibility that these "distinct mechanisms"
of CRAN can be fully achieved by other means. I believe that discussion
and communication of possible more tolerable replacements for CRAN
should not be considered as "undermin(ing) a primary focus on CRAN".
> I am not actively engaged in "outreach". At present I expect that
>nearly all, if not all, subscribers to this list have been seasoned
>subscribers to CRSOCIETY.
While I understand and sympathize with this view, Ben. But what you are
missing, I believe, is that the people from the CRSociety list *because*
of Brian Delaney's anti-supplement stances (following the teachings of
Roy Walford) may not be very conversant with the properties, uses of and
research behind supplements. If you wish to have an informed discussion
of supplements, you may need to infuse the group with some "new blood".
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 16:20:52 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA16917; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:20:52 -0700 (MST)
Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [149.174.217.133]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA16906; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 16:20:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id SAA28850
for cran@ListService.net; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:20:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:19:15 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711021820_MC2-267A-22B6@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply to Derek's views on the Ben Best/Brian Delaney
situation.
Derek, I have know Ben personally for several years now and
can personally vouch for the fact that he is not the easiest
person to get along with (probably I am not also). We have
had many "altercations" between us, although we have always
"made-up" and become friendly and cooperative again because
we have a common goal with is simply much too important to
be subservient to our personal problems.
So as I have been observing these many disputes with Brian
Delaney, though I didn't blame Ben and even at first thought
Brian was the "worst" offender, I at least put it down some
what to my knowledge that Ben too was often difficult and
insensitive to the insulting effects of his words.
However, recently I have been witness to a discussion which
took place on sci.life-extension between Brain Delaney and
a "Tom Matthews" who frequently posts on sci.med.nutrition
and misc.health.alternative where he has shown himself to
be very helpful, knowledgeable and friendly except to those
who insist on attacking him. Because of these attributes,
he is highly respected on those ngs and has garnered many
friends and supporters. Interestingly, enough the discussion
between Brian and Tom degenerated into almost the same type
of "mess" as the discussions of Brian and Ben. Even to the
extent that Brian has now come up with his patented "slur"
that Tom's "problems" may be due to the fact that his native
language is not English (Tom is also Canadian). The discussion
did not become nearly as "wrangling" as did Brian and Ben's
because Tom has the good sense to see the way it was going
and to break off the discussion early (whereupon Brian
accused him of not having the "intelligence" to be able to
carry on -- Tom is an ex mathematician and physicist -- and
of having "lost" the "debate").
After witnessing this exchange, I am now convinced that the
major psychological problems lie with Brian. I believe that
many of his methods of argumentation are calculated, devious
and have ulterior motives designed to demean and put-down his
"opponent" rather than to openly search for the truth. It is
very difficult for me to decide how to regard someone like
this who clearly has at the same time a wealth of knowledge
and excellent reasoning skills from which I might benefit.
>| Brian Delaney seems to believe that Caloric Restriction
>| and ONLY Caloric Restriction can extend lifespan (and he
>| seems only concerned with MAXIMUM lifespan rather than
>| MEAN lifespan).
>Both of these statements are not correct, as far as I could see in the
>archives. The
>first statement may not be far off, but I think for Brian the issue there
>is existence of evidence.
I think that you must be very careful in the way that you read Brian's
statements. I believe that his "lip service" to less extreme views
coming right after he has made a strong statement, is ingenuous at best.
>| Virulent attacks and misrepresentations by Brian Delaney against
>| Douglas Skrecky & me had a lot to do with forming this list.
>After emailing a little with Brian recently about this, I've discovered
>that his views of you and of Douglas Skrecky are entirely different.
>I don't think he would mind me saying this, since he's been public about it.
For the reasons stated above, I would strongly suggest that you not
accept his "words" about this but look more carefully at his (verbal) actions.
> Someone told him that D.S. sells chromium, and he is orienting
>his posts towards him as if he is a spammer.
But the question is why should he be so quick to accept such "gossip"
and act on it before verifying it?
> To be honest, I think some of Douglas's posts do seem a *lot* like
> those of someone selling supplements. I sincerely apologize to
> Douglas if this is wrong,
I agree with you here, and I have privately tried to give Doug some
constructive criticism in that respect.
> but Brian's recent lengthy responses to Douglas seemed appropriate.
Not until he had *verified* the "gossip". That he did so suggested that
he is not interest in *facts* but immediately accepts whatever supports
his "worldview". One must be very careful believing what such a person
says.
> Why has Douglas or anyone else never provided evidence that he
>does not sell supplements?
Why should anyone ever answer a question of the form "why do you beat
your wife?". Doug has the right to have his words accepted as honest
undistorted truth, and we have the duty to accept them as such until
and unless it is proven differently. Doug is total correct to simply
ignore and spurn such groundless and fabricated charges.
> When Brian says that Douglas is fudging his numbers, why do we
> never here back from Douglas, or anyone, saying, "no, on page
> 812, 10 lines down, the number actually *is* 44 months."?
I believe that this is because Brian seldom makes an "objective"
charge (ie that a specific number on a specific page is diferent
than Doug stated). His charges are all about "interpretation"
which are a personal attack on Doug's abilities for which no
objective reply is possible. Not that I don't have sympathy for
Brian's views here. I too think that many of Doug's interpretations
are very wrong. Frankly, Doug's work is another problem area for
me. I don't know how to glean value and knowledge from it.
>I'm sorry if I'm being unfair, but it doesn't make sense to me
> that we'd never hear any corrections to Brian's claims.
It make very good sense when you consider them in the "why do your
beat your wife?" manner that they are made.
>But Brian's view of you (Ben) is that your articles are excellent,
>but that you have engaged in non-stop jabs at him for the last two
>years. He got fed up, and started insulting you back.
Overly insensitive at best and disingenuous at worst.
>Personally, I can't tell from the older articles in the archives
>who "started it," but, either way, it's definitely not as clear-cut
>as you paint it, IMO.
I agree with you there. I think the problem arises because Ben is
insensitive at the effect and possible implied meaning of his remarks,
and Brian is too sensitive and reads far too many "hidden" meanings
into other's remarks (perhaps because he intentionally places a lot
of hidden and implied meanings into his own remarks).
>| Brian has recommending boycotting the CRAN list, so I haven't had
>| to deal with the problem of him wanting to join.
>Are you thinking of this ===>
>BD:
>| I would encourage people not to join his list, in the interests of
>unity,
>| but I'd hate to see anyone deprived of the chance to read Ben's
>articles,
>| which are often very well-researched.
>That doesn't sound like a boycott recommendation to me. Was there
>something else?
Derek, again you are being naieve! If Brian did not wish people to
boycott the CRAN list, why would he even mention such a possibility?
This is yet another example of Brian's "doublespeak" method of
"political" persuasion.
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 17:07:30 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA00963; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:07:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA00950; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:07:27 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id TAA21037; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:06:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA19688;
Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:05:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:05:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Deprenyl (Selegiline)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I have recently read a paper on Selegiline [NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
18(3): 309-318 (1997)] that has made me a little self-conscious about my
recent statement concerning the life-extending properties of this
substance. ("Selegiline" is a synonym for the "L" form or Deprenyl, and
the former term is becoming more commonly used in the scientific community
than the latter.)
This study found *NO* extension of maximum lifespan of Male F344
rats with selegiline. One of the names on the paper is Gwen Ivy, who had
been a participant in an earlier study that found a small (2.3%) extension
of maximum lifespan with selegiline [LIFE SCIENCES 47:415-420 (1990)]. The
paper also had a summary of previous lifespan studies showing that all the
studies done by Joseph Knoll (who co-discovered selegiline in 1965) -- and
ONLY those by Knoll -- showed a lifespan increase in excess of 10%.
But selegiline *did* extend MEAN lifespan ("squaring the curve") and
showed improvement in spatial learning abilities of nearly one-third for
the "elderly" rats.
These benefits underscore what I see to be the philosophical
difference between my viewpoint and that of the CRSOCIETY (Brian Delaney).
For one thing, I place a high value on "squaring the curve". If I can
increase my probability of living to 120 years, then I have increased my
chances of benefitting from new life-extension technologies that are
bound to emerge in the years ahead. In fact, from the point of view of
"buying time" in an era of rapidly-changing biotechnology, extending
mean lifespan may be of nearly indistinguishable benefit from extending
maximum lifespan. We live in "interesting times", and our historical
context must not be forgotten.
Also, as I have stressed previously, lifespan is not the only factor
to consider in evaluating a regimen. Preservation of brain function is
*extremely* important also. I certainly don't want to live to 120 years
with the last 40 years dominated by a high degree of dimentia.
Brian would typically object that this study was not done with
Calorie-Restricted animals, and that additional benefits from selegiline
are therefore unlikely. I think the presumption here is that aging is
due to a few factors which are most effectively dealt-with by CRAN. By
contrast, I believe that aging is due to many factors. Moreover, the
most important ones (free radicals & glycation) can be susceptible to
more than one approach. I believe that CRAN reduces free-radical
production and glycation, but that anti-oxidants can be of value against
those free radicals that are produced. And low glycemic index foods can
complement the reduced glycation of CRAN. The influence of CRAN is
greater than the influence of supplements, because prevention is superior
to cure. But prevention and cure together are superior to either one
alone.
Admittedly, there is no definitive scientific proof for my beliefs,
but that doesn't mean there is no persuasive evidence. There is no
definitive proof that CRAN could extend human lifespan, either, but
the circumstantial evidence is very persuasive. In our current
"historical context", our survival depends upon our use of fragmentary
evidence.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 17:18:25 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA03884; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:18:25 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA03845; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:18:20 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id TAA22027; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA20185;
Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:16:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:16:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: cran weekly activity report (Oct 26 1997 - Nov 02 1997)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I don't want this list to become over-loaded with administrative
or "political" matters. Since this is the first week, however, I
think it is necessary to do so in order to set the stage for our
list.
I am sending the first week's activity report as a matter of
interest. Also, as a matter of interest is the fact that there are
now 40 subscribers to the CRAN list.
