>From owner-cran@ListService.net Thu Jan 1 03:02:11 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA01258; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 03:02:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA01254; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 03:02:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA27452;
Thu, 1 Jan 1998 05:02:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA20909;
Thu, 1 Jan 1998 05:01:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 05:01:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Cold hands & feet & ears
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Since I began CRAN I have experienced sensitivity to cold in
proportion to my weight. This has been especially severe for my hands &
feet -- although a woman also told me that my ears are also uncomfortably
cold.
I can understand how overall body temperature might drop for someone
burning less calories. It also makes sense that the body would conserve
heat by reducing circulation to the periphery. But I am wondering if
anyone has any additional explanations or experiences from this aside
from what seems to be self-evident reasoning. I can't remember any
formal experiments ever being done on this phenomenon.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Jan 2 07:20:05 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id HAA12984; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 07:20:05 -0700 (MST)
Received: from hertz.ukonline.co.uk (qmailr@hertz.ukonline.co.uk [194.6.112.13]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id HAA12895; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 07:19:53 -0700 (MST)
Received: (qmail 27677 invoked from network); 2 Jan 1998 14:21:28 -0000
Received: from lon6-56.ukonline.co.uk (HELO IT) (194.6.113.184)
by hertz.ukonline.co.uk with SMTP; 2 Jan 1998 14:21:28 -0000
Message-ID: <34AB0BCB.5517@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 19:22:01 -0800
From: Neil Kenning
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CRAN@ListService.net
CC: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Cold hands & feet & ears
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ben Best wrote:
>
> Since I began CRAN I have experienced sensitivity to cold in
> proportion to my weight. This has been especially severe for my hands &
> feet -- although a woman also told me that my ears are also uncomfortably
> cold.
>
> I can understand how overall body temperature might drop for someone
> burning less calories. It also makes sense that the body would conserve
> heat by reducing circulation to the periphery. But I am wondering if
> anyone has any additional explanations or experiences from this aside
> from what seems to be self-evident reasoning. I can't remember any
> formal experiments ever being done on this phenomenon.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
> http://www.benbest.com/
Do people who drink more liquids loose more water through their skin and
lungs?
If so drinking more fluids would lead to greater energy loss resulting
in either a lower body temperature or greater consumption of fuel to
maintain body temperature.
Also it would imply that drinking less would be a strategy for getting
less cold.
Water restriction has been discussed briefly on the 'CR' but with little
interest.
One contributer ( Jeff Bowles ) water restricted mice
and noted that they felt warmer than non water restricted.
This is anecdotal but interesting nevertheless.
Does anyone know of any work being done on Water Restriction?
Cheers
Neil
PS
Energy lost to 1 gram of water in sweat or breath is about 540 cals or
0.54 Cals.
It seems rather a lot to me. Am I wrong?
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Jan 3 03:23:23 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA13315; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 03:23:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA13307; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 03:23:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA08332;
Sat, 3 Jan 1998 05:23:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA18005;
Sat, 3 Jan 1998 05:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 05:22:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Primary & secondary effects of calorie-sources
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I apologize for the long silences over the holiday season, but my
travels & some personal problems have kept me extremely distracted. I have
LOTS of CRAN-related issues I want to study & write-about, so expect to
see much more of me in the next month or so.
I have recently been dwelling on my belief that the primary reason
CRAN works is because by reducing the amount of calories burned, fewer
free-radicals are generated in the mitochondria. The advantages of this
are far superior to taking anti-oxidants because prevention of
free-radicals is so much more efficient than trying to quench them. And
associated with a lowered energy requirement is the reduction in levels
of blood glucose required to maintain bodily function -- with consequent
reduce glycation (cross-linking of proteins by sugars).
It has also become increasingly clear to me that reducing calories
(while maintaining adequate nutrition) is beneficial because all of the
major sources of calories are HARMFUL!
FAT -- SATURATED: Saturated fats stimulate increased production of
cholesterol by the liver. Saturated fats increase
the amount of atherosclerosis.
FAT -- UNSATURATED: Unsaturated fats are vulnerable to lipid
peroxidation, resulting in generation of free
radicals and consequent tissue damage, DNA
damage, cancer, etc. (and exacerbate
atherosclerosis).
PROTEIN: Protein increases stress on the kidney, thereby reducing
its functionality and poisoning the whole body.