In the future, I will not be giving regular reports on activity
or list size.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
Mail Traffic Report for list 'cran' for Sun Nov 2 04:11:01 1997
========================================================================
Report interval: Since Sun Oct 26 00:00:01 1997 (7 days)
Oldest post: Mon Oct 27 22:18:19 1997
Most recent post: Fri Oct 31 21:28:47 1997
Total posts: 31
Report threshold:
========================================================================
Top 10 Posters (representing 100.0% of the total traffic)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 (29.0%) Ben Best
9 (29.0%) Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
6 (19.4%) Doug Skrecky
4 (12.9%) "Phil Harris"
1 ( 3.2%) Ian Eiloart
1 ( 3.2%) Darryl Rubin
1 ( 3.2%) ddmcneill1@juno.com (Derek D McNeill)
Top 10 Subjects (representing 93.5% of the total traffic)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (32.3%) Phytochemicals -- first CRAN Listserver posting
4 (12.9%) resveratrol
3 ( 9.7%) re- resveratrol
2 ( 6.5%) Cross-posting
2 ( 6.5%) Publicity
2 ( 6.5%) HDL/LDL ratio
2 ( 6.5%) Which list?
2 ( 6.5%) Adequate Nutrition
1 ( 3.2%) lycopene again
1 ( 3.2%) 18'th update on fly longevity experiments
Distribution of posts by day (scale is 1.0 '*'s per post)
31 posts 2 posts/day min 10 posts/day max 4.4 posts/day avg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 31 ( 3)|***
Oct 30 ( 7)|*******
Oct 29 (10)|**********
Oct 28 ( 9)|*********
Oct 27 ( 2)|**
Distribution of posts by hour of the day (scale is 1.0 '*'s per post)
31 posts 0 posts/hr min 4 posts/hr max 1.3 posts/hr avg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00.00 (1)|*
01.00 (3)|***
02.00 (2)|**
03.00 (3)|***
04.00 (0)|
05.00 (0)|
06.00 (0)|
07.00 (1)|*
08.00 (2)|**
09.00 (1)|*
10.00 (0)|
11.00 (1)|*
12.00 (0)|
13.00 (1)|*
14.00 (0)|
15.00 (2)|**
16.00 (2)|**
17.00 (0)|
18.00 (2)|**
19.00 (1)|*
20.00 (1)|*
21.00 (2)|**
22.00 (4)|****
23.00 (2)|**
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 2 20:25:06 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id UAA27939; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:25:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id UAA27932; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:25:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from ddmcneill1@juno.com)
by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id WlD06602; Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:21:37 EST
To: cran@ListService.net
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:22:08 CDT
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
Message-ID: <19971102.212215.3982.0.ddmcneill1@juno.com>
References: <199711021820_MC2-267A-22B6@compuserve.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-13,15-16,18-19,21-23,25-26,28-35,37-43,45-46,48,
50-55,57-61,63-64,66,68-89,91-97,99,101-113
From: ddmcneill1@juno.com (Derek D McNeill)
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Paul,
I appreciate your having responded in such detail to my post. It does
seem however that you are judging Brian quite unfairly.
As I said before I don't want to clutter this list with non-science, but
after such a lengthy "attack" on Brian on a list which he doesn't have
access to - I assume - I think it would be worthwhile to point out a few
things in his defence. Keep in mind that I am definitely not choosing
sides here. In fact, I think Ben and Brian are *both* responsible, about
equally. I think they should be locked in the Biosphere together for a
few months. (-:
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:19:15 -0500 Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
writes:
| Interestingly, enough the discussion between Brian and Tom degenerated
| into almost the same type of "mess" as the discussions of Brian and
Ben.
| Even to the extent that Brian has now come up with his patented "slur"
| that Tom's "problems" may be due to the fact that his native language
is
| not English (Tom is also Canadian).
I don't read sci.life-extension much, but Brian did mention that he has
only
had problems with Canadians, and seemed worried that maybe there's some
kind of "cultural" difference, as he put it, that is responsible for the
problems.
Maybe that's all he meant? a genuine concern with cultural differences?
| (whereupon Brian accused him of not having the "intelligence" to be
| able to carry on -- Tom is an ex mathematician and physicist -- and of
| having "lost" the "debate").
I find it *very* difficult to believe that Brian would say something like
that, unless T.M. insulted his intelligence first. Are you sure about
this? It
just does not sound like him at all.
| It is very difficult for me to decide how to regard someone like this
| who clearly has at the same time a wealth of knowledge and excellent
| reasoning skills from which I might benefit.
I had the same question when I was feeling skeptical about Brian - which
I
still am to some degree, by the way. But thinking about his knowledge and
intelligence is the thing that got me realizing that he has good reasons
to be
proud. Maybe this is why he reacts to Ben saying he's contradicting
himself
with such anger. And as far as I could judge, Ben was incorrect in at
least one of the instances when he was saying this, in the archies.
| >Both of these statements are not correct, as far as I could see in the
| >archives. The
| >first statement may not be far off, but I think for Brian the issue
there
| >is existence of evidence.
|
| I think that you must be very careful in the way that you read Brian's
| statements. I believe that his "lip service" to less extreme views
| coming right after he has made a strong statement, is ingenuous at
best.
I don't know. He seems to believe very strongly in vitamin E, for
example.
He just doesn't think there's any evidence that it "retards aging per
se", to
use his trademark words. Is he just wrong about taht?
| > Someone told him that D.S. sells chromium, and he is orienting
| > his posts towards him as if he is a spammer.
|
| But the question is why should he be so quick to accept such "gossip"
| and act on it before verifying it?
Good question. Maybe it's just htat there was enough evidence in D.S.'s
posts themselves?
| > When Brian says that Douglas is fudging his numbers, why do we
| > never here back from Douglas, or anyone, saying, "no, on page
| > 812, 10 lines down, the number actually *is* 44 months."?
|
| I believe that this is because Brian seldom makes an "objective"
| charge (ie that a specific number on a specific page is diferent
| than Doug stated). His charges are all about "interpretation"
| which are a personal attack on Doug's abilities for which no
| objective reply is possible.
I have to disagree here. Maybe there's a lot of "Brianana" that I've
missed
here (like in newsgroups). But from the archives, Biran's posts on Doug
have almost always included numbers and logic. I haven't heard back from
anyone about either Doug's *or* Brian's numbers, so I don't know what to
think there. But I've never seen a mistake in his logic.
The only reason I joined this list is to benefit from Ben's posts.
Everyone
else here will be contributing to the crsocieity list, as far as I can
tell. I will
feel uncomfortable if this list becomes a place where people post these
negative things about Brian, without letting him reply. Maybe some of
you should email him with your concerns. Has anyone ever done that?
(Ben? Doug? Paul?) I have found him to be excpetionally warm through
email. I suppose this is partly why I feel the need to defend him.
I don't know. Maybe it really is some kind of cultural problem. (I grew
up in Ireland by the way. I don't know if that's more like Canada or
the States).
Derek.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Nov 3 02:28:11 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id CAA05569; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:28:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id CAA05564; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:28:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id EAA02340; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:27:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA26982;
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:26:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:26:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
Reply-To: Ben Best
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
In-Reply-To: <19971102.124232.3710.0.ddmcneill1@juno.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Derek D McNeill wrote:
> I don't want to clutter this list with things other than science, but
> maybe just
> at the very beginning here it would be good to get straight on a few
> things.
I think this list is becoming very cluttered with things other than
science, and I have to accept responsibility for this. And I have wasted
too much time in the last couple of weeks dealing with the personality
Brian Delaney.
Therefore, I am not going to make every effort to avoid mentioning
Brian's name again on this list and I would plead with everyone to stop
discussion personality issues. I also regret characterizing Brian's
views in my discussion of list distinctions and selegiline. This is really
unfair because it doesn't give him a chance to respond. I apologize for
this.
And therefore, I have nothing more to say about your posting.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Nov 3 10:13:04 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA09103; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:13:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from vcn.bc.ca (oberon@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA09087; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:13:02 -0700 (MST)
X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host oberon@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2] claimed to be vcn.bc.ca
Received: from localhost (oberon@localhost)
by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA21713
for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:12:55 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:12:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky
To: cran@listservice.net
Subject: (fwd) Re: Glycemic Index & longevity
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
From: Brian Manning Delaney
Gilbert Aubin wrote:
>Brian Manning Delaney (notarealaddress@tofoilbulkmail.ers) >wrote:
>:
>: > I didn't go after all those substances, because they
>: > all claim less increase in life span than
>: > chromium picolinate (44%). Not only rodent
>: > experiments can be found in the libraries, it seems
>: > that this has been used on humans two thousand
>: > years ago, with excellent results.
>:
>: Why do you believe this?
> OK, here we go with the classical education.
Thanks!
> In Cabysses, it is described that the Persian
> king sent out spies to Ethiopia to find out
> about the reason why the long lived Ethiopians
> lived so long....
And this is where you got the 44% figure?
> Check out the physical properties of picoline, a
> tar constituent that can easily separate from
> the heavier rest of the hydrocarbons under
> relatively high temperatures. It has a pungent
> smell, whether you can call it like 'violets' is
> for you to decide, but it is not easy to
> describe smells. It definitely has a lower
> specific weight than water, and there are
> several versions of it with different densities.
> I didn't check if wood would float on it,only
> made an estimate by looking at the numbers and
> at a piece of wood floating in water (the piece
> of wood is almost at level with the surface of
> the water, so the difference in density is
> probably less than a couple of percents). If you
> have access to picoline and do the floating test
> yourself, I would appreciate if you could let me
> know the results.
Will do! And you might do the following test for me. If you
consume a lot of chromium picolinate, and have been doing so
for at least one year (that part is important), a dark
tar-like substance builds up in your colon. It's almost
certainly harmless, so don't worry. Now, if you're feeling
adventurous, you might try to get some of this out, but it's
risky (a perforated colon can be deadly). You should be able
to get enough for the test from the anal canal and up into
the rectum, if you can reach that far. Just find something
about the size and shape of a popsicle stick (but make sure
it's moist and doesn't have splinters!! Sand if necessary)
and scrape using a circular motion. It might be easier (and
more fun!) to have someone else do this. You'll have to
repeat this circular scraping motion several times. The
yield is extremely low, since it's pretty well caked in
there, but, if you "purge" yourself beforehand (I recommend
"Go Litely"), the yield will be pure. Anyway, gather it up
in a little ball. It won't be bigger than a small pea,
unless you scraped really hard (ouch!). But you only need a
little bit. Drop it in a bowl of water and see if it floats.
If you do the purging part, the test is valid (and if you
didn't do the purging part, you can try to separate the
really dark matter from the, well, other yucky stuff). If it
floats, then you know your CrPicolinate is authentic, as
opposed to being one of those other kinds of chromium
(chromium chloride, etc.) that are alleged to be in formulas
claiming to contain only CrPicolinate.
Anyway, if you do the test, let us know the results.
Thanks!
By the way, I read once that the Ethiopians would sometimes
do this test and _smoke_ the little picoline tar ball
afterwards (I guess the way people smoke hashish or hash
oil). DO NOT DO this! Chromium, when air-borne, is extremely
toxic. It's a widely recognized occupational hazard for
certain industries.
Brian.
--
Brian Manning Delaney
My email address is here:
http://xyz.uchicago.edu/users/bmdelane/email.htm
[Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they
are not statements of fact.
"Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.
** Please do not CC your Usenet articles to me. I'll find
them.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Nov 3 10:33:39 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA17668; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:33:39 -0700 (MST)
Received: from vcn.bc.ca (oberon@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA17660; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:33:37 -0700 (MST)
X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host oberon@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2] claimed to be vcn.bc.ca
Received: from localhost (oberon@localhost)
by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA01894;
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:33:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky
To: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
cc: cranlist
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
In-Reply-To: <199711021820_MC2-267A-22B6@compuserve.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Paul Wakfer wrote:
> > Someone told him that D.S. sells chromium, and he is orienting
> >his posts towards him as if he is a spammer.
>
> But the question is why should he be so quick to accept such "gossip"
> and act on it before verifying it?
>
>
> > Why has Douglas or anyone else never provided evidence that he
> >does not sell supplements?
>
> Why should anyone ever answer a question of the form "why do you beat
> your wife?". Doug has the right to have his words accepted as honest
> undistorted truth, and we have the duty to accept them as such until
> and unless it is proven differently. Doug is total correct to simply
> ignore and spurn such groundless and fabricated charges.
>
This is my position entirely. However just to set the record straight:
**I do not and have never sold any supplements.**
(-and I would like to know who started this rumour, as I
have a few things I would like to say to this person.)
> > When Brian says that Douglas is fudging his numbers, why do we
> > never here back from Douglas, or anyone, saying, "no, on page
> > 812, 10 lines down, the number actually *is* 44 months."?
>
> I believe that this is because Brian seldom makes an "objective"
> charge (ie that a specific number on a specific page is diferent
> than Doug stated). His charges are all about "interpretation"
> which are a personal attack on Doug's abilities for which no
> objective reply is possible.
>
This is my view of the matter as well.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Nov 3 15:57:24 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA13060; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:57:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from arl-img-10.compuserve.com (arl-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.217.140]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA13010; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 15:57:17 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by arl-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id RAA14965
for cran@ListService.net; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:56:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:55:07 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711031756_MC2-2698-C29@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:22:08 CDT, Derek D McNeill wrote:
>It does seem however that you are judging Brian quite unfairly.
>As I said before I don't want to clutter this list with non-science,
I too don't want to clutter the list with non-science.
I just want to say two things:
1) If I easily took offense, your statement about could be taken
as an insult to my judgement capabilities. A less invective and
wiser form of the statement would be "I believe that the
characterisation of Brian that you have described is unfair".
The second statement is not aimed "at the person". I hope you
see the difference.
2) I have not irreversably "made up my mind" on Brian. As with
everything in this world, I remain open to be changed by new
evidence. IMO, at this time, the weight of evidence points to
the conclusion that I described in detail in my last post. On
this you and I must simply "agree to disagree". I am happy to do
so. I hope you are.
I have responded to the rest of your reply privately.
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Tue Nov 4 16:55:23 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA06710; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:55:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA06585; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:54:59 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id SAA15545; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:53:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA21442;
Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:53:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:53:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: GRAINS and the "Food Pyramid"
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I have been looking at the FDA's "Food Pyramid" and am wondering why
the base of the pyramid is "grains". This seems more like superstition
and tradition than science to me -- allusions to the building of pyramids
with the emergence of agriculture, or (perhaps) "give us this day our
daily bread".
Has anyone seen a more scientific (or any scientific explanation at
all) for the "Food Pyramid" with grains at the bottom?
The base of my "Food Pyramid" is vegetables.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Tue Nov 4 22:19:11 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA20261; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:19:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mail.ilnk.com ([206.72.159.4]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA20244; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:19:08 -0700 (MST)
X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host [206.72.159.4] claimed to be mail.ilnk.com
Received: from [206.72.159.141] by mail.ilnk.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA325
for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:19:46 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105002105.0068e584@mail.ilnk.com>
X-Sender: mikec@mail.ilnk.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:21:05 -0500
To: CRAN@ListService.net
From: Mike Coward
Subject: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 06:53 PM 11/4/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
> I have been looking at the FDA's "Food Pyramid" and am wondering why
>the base of the pyramid is "grains". This seems more like superstition
>and tradition than science to me -- allusions to the building of pyramids
>with the emergence of agriculture, or (perhaps) "give us this day our
>daily bread".
>
> Has anyone seen a more scientific (or any scientific explanation at
>all) for the "Food Pyramid" with grains at the bottom?
>
I think grains are the easiest source of vitamins and minerals
for the average person to get and like.
Note that most bread is grown in dirt as nutrient rich as styrafoam
and is essentially made of complex suger.
"Eat some sugar.
It tastes good,
and if your lucky enough to get it from a farmer kind and rich enough
to fertilize his soil with more than NPK
(if he does, he's not rich any more),
it MAY even be good for you."
Who would listen to a chart
telling them to get all their food from General Nutrition Centers (GNC)?
> The base of my "Food Pyramid" is vegetables.
> Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
> http://www.benbest.com/
Here's my very simple food chart in order of importance:
1-Amino acids for calories and production of neurotransmitters;
2-Vitamins/minerals for cellular spare parts, anti-oxys, and stuff;
3-Fiber for avoiding hemorroids;
4-Fatty acids because I'm sure I need at least a little; and
5-Sugar for inhibiting production of neurotransmitters when I'm stressed.
I do not really like common foods
because I tailer my intake of these things
to the necessity in my present condition in life
and when I want vitamin C
I do not want: water, fiber, viamins, minerals, and sugar from an orange.
Nutrition is my medicine.
Common foods have MANY side effects.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Nov 5 03:14:14 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA12065; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:14:14 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ip78.129.isdn.hogia.net (ip78.129.isdn.hogia.net [195.78.129.78]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA12048; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 03:14:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [195.78.129.75] by ip78.129.isdn.hogia.net
with SMTP (QuickMail Pro Server for MacOS 1.0.1d7); 05 NOV 97 12:13:12 UT
X-Sender: felix-sys@mail.objectzone.se
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:12:23 +0100
To: CRAN@ListService.net
From: Felix Ungman
Subject: Re: GRAINS and the "Food Pyramid"
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ben Best:
> I have been looking at the FDA's "Food Pyramid" and am wondering why
>the base of the pyramid is "grains". This seems more like superstition
>and tradition than science to me -- allusions to the building of pyramids
>with the emergence of agriculture, or (perhaps) "give us this day our
>daily bread".
The Pyramid is tradition probably because it's based on the way people
actually cook & eat. So I dont give it much scientific credit.
I've adopted the Exchange System, which I think originally was designed
for diabetics. Although the basic classificaion is similar to the Pyramid,
there are several interesting improvements:
- categorisation is done on food content (not origin), e.g. bacon belongs to
the fat group. calculating fat, carb, prot, fiber and sugar is simple.
- each category is quantified on calories (e.g. 1 Veg Exchange is 25 kcal).
its fairly easy to estimate the calories of a meal.
- the meat and milk categories are subdivied into lo, med, and hi fat groups.
So although the recommendations still are pretty much the average diet
(more or less true for all FDA recommendations), the Exchange System
is very flexible, and easy to customize to a CR eating plan.
/felix
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Nov 5 11:01:50 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA09991; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:01:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA09850; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:01:29 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id MAA00533; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:59:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA19051;
Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:59:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:59:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105002105.0068e584@mail.ilnk.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Mike Coward wrote:
> I think grains are the easiest source of vitamins and minerals
> for the average person to get and like.
> Note that most bread is grown in dirt as nutrient rich as styrafoam
> and is essentially made of complex suger.
> "Eat some sugar.
> It tastes good,
> and if your lucky enough to get it from a farmer kind and rich enough
> to fertilize his soil with more than NPK
> (if he does, he's not rich any more),
> it MAY even be good for you."
These are just speculations, in addition to my own. What I would
really like to see is the historical origin of the "food pyramid"
(which is so commonly distributed). I have given-up on a scientific
justification, because I doubt that there is one.
> Here's my very simple food chart in order of importance:
> 1-Amino acids for calories and production of neurotransmitters;
> 2-Vitamins/minerals for cellular spare parts, anti-oxys, and stuff;
> 3-Fiber for avoiding hemorroids;
> 4-Fatty acids because I'm sure I need at least a little; and
> 5-Sugar for inhibiting production of neurotransmitters when I'm stressed.
Very interesting. You didn't mention carbohydrates. Might not
complex carbohydrates accomplish your objective in 5 and yet not have
the high Glycemic Index of sugar?
Actually, I would rate vitamins/minerals of equal importance with
the essential amino acids. These are the substances without which you are
sure to get deficiency disease. Essential amino acids are needed for
production of many necessary cellular structures besides
neurotransmitters.
Amino acid for calories isn't a bad idea unless you subscribe to
the "kidney stress" theory of excess protein, which I question. I prefer
protein as my calorie source for my morning and midday meals because
carbohydrates make me sleepy. Also, proteins prevent muscle wasting,
(especially whey protein), which is especially important for an person
practicing CRAN who is in "weight-loss" mode.
Essential fatty acids are also necessary to prevent deficiency
disease, although it takes longer for these deficiency diseases to
develop, I believe, since the body stores fats so readily. Some fat
is also necessary to help absorption of fat-soluble vitamins.
This may be more important than avoiding hemorroids, but that's
just my opinion.
I would like a fuller explanation of "5". Do you have any
references for this?
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Nov 5 13:28:28 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id NAA14089; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:28:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: from hil-img-10.compuserve.com (hil-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.177.140]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id NAA14022; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:28:22 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by hil-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id PAA28560
for cran@ListService.net; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:27:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:20:32 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: GRAINS and the "Food Pyramid"
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711051527_MC2-26F1-4213@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:53:49 -0500 (EST), Ben Best wrote:
> I have been looking at the FDA's "Food Pyramid"
I don't think it is the "FDA'S" Food Pyramid. I think it "belongs to" or
is "promulgated by" the USDA.
> and am wondering why
>the base of the pyramid is "grains". This seems more like superstition
>and tradition than science to me -- allusions to the building of pyramids
>with the emergence of agriculture, or (perhaps) "give us this day our
>daily bread".
>
> Has anyone seen a more scientific (or any scientific explanation at
>all) for the "Food Pyramid" with grains at the bottom?
> The base of my "Food Pyramid" is vegetables.
However, I agree with you criticism.
Another quote would be speaking of bread as "the staff of life".
An enormous number of people are alergic to grains of one form or another.
Such problems may play a sub-clinical role in a vast number of disease
conditions. Humans did not evolve to eat a lot of grain which has only
been consumed in quantity within the last 10,000 years of the life of the
human species.
There is a very large anti-grain (return to a paleolithic diet) group of
posters on the Internet. While I don't anywhere near agree with all their
views, some of their points as above, make some sense.
My current diet has no more grain than about one or two slices of sprouted
multigrain bread daily.
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Nov 5 13:28:30 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id NAA14116; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:28:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [149.174.217.131]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id NAA14054; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:28:25 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id PAA26922
for cran@ListService.net; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:27:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:20:36 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711051527_MC2-26F1-4214@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Hi Mike,
Again, I think some of what you wrote is right on. And some is
quite misguided.
By my criticism will be much gentler this time. :-)
-- Paul --
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:21:05 -0500, Mike Coward wrote:
> I have been looking at the FDA's "Food Pyramid" and am wondering why
>the base of the pyramid is "grains". This seems more like superstition
>and tradition than science to me -- allusions to the building of pyramids
>with the emergence of agriculture, or (perhaps) "give us this day our
>daily bread".
>
> Has anyone seen a more scientific (or any scientific explanation at
>all) for the "Food Pyramid" with grains at the bottom?
>
I think grains are the easiest source of vitamins and minerals
for the average person to get and like.
Yes, and I think this is the main reason why they are at the base of the
food pyramid. The reason is practical and has little to do with their
overall nutritional benefit.
>Note that most bread is grown in dirt as nutrient rich as styrafoam
>and is essentially made of complex suger.
But the same could be said (or not said) for almost anything which is
cultivated. What we should be doing is redepositing our bodily waste
back into the soil where our foods are grown. That's what animals do
in nature and thats what the ecology has evolved to require.
>"Eat some sugar.
>It tastes good,
But sugars are the "cleanest burning" fuel, I believe, and have always
been a major component of omniverous animal diets.
>> The base of my "Food Pyramid" is vegetables.
>Here's my very simple food chart in order of importance:
>1-Amino acids for calories and production of neurotransmitters;
>2-Vitamins/minerals for cellular spare parts, anti-oxys, and stuff;
>3-Fiber for avoiding hemorroids;
>4-Fatty acids because I'm sure I need at least a little; and
>5-Sugar for inhibiting production of neurotransmitters when I'm stressed.
This chart is too simplistic and uninformed concerning the real needs of
your body, including your precious brain.
1) The USDA food pyramid it base one quantities to be eat as I understand it,
not on importance, however *that* might be defined.
2) Amino acids are by no means the best form to attain you calories. If you
attempt to attain the bulk of your calories from amino acid, this will be
very hard on you kidney and will likely lead to early kidney failure, IMO.
3) Amino acids are predominately needed for formation all the many many
species of proteins which our bodies need to function and which our DNA
produces. Neurotransmitters are just one important subclass of these.
4) Vitamins/minerals are not for "spare parts" at all. They are most for
"catolytic" purposes. Although some are important contstutients of certain
proteins and some cellular building blocks.
5) "Fiber for avoiding hemorroids" (and other digestive problems, plus its
anti cholesterol effect, etc) is good.
6) "Sugar for inhibiting production of neurotransmitters when I'm stressed"
needs to be explained. Sugar is much more fundamentally needed that whatever
it is that your are thinking out here.
>I do not really like common foods because I tailer my intake of these things
>to the necessity in my present condition in life and when I want vitamin C
>I do not want: water, fiber, viamins, minerals, and sugar from an orange.
Again, I am in sympathy with the approach. I have no doubt that in the far
future we will have sufficient to knowledge and control to tailor our
nutrient intake to be optimal for our the immediate body needs relative to
its current desired task. However, again, I believe this is far off and we
can do ourselves great harm if we assume that we can practice that in any
*direct* manner today.
>Nutrition is my medicine.
A laudable ambition.
> Common foods have MANY side effects.
Yes, but at the moment they must remain the "base" of our diet.
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Nov 5 20:18:51 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id UAA19844; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:18:51 -0700 (MST)
Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [149.174.217.132]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id UAA19832; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:18:49 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id VAA11859
for cran@ListService.net; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:55:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:53:57 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711052155_MC2-26F4-C377@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Mike,
Obviously, your reply shows that your first post did not mean
at all what it appeared to mean and what I replied to.
Thus, we were talking about two totally different things and
I don't see any sense replying to your reply. If you do want
to have a dialogue here, then you will have to start back at
square one and give enough detail to explain yourself.
Understand first of all that the Food Pryamid is
supposed to describe the *total* of what one should eat.
Since in your first list of 5 things, you gave no indication
of eating *any* real foods such as fruits and oatmeal which
you now say you eat, *that* is what I replied to. You have
now changed what you appeared to be saying which at the same
time makes my first reply pointless. I was not at all
disagreeing with many things that you imply I was in your
response.
Not a fair way to play. :-)
-- Paul --
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:32:58 -0500
To: crsociety@lists.sni.net
From: Mike Coward
Subject: Re: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
In-Reply-To: <199711051527_MC2-26F1-4214@compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-crsociety@lists.sni.net
Precedence: bulk
At 03:20 PM 11/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Mike,
>
>Again, I think some of what you wrote is right on. And some is
>quite misguided.
I'll keep trying.
>
>By my criticism will be much gentler this time. :-)
Thank you.
>
>-- Paul --
>
>On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:21:05 -0500, Mike Coward wrote:
>
>> I have been looking at the FDA's "Food Pyramid" and am wondering why
>>the base of the pyramid is "grains". This seems more like superstition
>>and tradition than science to me -- allusions to the building of pyramids
>>with the emergence of agriculture, or (perhaps) "give us this day our
>>daily bread".
>>
>> Has anyone seen a more scientific (or any scientific explanation at
>>all) for the "Food Pyramid" with grains at the bottom?
>>
>
>I think grains are the easiest source of vitamins and minerals
>for the average person to get and like.
>
>Yes, and I think this is the main reason why they are at the base of the
>food pyramid. The reason is practical and has little to do with their
>overall nutritional benefit.
>
>>Note that most bread is grown in dirt as nutrient rich as styrafoam
>>and is essentially made of complex suger.
>
>But the same could be said (or not said) for almost anything which is
>cultivated.
That is why I depend mostly on supliments for vitaminerals.
>What we should be doing is redepositing our bodily waste
>back into the soil where our foods are grown.
I would rather treat my waste at home.
Collection would be a mess;
people would be too embarassed.
It would require culturing a younger generation;
most adults are to stubborn
to learn how to play with their food
after it's been digested(old dog, new tricks).
>That's what animals do
>in nature and thats what the ecology has evolved to require.
>
>>"Eat some sugar.
>>It tastes good,
>
>But sugars are the "cleanest burning" fuel, I believe, and have always
>been a major component of omniverous animal diets.
I remember at least one abstract suggesting
starch fed CRing rodents live longer than suger fed ones,
and in less I am , yet again, oversimplifying starches become sugars.
Sorry, I would have to rehunt for a referance (computer crashed).
It's on Medline and I think it was on this list about 6 months ago.
>
>>> The base of my "Food Pyramid" is vegetables.
>
>>Here's my very simple food chart in order of importance:
>>1-Amino acids for calories and production of neurotransmitters;
>>2-Vitamins/minerals for cellular spare parts, anti-oxys, and stuff;
>>3-Fiber for avoiding hemorroids;
>>4-Fatty acids because I'm sure I need at least a little; and
>>5-Sugar for inhibiting production of neurotransmitters when I'm stressed.
>
>This chart is too simplistic and uninformed concerning the real needs of
>your body, including your precious brain.
Yes, it is VERY SIMPLISTIC and UNINFORMING of MANY important needs.
>
>1) The USDA food pyramid it base one quantities to be eat as I understand it,
>not on importance, however *that* might be defined.
>
>2) Amino acids are by no means the best form to attain you calories. If you
>attempt to attain the bulk of your calories from amino acid, this will be
>very hard on you kidney and will likely lead to early kidney failure, IMO.
I'm probably not as strict as you think I am.
I usually eat aminos when I will need calories in a few hours,
and I usually sit in front of a computer all day
getting about 100 cal/hour
eating 3 fruits/day (with sugar)
and 1 oat meal/day (with stach)
because I have no better source of fiber.
>
>3) Amino acids are predominately needed for formation all the many many
>species of proteins which our bodies need to function and which our DNA
>produces. Neurotransmitters are just one important subclass of these.
Absorbing aminos before sugar/starch leads to geater mental performance.
I'll guess by 15 IQ points or so.
>
>4) Vitamins/minerals are not for "spare parts" at all. They are most for
>"catolytic" purposes. Although some are important contstutients of certain
>proteins and some cellular building blocks.]
I call processes/constituents/blocks parts,
So I'm an oversimplifying kind of guy,
it gives me confidence to tackle these sorts of problems. :-)
>>5) "Fiber for avoiding hemorroids" (and other digestive problems, plus its
>anti cholesterol effect, etc) is good.
>
>6) "Sugar for inhibiting production of neurotransmitters when I'm stressed"
>needs to be explained. Sugar is much more fundamentally needed that whatever
>it is that your are thinking out here.
Tryptophan and tyrosine (I think)
are effected by protein and sugar intake.
One leads to good thinking and one leads to good meditating.
I have not completly cut sugar/starch out of my diet;
I certainly am not trying to eliminate blood sugar this way,
but it's low.
>
>>I do not really like common foods because I tailer my intake of these
things
>>to the necessity in my present condition in life and when I want vitamin C
>>I do not want: water, fiber, viamins, minerals, and sugar from an orange.
>
>Again, I am in sympathy with the approach. I have no doubt that in the far
>future we will have sufficient to knowledge and control to tailor our
>nutrient intake to be optimal for our the immediate body needs relative to
>its current desired task. However, again, I believe this is far off and we
>can do ourselves great harm if we assume that we can practice that in any
>*direct* manner today.
Well, that's what diets are for.
Ask a sportsman to eat a normal( continental?)
diet during training for the big event.
Ask a life-extensionist to eat a normal diet for the rest of their life.
Hey, ask a diabetic to eat a normal diet.
They all eat in certain ways to perform better.
I may not be on the best diet in the galaxy
but it's a hell of a lot better than normal. :-)
>
>>Nutrition is my medicine.
>
>A laudable ambition.
>
>> Common foods have MANY side effects.
>
>Yes, but at the moment they must remain the "base" of our diet.
>
>
>-- Paul --
>
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Nov 5 22:16:16 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA21719; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:16:16 -0700 (MST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA21656; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:16:08 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from ddmcneill1@juno.com)
by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id AwQ24942; Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:15:09 EST
To: cran@ListService.net
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:15:32 CDT
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
Message-ID: <19971105.231538.6294.0.ddmcneill1@juno.com>
References: <199711031756_MC2-2698-C29@compuserve.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-4,6-9,11,13-25,27,29,31-33,35-37,39,41,43,
45-48,50,52,54,56,58,60,62,64,66,68,70-72,74,76,78,80,82,84,
86-89,91,93,95-96,98,100,102,104,106,108,110,112,114-116,118,
120,122,124,126,128,130,132,134,136,138,140-142,144-145,147,
149-150,152-154,156-158,160,162-166,168,170-175,177-181,183-190
From: ddmcneill1@juno.com (Derek D McNeill)
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ben pleaded with everyone on the CRAN list not to post anything about
Brian and yet there were three posts all critical of Brian *after* Ben's
plea.
Part of Ben's reasons for asking people not to talk about this is
that Brian can't respond. So I hope Ben will allow me to forward this
response
from Brian. I didn't mention any names in reporting of things to Brain
except Douglas's, which would have been easy for Brian to guess anyway.
I'm sick of feeling like I have to mediate here, but, as I told Paul
through email,
all this disinformation smells a like witch hunt. I don't need to have
the last
word. I can handle one brief response to this. But please stop there.
Derek.
Brian Delaney wrote:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
My "Deep Throat" person hadn't mentioned Doug's forwarding of my Usenet
post. I'm not surprised Doug didn't give the context.
For the record, Gilbert Aubin, in a previous post, called me a "debunker"
and
told me I was "expendable," (saying that people like me shouldn't
practice
life-extension -- we don't need them to be around for "hundreds of
years").
This was in response to a post of mine in which I said that Tom Matthews
was wrong about his claim that a bunch of substances had extended maximum
life span. Gilbert first said: "How can you say this? Can you read?...."
OK,
dude.
So when I responded to his second flame-baiting post with a bit of humor,
I
thought I was being entirely appropriate (unless you think flaming is
_never_
appropriate, as I did before the Anti-Spam Conference I told you about --
and
then there's Plato). There are a LOT of gullible people on the Internet,
and if
someone takes that 44% figure seriously....
As for Tom Matthews, I don't know what to say. We had a very good
discussion
going, and then he just retreated into claims of "differences in taste."
Partly I
guess I was frustrated because I had taken him to be both serious and
intelligent,
and expected that he wouldn't manifest the gross misunderstanding (the
first of
several) that he did -- to wit, that a claim that "it's reasonable to do
X" can only
be a matter of taste, at least for the purposes of our discussion. Or
maybe he was
just trying to duck out of an argument he knew he was losing. That's not
to say
he can't admit he's wrong, in general -- it could be that he felt that he
couldn't
admit that the evidence for supplements isn't as strong as he thought
because of
his financial connection to The Life Extension Foundation. I really don't
know.
I can't imagine anyone from The Life Extension Foundation would "order"
him
to do that.
The other thing about Tom that's funny is that he kept telling me that I
was the
one who insulted his intelligence, whereas in fact it was he who first
insulted
mine, as far as I could see. And I even pointed out the place where he
did this,
and he never said either: "Sorry, not what I meant," or "But look one
article
back, where you started it...." That would have been very easy to do,
easier that
what he did instead, which is to say something like, ~"I don't have time
for
arrogant, .... people like you." I'm still willing to try again with him,
though
he so far appears unwilling.
That misattribution from Your Deep Throat (YDT -- who may or may not be
Paul Wakfer; no need to give additional info on this) really pisses me
off. It's
so obvious that it was Pete Jensen who insulted Tom Matthews that it's
almost
tempting to say that YDT _lied_ outright here. But that's hard to
believe,
especially if it's Paul (whom I like, by the way -- and with whom I never
publicly disagreed, as far as I'm aware, so I don't know why he's
manifesting
symptoms of this pandemic ego-fragility problem; it's probably just that
he's
friends with these people, or maybe it's nationalism of some kind -- who
the
Hell knows). Maybe YDT thinks Pete is another one of my "adherents," and
can
be considered to BE me, in essence. (I don't even know the guy
personally, by
the way, although I'm pretty sure he used to post on Sci.life-extension a
long,
long time ago, using a student account from the Univ. of Florida or
Georgia or
somewhere down there.) But still, saying that I said Tom's intelligence
isn't up
for the discussion and not "Brian, speaking through one of his adherents,
says..."
would be pretty sleazy.
About Doug. There's a long story there. First, again, I have to fight
(not that
hard, at this point...) my instincts to be nice because of what I learned
via the
anti-spam fora. But I actually was very nice to Doug at the beginning
(well, at least
I wasn't _non_-nice). And then it became clear that he wasn't interested
in
discussion. My comments to him were going into a void. And he kept
posting the
same bogus pseudo-science. Even if I had entirely discounted the rumor
that he sells
chromium, his posts fit perffectly one of the two spammer profiles (the
other being the
anecdotal evidence-providng spammer). That's when I started getting
angry. The
thing that made me more than a little angry was his posts in the style of
the recent
one to the guy who asked about fasting. That was truly vicious (in the
sense of
manifesting vice): saying something false to an innocent newcomer who
simply
had asked a question in an attempt to learn more (as Edgar Denny pointed
out,
to whom Doug responded dismissively: "Calm down").
About Ben, I don't know. When I feel bad about all of this, it centers on
Ben,
whom I think I may have misjudged. I do think he has some fairly serious
personality problems. And his "you're directly contradicting yourself"
claims
and various other attempts to score -- as I see it -- debating points are
certainly
annoying (and always wrong, as far as I can remembmer), but these are the
sorts of things people sometimes say when they're trying to get through
to
someone they think is wrong. Understandable (for the most part).
(By the way, I don't think I should say what came of our plans to talk on
the
phone, since this is a private matter. Ask Ben if you want.)
Of course, then there's the stuff about the God of CR being a "Jealous
God...?!?" In
moments like those.... Well, in short, I was greatly disappointed to see
that Ben
would characterize my views so simplistically.
I actually think a "9999 Society" commune would not solve most of these
problems. I see the main problem here as a bunch of men worried about how
well-endowed they are, so to speak. I just want to say: Jeez, shut up and
_use_ the
damn thing, no matter the size!! ("Use" in the metaphorical sense _only_
:) But who
knows. Although ego-solidification and education can go a long, long way
in my view.... well, you know the rest....
(deletia)
This is getting tedious -- though I appreciate your keeping me apprised
of the
articles on the Brian Is The Root of All Evil list.
(....)
Yes, feel free to forward this, or parts of this, if you judge it wise. I
wrote it
under the asssumption that you would do so.
Go raibh maith agat,
Brian
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Thu Nov 6 12:57:23 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id MAA29725; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:57:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from hil-img-5.compuserve.com (hil-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.177.135]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id MAA29717; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:57:22 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by hil-img-5.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id OAA07449
for cran@ListService.net; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:56:53 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:55:26 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711061456_MC2-2709-3D12@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:45:52 -0500, Mike Coward wrote:
>>Obviously, your reply shows that your first post did not mean
>>at all what it appeared to mean and what I replied to.
>>Thus, we were talking about two totally different things and
>>I don't see any sense replying to your reply.
>...but you did reply.
No I didn't! I METAreplied! Not the same thing at all.
This one is a reply.
>I hate it when I do that. :-)
Yes, you *should* hate it when you don't understand and make mistakes. :-)
>>If you do want
>>to have a dialogue here, then you will have to start back at
>>square one and give enough detail to explain yourself.
>I want to know what other people think about my dietary practices,
But you didn't describe them enough to make anyone understand what your
dietary practices were. Instead you made me go off on a tangent and
reply to something which wasn't there. Not a nice thing to do to someone.
>but I'm not sure which square YOU are talking about.
Restart with your first post and explain it more fully. Something which
has now been accomplished by your second message and now this one.
*After* I had wasted time replying to your first one, of course. Time is
life! I do not like having my time wasted.
>>Understand first of all that the Food Pryamid is
>>supposed to describe the *total* of what one should eat.
>I have no idea what you mean by *total*.
>Describing a bundle of nutrients as a fruit or vegatable
>hardly explains it's total nutritional value.
First, there are tables which give a fair approximation to the nutrient
content of any fruit or vegetable. Second, fruits and vegetables are
complex enough that all nutrients in them have not yet been classified.
So at the present time "100 grams of naval orange" is about the best
that we can do by way of a complete description of its total nutritional
value.
>>Since in your first list of 5 things, you gave no indication
>>of eating *any* real foods such as fruits and oatmeal which
>>you now say you eat, *that* is what I replied to.
>Sorry, I'm confused. :-(
>Were you thinking I did not eat "real foods" AT ALL?
>I'm not that rich.
We were discussing the food pyramid which is a list of categories of
whole foods. You presented what appeared to be an alternative to the
food pyramid. I did not know whether you personally actually ate only
and directly those 5 things or not. But the way you presented them
suggested very strongly to me that you thought only those 5 things,
without any whole real foods, were necessary for healthy life. *That*
is what I critiqued.
>I was trying to express my concern
>that I need to count things IN real foods
>and not counting real foods entirely.
But there is a lot more important and necessary things in the real
foods that were on your list.
>That suggests the way I decide what to eat and act:
>I want to relax for a few hours so I eat an apple for the sugar.
But what you *get* (and a good thing too) is a lot more than just
the sugar.
>I will prepare to lose a few points of intelligence
>so I will not study foreign languages.
You may or may not there are host of other variables involved.
>The fiber means I may have a bowel movement in a few hours
>so I will not spend the evening at my friends house.
Not very likely from one apple.
>The vitamin and mineral content means
>I will not take my supliments for a while.
There are lots of important minerals and vitamins not in any apple.
>If I'm water-fasting I will not eat the juicy apple.
Apples do not have a particularly high water content, only 84%.
Most fruits and a great many vegetables have more.
You need all the water you get with an apple just to digest and
eliminate its nutrients properly.
>One apple leads to all these benifits and restrictions.
Not quite so automated and simplistic as you imply
>I decide what I will eat based on what I had the hour before
>and what I have not had over the course of the day.
I think that most of us do the same, or we plan ahead to that meals
are coordinated that way. Bear in mind that you don't need to balance
some things over the course of one day. For many things, the course
of a week is sufficient. Others should be taken in more often than
daily.
This is my last reply since this is cluttering the list with banter
instead of science.
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Nov 7 00:04:15 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id AAA23276; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:04:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [149.174.206.132]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id AAA23259; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:04:12 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id CAA25736
for cran@ListService.net; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:03:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:02:17 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: AN and the "Food Pyramid"
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711070203_MC2-2727-7AD8@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Paul Wakfer wrote:
>This is my last reply
So I lied! ;) It's hard to resist you Mike.
Much of the following is more conversation which is irrelevant
to this list and I apologize to others. If anyone wishes just
ask me to stop and I will.
On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:47:47 -0500, Mike Coward wrote:
>This post makes me feel soOHH GOod. >:-(
Glad I'm helping you achieve such happiness.
>At 02:55 PM 11/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 23:45:52 -0500, Mike Coward wrote:
>>
>>>>Obviously, your reply shows that your first post did not mean
>>>>at all what it appeared to mean and what I replied to.
>>>>Thus, we were talking about two totally different things and
>>>>I don't see any sense replying to your reply.
>>
>>>...but you did reply.
>>
>>No I didn't! I METAreplied! Not the same thing at all.
>>This one is a reply.
>
>(I was wrong, metareplying is not a subset of replying.)
Correct. A metareply is a newly initiated thread talking *about*
the other thread, not the issues *internal* to that thread.
(I erred in not changing the subject line to make that clear.)
>>>I hate it when I do that. :-)
>>
>>Yes, you *should* hate it when you don't understand and make mistakes. :-)
>
>(I was a fool and screwed up )
Not at all, you just acted normal (for a change).
>>>>If you do want
>>>>to have a dialogue here, then you will have to start back at
>>>>square one and give enough detail to explain yourself.
>
>>>I want to know what other people think about my dietary practices,
>
>>But you didn't describe them enough to make anyone understand what your
>>dietary practices were. Instead you made me go off on a tangent and
>>reply to something which wasn't there. Not a nice thing to do to someone.
>(I am uninformative, psychologicly manipulative and not nice.)
All the wrong words.
Uninformative does not equal lacking enough detail to be understood.
Psychologically manipulative does not imply accidently causing someone
to go astry.
And I never said *you* were not nice (in fact, from what I have seen,
you seem to be a neat and interesting person), only that the unintended
result of your action was not nice.
In addition, I certainly bear some of the blame for interpreting your
message as I did. More detail in future would be appreciated. Probably,
next time I just won't respond until I am certain what your cryptic
message is about.
>>>but I'm not sure which square YOU are talking about.
>>
>>Restart with your first post and explain it more fully. Something which
>>has now been accomplished by your second message and now this one.
>>*After* I had wasted time replying to your first one, of course. Time is
>>life! I do not like having my time wasted.
>(I'm a waste of time and a waste of life.)
Not at all what I said or meant.
>>>>Understand first of all that the Food Pryamid is
>>>>supposed to describe the *total* of what one should eat.
>>
>>>I have no idea what you mean by *total*.
>>>Describing a bundle of nutrients as a fruit or vegatable
>>>hardly explains it's total nutritional value.
>
>>First, there are tables which give a fair approximation to the nutrient
>>content of any fruit or vegetable. Second, fruits and vegetables are
>>complex enough that all nutrients in them have not yet been classified.
>(1 I'm wrong
You are not wrong. The level of food analysis and nutritional biochemistry
is simply not up to your required capabilities.
>2 I'm Ignorant)
All of us are ignorant in the sense that there is a vast amount which we
don't know and need to know if we are to survive.
>>So at the present time "100 grams of naval orange" is about the best
>>that we can do by way of a complete description of its total nutritional
>>value.
>
>>>>Since in your first list of 5 things, you gave no indication
>>>>of eating *any* real foods such as fruits and oatmeal which
>>>>you now say you eat, *that* is what I replied to.
>
>>>Sorry, I'm confused. :-(
>>>Were you thinking I did not eat "real foods" AT ALL?
>>>I'm not that rich.
>
>>We were discussing the food pyramid which is a list of categories of
>>whole foods. You presented what appeared to be an alternative to the
>>food pyramid. I did not know whether you personally actually ate only
>>and directly those 5 things or not.
>(If I do not say it, it must be true)
Not at all. But when that discussion is about one thing and you start
discussing something different, you ought to warn us that you are taking
a different approach and relate it to the old base. In fact, your
different slant on foods was a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up. I
just didn't appreciate making a vacuous post because you didn't make it
clear that it was a different slant. Don't forget we had just finished a
"far out" dialogue on the CRSociety list, so I thought "here is this neat,
but far out guy making another far out post connecting things in a far out
way".
>>But the way you presented them
>>suggested very strongly to me that you thought only those 5 things,
>>without any whole real foods, were necessary for healthy life. *That*
>>is what I critiqued.
>If whole foods is what we need
>then most people have a meat deficiency
>because no one eats whole cows, chickens, sheep, turkeys, or pigs.
>Have you thought about that?
Many years ago. When I ate meat, I always ate the whole meat. I ate all
the organs even calf brains at one time. When I was a hunter, I used and
ate the whole animal (sorry I didn't eat the fur or the porcupine quills :)
Anyway that's not what the term "whole real foods" implies. It means
macroscopic parts of animals or vegetables, as opposed to extracting particular
chemical constitutent from them. My view of optimal nutrition and diet at
our present level of understanding is that such whole foods are the basice
things which should be ingested, and chemical extracts from them (or
syntheticly produced) ie. vitamin/mineral/nutrient supplements, come next.
>>>I was trying to express my concern
>>>that I need to count things IN real foods
>>>and not counting real foods entirely.
>
>>But there is a lot more important and necessary things in the real
>>foods that were on your list.
>Then I am ignorant.
As I said before, if it makes you feel any better, we are all ignorant.
Actually, it should make you feel worse.
>>>That suggests the way I decide what to eat and act:
>>>I want to relax for a few hours so I eat an apple for the sugar.
>
>>But what you *get* (and a good thing too) is a lot more than just
>>the sugar.
>I have an elementary education.
The moment one stops learning is the moment when one dies.
>>>I will prepare to lose a few points of intelligence
>>>so I will not study foreign languages.
>
>>You may or may not there are host of other variables involved.
>Vitamin C boosts IQ but my brain will be much slower from the sugar,
>it would be less than the best situation for memorization.
Please explain why you keep saying that sugar reduces your intelligence.
Blood sugar is necessary for your neurons to work and your brain to think.
Also do you have any evidence that vitamin C boost IQ.
Finally, IQ is a poor measure of brain intelligence and capability. There
are many other important capabilities and even "intelligences".
>>>The fiber means I may have a bowel movement in a few hours
>>>so I will not spend the evening at my friends house.
>
>>Not very likely from one apple.
>Food in the stomach leads to increased pressure on the intestines
>and the blood.
>The fecal material may combined with previously digested material
>and become the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.
>I did use too long a time span.
This all depends on when you had your last bowel movement. Let us just
say the I find the "may" in your original statement to be a very *weak* may.
>>>The vitamin and mineral content means
>>>I will not take my supliments for a while.
>
>>There are lots of important minerals and vitamins not in any apple.
>
>>>If I'm water-fasting I will not eat the juicy apple.
>
>>Apples do not have a particularly high water content, only 84%.
>>Most fruits and a great many vegetables have more.
>>You need all the water you get with an apple just to digest and
>>eliminate its nutrients properly.
>That's interesting.
>Too bad we can't talk about that instead of my ignorance.
Yes, the water contents of various foods, their nutrient "density", their
nutrient value per calorie, and even their nutrient value per dollar is
something I would welcome discussion about.
So if you will promise to explain yourself at little better so that poor,
stupid insensitive me doesn't get led astray, then I will be happy to
talk about these and other interesting things with you.
>>>One apple leads to all these benifits and restrictions.
>>
>>Not quite so automated and simplistic as you imply.
>(I don't know a darn thing about biophysics.)
What does biophysics have to do with it?
>>>I decide what I will eat based on what I had the hour before
>>>and what I have not had over the course of the day.
>
>>I think that most of us do the same, or we plan ahead to that meals
>>are coordinated that way. Bear in mind that you don't need to balance
>>some things over the course of one day. For many things, the course
>>of a week is sufficient. Others should be taken in more often than
>>daily.
>(I don't need to take care of my body optimally, only sufficiently.)
"Optimally" means having less disease, having more brain power, and
living longer than "sufficiently".
>>This is my last reply since this is cluttering the list with banter
>>instead of science.
>(I banter.)
Me too, but not anymore - I really, really mean it, this time.
>>-- Brian --
Horrors!!
>He he he...just joking. :-)
Naughty, naugthy. You'll catch it from Ben.
>I don't expect a reply.
How wrong can you be?
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Nov 7 03:34:43 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA05402; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:34:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx-gw.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA05370; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:34:40 -0700 (MST)
X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host root@rsunx-gw.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12] claimed to be rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (1140 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:33:51 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.97 1997-Aug-19 #9 built 1997-Oct-3)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <19971105.231538.6294.0.ddmcneill1@juno.com>
References: <199711031756_MC2-2698-C29@compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:33:38 +0000
To: cran@ListService.net
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: CRSOCIETY and CRAN lists -- what's the difference?
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
The difference between CRSOCIETY and CRAN?
As far as I can see the traffic is less, but the signal to noise ratio is
about the same. Any chance we can all just stop bitching about people on
other lists, and just talk about food, please?
Please, not that I'm not calling anybody a bitch here, but I really would
appreciate it if I didn't have to wade through endless analysis of what
people might or might not have meant by this or that posting weeks or
months ago.
I just want to know about nutrition.
--
cheers, Ian
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Nov 7 14:54:08 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA17976; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:54:08 -0700 (MST)
Received: from dub-img-9.compuserve.com (dub-img-9.compuserve.com [149.174.206.139]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA17955; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:54:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
by dub-img-9.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id QAA28527
for cran@ListService.net; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:53:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:50:23 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: Apologies to the List
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711071652_MC2-275C-6818@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Please accept my apologies for sending replies to the list for
messages which didn't themselves go to the list.
1) Mike Coward and I began a dialogue on the CRAN list.
2) However, his last two messages while having the exact same
thread title went only to me. I did not notice this change.
3) Because I have very poor mail software with Compuserve which
in reply mode will not let me intersperse comments with the text I am
replying to, I use "forward" mode when I wish to do that (laboriously
having to put in my own ">"s) . This means also that I have to fill in my
own "to" address.
4) I was lead astray and sent my two last replies to the list instead of
to him.
5) Now he has begun a new thread replying to some of my comments
which went to the CRAN list, with his new thread going to the CRSociety,
Extropians and transhumans lists.
6) The points of his thread are now more science oriented and would
be interesting to address. But by now I am very tired of going
astray by trying to follow his purpose, his logic, and his email
meanderings.
Again my apologies for wasting people's precious time. I will just
quietly disappear for a while.
-- Paul --
.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 01:02:49 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id BAA09262; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:02:49 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id BAA09258; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:02:48 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id DAA04897; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 03:02:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA12384;
Sat, 8 Nov 1997 03:02:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 03:02:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: A proposal for subscriber-controlled CRAN-list membership
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I have been giving some thought as to how to reduce the noise and
hostility on the CRAN list. I do NOT want to monitor every message before
it is posted. Nor am I comfortable with taking full responsibility for
kicking someone off the list.
I therefore propose the following policy:
If, within the space of a week, I receive 5 votes from CRAN
subscribers that some other CRAN subscriber should be removed from the
CRAN list I will publish a notice to the list that the named offending
subscriber has been nominated for removal. If, within the space of
the following week, I receive 10 votes from CRAN subscribers to removed
the nominated subscriber from the list I will remove that subscriber and
announce that fact to everyone. All votes become invalid one week
following their posting. Votes should be sent directly to me. Any
votes posted to the CRAN list itself will be invalid.
If there is no discussion of this proposal, I will implement it
beginning November 15th. I am open to suggestions for modification. Note
that this policy is not "majority rule", it is sensitive to a minority
with strong feelings about the hostility or boringness of some subscriber.
Since this is an experiment, I will be autocratic about implementing it.
If I decide that it is too much of an administrative hassle or I don't
like the way it is working I will discontinue it.
Suggestions?
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 06:47:24 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id GAA14932; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:47:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mail.ilnk.com (mail.ilnk.com [206.72.159.4]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id GAA14920; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:47:22 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [206.72.159.155] by mail.ilnk.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA247
for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:48:01 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971108083104.00687c48@mail.ilnk.com>
X-Sender: mikec@mail.ilnk.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 08:31:04 -0500
To: "; ; ;"
From: Mike Coward
Subject: List Administration Request: Fight Flamers and Offenders
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I have seen many flame wars an many lists
and now it's time for the madness to end. >:-(
Administrators often feel quite helpess
as they do not want people to think they are denying people
the right to communicate.
Well enough is enough.
This is what I suggest YOU do:
1- Read.
2- Send this to all your favorite lists.
3- Talk to list administrators about it.
4- Make FRIENDS, not enemies;
remember, even your enemies would prefer to be friends.
I request sending of CONCEALED votes for removal of offenders
to be sent to list administrators(*1)
who will send STANDARD warnings to offenders(*2)
REQUIRING immediate AND STANDARD appologies AND FORGIVINGS to lists(*3)
in posts with standard subject heading prefixes(*4)
if offenders don't appologize and forgive or continue offending(*6)
they should be removed for a standard period of time.(*7)
(*1)
1- Public posts leads to persecution of already frustrated voters.
2- Votes should be sent WHENEVER offended people feel it is necessary
to remove a poster.
(*2)
1- Standard posts eliminating bias should be sent
IMMEDIATLY upon receiving a required number of votes
to prevent further avoidable offences.
2- The number of votes required will vary
as does the size of lists
and the active number of "fire fighters" or "baby sitters".
3- A good warning is:
"Please appoligize and forgive.
Refusal to due so immediately
will result in your removal from this list."
It's nice and simple.
It makes no accusations.
It's short and saves time and bandwidth.
(*3)
1- People should be kind enough to accept appologies and forgivings
with only a simple expression of their wish for peace.
A good phrase is: "I appologize and forgive.";
it's short,
easy for people with big egos to say,
does not offend like defensive or explainatory remarks VERY often do,
and saves time and bandwidth.
2- [see (*5)]
(*4)
1- Identify posts as personal and list individual parties involved
(ie. Subject: Re: Personal: John, Robert, James).
This warns people
who do not have time to waste
reading other peoples immature garbage
that should not have begun in the first place.
(*5)
1- Long defensive/offensive remarks
VERY often only compel people to reply,
thereby prologing suffering and enraging people further.
If you remain on good terms with people
they will get to know you better
and the truth will prevail eventually;
so only deceivers NEED to argue. :-)
(*6)
1- People CAN change.
Give them a chance to cool down
and return as a productive member of the group.
2- The more offenses a person has commited the longer it should be.
Here's what I suggest:
1st and 2nd offense = warning
3rd and 4th offence = 1 week
5th and 6th offense = 1 month
7th = indefinitely (make them grovel to administration)
8th + = Get a lawyer and sue this jerk for harrasment! :-)
3-Give a week after a vote count because some people may be slow to post
and you would not want a lynch mob to get someone sued
because of one offense which receives complaints for weeks.
Do you think it will work?
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 15:20:13 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA29151; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:20:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from hil-img-6.compuserve.com (hil-img-6.compuserve.com [149.174.177.136]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA29110; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:20:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by hil-img-6.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.8) id RAA01609
for cran@ListService.net; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:19:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:17:42 -0500
From: Paul Wakfer <70023.3041@compuserve.com>
Subject: A proposal for subscriber-controlled CRAN-list membership
To: cranlist
Message-ID: <199711081719_MC2-2772-5646@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ben wrote:
> I have been giving some thought as to how to reduce the noise and
>hostility on the CRAN list.
Ben, if you are refering to the dialogue between Mike Coward and I then
you are completely mistaken. There was "noise" and I apologize for that,
but there was no hostility at all, we were just having fun.
-- Paul --
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 15:53:17 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA16842; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:53:17 -0700 (MST)
Received: from www.cedarnet.org (www.cedarnet.org [206.29.224.1]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA16836; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:53:16 -0700 (MST)
Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp149028.usmo.com [206.27.149.28])
by www.cedarnet.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA23488
for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:53:15 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199711082253.QAA23488@www.cedarnet.org>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Doug Younkin"
To: CRAN@ListService.net
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:54:33 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Deprenyl (Selegiline): max lifespan vs squaring the curve
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52)
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 19:05:31 -0500 (EST) Ben Best wrote:
> From: Ben Best
> To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
> Cc: Ben Best
> Subject: Deprenyl (Selegiline)
....
> This study found *NO* extension of maximum lifespan of Male F344
> rats with selegiline. One of the names on the paper is Gwen Ivy, who had
> been a participant in an earlier study that found a small (2.3%) extension
> of maximum lifespan with selegiline [LIFE SCIENCES 47:415-420 (1990)]. The
> paper also had a summary of previous lifespan studies showing that all the
> studies done by Joseph Knoll (who co-discovered selegiline in 1965) -- and
> ONLY those by Knoll -- showed a lifespan increase in excess of 10%.
>
> But selegiline *did* extend MEAN lifespan ("squaring the curve") and
> showed improvement in spatial learning abilities of nearly one-third for
> the "elderly" rats.
>
> These benefits underscore what I see to be the philosophical
> difference between my viewpoint and that of the CRSOCIETY (Brian Delaney).
> For one thing, I place a high value on "squaring the curve". If I can
> increase my probability of living to 120 years, then I have increased my
> chances of benefitting from new life-extension technologies that are
> bound to emerge in the years ahead. In fact, from the point of view of
> "buying time" in an era of rapidly-changing biotechnology, extending
> mean lifespan may be of nearly indistinguishable benefit from extending
> maximum lifespan.
Ben,
I also agree that "squaring the curve" is more important than
increasing maximum lifespan for me. First, "squaring the curve"
means that not only has median lifespan increased, but standard
deviation has decreased. Since I am an individual, I don't know what
member of the population of "lifetimes" I am, so if I can be a member
of a set of lifetimes that has a narrow standard deviation and
higher median lifespan, I will be more certain of my longer lifetime
than if I were a member of a population displaying a wider standard
deviation of lifespans yet higher maximum lifespan. I think people
are often confused and try to apply population attributes to
individuals (themselves).
>From strictly a statistical basis, a normal distribution (which is
probably how lifetimes are distributed, or maybe lognormal or
Weibull) is completely described by a median lifetime and a standard
deviation (mu and sigma, or alpha and beta for a Weibull). There is
no such concept of a "maximum value" distribution parameter. Of
course there will be some maximum because the sample sizes are
finite and someone will have the longest lifetime in each experiment.
I really don't know who began the concept of "maximum lifespan" as
being a relevant parameter, but as far as I know, it is poor or
improper statistics to emphasize that rather than median or standard
deviation.
Increasing "maximum lifespan" without "squaring the
curve" simply means that the median lifespan has increased but the
standard deviation has not changed. In other words, there are still
early deaths but all tend to live somewhat longer. "Squaring the
curve" without increasing "maximum lifespan" simply means that median
lifespan has increased and standard deviation has decreased. In
other words, there are much fewer early deaths, all tend to live to
the same age, and all tend to live somewhat longer.
What I would really like to see is a better analysis of the data.
I have not seen tabulated the lifespan data of the CRAN or
antioxidant studies, otherwise I would have done a more thorough
statistical analysis of that data. About a year ago I posted on
CRSOCIETY that I would do such an analysis if someone would point me
in the right direction to the raw life data, but no one responded. I
am still willing to do that kind of analysis. Can anyone supply
tabulated life data for a few of the aging studies? I am really
serious about this and believe that better analyses are needed than
have been published.
Doug Younkin
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 16:07:29 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA24273; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:07:29 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA24227; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:07:27 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id SAA18921; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:06:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA14576;
Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:06:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:06:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Excellent Free Radical Review
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
For an excellent short review of the role of free radicals in
biological systems I recommend
"Oxygen Radicals in Cell Injury and Cell Death" by J.Warren, K. Johnson
and P. Ward PATHOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY RESEARCH 6:301-315 (1987)
There are good texts describing the subject, but this is short paper
that manages to put a lot of information in a few pages. It is, however,
10 years old. Anyone know of a more recent review? (That is concise and
comprehensive -- as this one is.)
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 17:01:23 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA19926; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:01:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA19906; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:01:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id TAA22928; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:00:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA16194;
Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:00:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:00:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Protein and Kidney Damage
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Paul Wakfer recently made reference to protein damaging the kidney. I
must admit that I have tended to be skeptical about this because (1) I
haven't seen mention of the subject in textbooks or scientific papers and
(2) experiments done with CRAN animals showed that all of the benefits
attributed to reduced protein were only due to reduced calories.
However, I dug through some of my unread papers in my protein paper
collection and came-across an article that appeared on the Sept 9, 1992
issue of THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE [ 307:652-659 (1982)].
When renal patients "with serum creatinine concentrations averaging
2.2 mg per decilitre (190 micromole per liter) were maintained on a diet
containing 30 to 40 gm of protein per day and were phospate-restricted,
no significant fall in glomerular filtration rate was observed over two
years, whereas continued deterioration of renal function characterizes
comparable patients whose intake of protein and phosphorus is not
restricted."
The paper estimates that the average protein intake in the Western
diet is about 100 grams per day. The authors suggest that "augmented
intrarenal pressures and flows associated with ad libitum feeding
contributes to the age-associated glomerular sclerosis repeatedly observed
in laboratory animals and in human beings."
Changing the diet of dogs from carbohydrate to meat was shown to
"increase renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate by as much
as 100 per cent." Moreover, "the average filtration rate was about
70 per cent higher in rats maintained on 35 per cent protein chow than
in rats fed a diet containing only 6 per cent protein."
One extremely interesting comment made in this paper was "Development
of renal lesions in both sexes [of mice and hamsters] can be delayed by
making food available on alternate days". To me, it suggests that the
difference in mean lifespan between every-other-day feeding and 50% "diet
restriction" could be due to kidney function. A paper by Ingram & Reynolds
in EVOLUTION OF LONGEVITY IN ANIMALS ( Woodhead & Thompson, Editors, 1987)
reported 56% increase in MEAN lifespan for CRAN mice fed every-other-day
as opposed to a 36% increase in MEAN lifespan for CRAN mice fed 50% normal
calories. Quite possibly protected renal function was accounting for over
half of the benefit attributed to CRAN. (Dr. Walford fed his animals ad
libitum on alternate days to acheive CRAN).
But why did CRAN experiments not show particular advantage for
protein restriction? Perhaps the benefits (or hazards) of protein
restriction are non-linear. That is, there may be a threshold value
of kidney burden beyond which there is damage, but before which there
is NO damage. The experiment cited above demonstrating renal patients
on 30-40 grams of protein per day showing "no significant fall in
glomerular filtration rate" over 2 years seems to support this
explanation. If protein caused damage in a linear fashion, then at
least SOME damage would be expected -- directly proportional to the
amount of protein.
The question then would be, WHERE IS THE THRESHOLD?
With complete protein (egg white or whey) 30-40 grams of protein
per day is probably more than adequate for a person practicing CRAN.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 17:13:44 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA25867; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:13:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id RAA25858; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:13:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id TAA23671; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:13:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA16531;
Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:12:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:12:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Web page
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Robert Cumming wrote:
> I don't know how this will work, but it is definitely worth trying now,
> when the group is still small. It is reminiscent of the Greek ostracism and
> may be subject to the same problems.
What is "Greek ostracism"? And what are the problems?
> What will you do, however, if somebody posts both interesting messages and
> provocative messages?
The proposal is for a policy that it is only concerned with how many
negative votes are cast. Presumably, a person who posts interesting
messages along with hostile ones would be less likely to elicit negative
votes. This policy would also provide grounds for excluding people who
post boring, time-wasting messages, as well as hostile ones. However,
I don't expect to see it being used on anyone in the near future.
> By the way, your web page is quite interesting. Since you want criticism of
> it, all I can say is that there are spelling mistakes, and the artwork
> could be improved. What articles I did read were delightful.
The art is minimal, and is a reflection of my fledgling attempts to
learn Corel Draw. If you would send me private e-mail of my spelling
mistakes, it would be appreciated.
> ==============================================================
> Martha Olijnyk, University of Waterloo denizen
> Physics Fan, Owner of Invisible Schroedinger's Cat =\"/=
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 23:04:19 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id XAA25224; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:04:19 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mail.ilnk.com (mail.ilnk.com [206.72.159.4]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id XAA25213; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:04:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [206.72.159.152] by mail.ilnk.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA214
for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:05:04 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971109010622.0068b7e8@mail.ilnk.com>
X-Sender: mikec@mail.ilnk.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 01:06:22 -0500
To:
From: Mike Coward
Subject: Personal: Paul and Offended (subscriber-controlled CRAN-list
membership)
In-Reply-To: <199711081719_MC2-2772-5646@compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I appologize and forgive.
At 05:17 PM 11/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Ben wrote:
>
>> I have been giving some thought as to how to reduce the noise and
>>hostility on the CRAN list.
>
>Ben, if you are refering to the dialogue between Mike Coward and I then
>you are completely mistaken. There was "noise" and I apologize for that,
>but there was no hostility at all, we were just having fun.
>
>-- Paul --
>
All these apologies we are making are becoming too noisy!
I starting reading this post
thinking it was contained information I did not know.
...shh. :-)
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Nov 8 23:53:15 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id XAA16135; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:53:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mail.ilnk.com (mail.ilnk.com [206.72.159.4]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id XAA16129; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:53:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [206.72.159.152] by mail.ilnk.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA188
for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:54:00 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971109015519.0068c2d8@mail.ilnk.com>
X-Sender: mikec@mail.ilnk.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 01:55:19 -0500
To: CRAN@ListService.net
From: Mike Coward
Subject: Re: max lifespan vs squaring the curve (Deprenyl (Selegiline))
In-Reply-To: <199711082253.QAA23488@www.cedarnet.org>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
>What I would really like to see is a better analysis of the data.
>I have not seen tabulated the lifespan data of the CRAN or
>antioxidant studies, otherwise I would have done a more thorough
>statistical analysis of that data. About a year ago I posted on
>CRSOCIETY that I would do such an analysis if someone would point me
>in the right direction to the raw life data, but no one responded. I
>am still willing to do that kind of analysis. Can anyone supply
>tabulated life data for a few of the aging studies? I am really
>serious about this and believe that better analyses are needed than
>have been published.
>
>Doug Younkin
I will try to help.
The only thing I can think of doing
is finding out what studies you are refering to
and writing to scientists conducting the studies.
This will probably take a while
but now that you have explained
max lifespan does not mean squaring the curve
I am a bit frustrated and feel this problem MUST be resolved
to obtain full benifit from any regimen.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 9 14:37:44 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA14327; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:37:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA14286; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:37:41 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199711092137.OAA14286@listservice.net>
Received: (qmail 1328 invoked from network); 9 Nov 1997 20:46:45 -0000
Received: from al228.du.pipex.com (HELO yz34.dial.pipex.com) (193.130.251.228)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 9 Nov 1997 20:46:45 -0000
From: "Phil Harris"
To: "Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver"
Subject: Re: Protein and Kidney Damage
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:44:37 -0000
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ben made some interesting points on protein intake and kidneys. When our
old dog was diagnosed with impaired kidney function he was prescribed a
low(er) protein dog meal which was specially marketed for just this
purpose. This apparently prolonged his life as well as making it bearable
by getting rid of symptoms. Apparently well characterised in the veterinary
world. More often seems to be known about animal nutrition than human. A
friend recently suggested we try the local vet rather than the doctor.
best wishes
phil harris
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Nov 9 15:18:35 1997
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA08163; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:18:35 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA08136; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:18:33 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id RAA04728; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA17324;
Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:18:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:18:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
Reply-To: Ben Best
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Deprenyl (Selegiline): max lifespan vs squaring the curve
In-Reply-To: <199711082253.QAA23488@www.cedarnet.org>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Doug Younkin wrote:
> I also agree that "squaring the curve" is more important than
> increasing maximum lifespan for me. First, "squaring the curve"
> means that not only has median lifespan increased, but standard
> deviation has decreased. Since I am an individual, I don't know what
> member of the population of "lifetimes" I am, so if I can be a member
> of a set of lifetimes that has a narrow standard deviation and
> higher median lifespan, I will be more certain of my longer lifetime
> than if I were a member of a population displaying a wider standard
> deviation of lifespans yet higher maximum lifespan.
I don't really think of it as an either/or choice between MEAN and
MAXIMUM lifespan. CRAN seems to move the whole right side of the curve,
with both MEAN and MAXIMUM lifespan moving right. I'm certainly in favor
of this. In stressing the value of MEAN lifespan, I am mainly arguing
against people who discount its value. This includes people like Hayflick
who has no interest in extending his life, but is only interested in
an academic/intellectual understanding of the mechanisms of aging.
Unfortunately, there are many s