CARBOHYDRATE -- SUGARS: Sugars cross-link with proteins leading to
lipofuscin accumulation in non-dividing cells
and loss of suppleness of connective tissue
(contributing, among other things to
arteriosclerosis). Insulin secretion is
rapidly increased.
CARBOHYDRATE -- STARCHES: Complex carbohydrates don't stimulate insulin
release as much as simple sugars, but I still
think they do so more than fat or protein
(I need to research this point). I also
believe that they increase appetite more than
fat or protein, but I need to confirm this
also. Although the insulin response is
probably less for starches than for sugars
I believe that they increase blood glucose
much more than fat or protein (which can be
converted to energy in the cells).
ALCOHOL: This substance has deleterious effects on neuron function.
There may be long-term damage as well as the more obvious
immediate effects, but I have yet to thoroughly research this
subject.
Within the context of the above it can also be observed that
fat is 9 calories/gram, alcohol is 7 calories/gram and carbohydrate &
protein are 4 calories/gram. Although all of the calorie-sources are
harmful, complex carbohydrates & proteins seem to be the least worst
sources, by my values.
There are many forms of complex carbohydrates, and I believe that
the least harmful are those associated with fiber. Also, there is less
glucose & insulin response to rice than there is to an equivalent
amount of potato [DIABETES 26:1178-1183 (1977)]. Ground rice produces
a greater serum glucose & insulin response than whole rice [AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 33:760-765 (1980)]. And cooked starch
produces a greater insulin response than raw starch [BRITISH MEDICAL
JOURNAL 282:1032 (1981)]. Unfortunately, uncooked rice is a bit hard
to eat. Nobody said CRAN was going to be easy.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Jan 3 16:32:03 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA21652; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:32:03 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA21642; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:32:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (1084 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 23:26:03 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <34AB0BCB.5517@ukonline.co.uk>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:58:43 +0000
To: Neil Kenning , CRAN@ListService.net
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: Cold hands & feet & ears
Cc: Ben Best
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 3:22 am +0000 1/1/98, Neil Kenning wrote:>
>Energy lost to 1 gram of water in sweat or breath is about 540 cals or
>0.54 Cals.
>It seems rather a lot to me. Am I wrong?
Depends whether the water evaporates or not. Also some of the latent energy
of vaporisation would come from the environment, not from the body, thus
reducing the heat lost.
--
cheers, Ian
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Jan 4 03:32:06 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA06187; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 03:32:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from hertz.ukonline.co.uk (qmailr@hertz.ukonline.co.uk [194.6.112.13]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id DAA06169; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 03:31:59 -0700 (MST)
Received: (qmail 29745 invoked from network); 4 Jan 1998 10:33:30 -0000
Received: from lon7-10.ukonline.co.uk (HELO IT) (194.6.114.10)
by hertz.ukonline.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Jan 1998 10:33:30 -0000
Message-ID: <34AEF4A1.1AAB@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 18:32:01 -0800
From: Neil Kenning
Reply-To: neil.k2@ukonline.co.uk
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CRAN@ListService.net
Subject: Re: Cold hands & feet & ears
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> At 3:22 am +0000 1/1/98, Neil Kenning wrote:>
> >Energy lost to 1 gram of water in sweat or breath is about 540 cals or
> >0.54 Cals.
> >It seems rather a lot to me. Am I wrong?
>
> Depends whether the water evaporates or not. Also some of the latent energy
> of vaporisation would come from the environment, not from the body, thus
> reducing the heat lost.
>
> --
> cheers, Ian
True, but surely the question remains. Do people who drink more lose
more energy to vaporisation or not? If so is drinking less a strategy
for staying warm (less cold)?
Does anyone know of any research being carried out on water restriction?
Cheers
Neil
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Jan 4 15:09:43 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA04071; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:09:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp1.mailsrvcs.net (smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA04064; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:09:42 -0700 (MST)
X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30] claimed to be smtp1.mailsrvcs.net
Received: from gte.net (cust105.max2.dial.tor2.uunet.ca [209.47.124.233])
by smtp1.mailsrvcs.net with ESMTP id QAA03857;
Sun, 4 Jan 1998 16:08:43 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <34B006D5.C76402E9@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 14:01:57 -0800
From: Paul Wakfer
Reply-To: wakfer@gte.net
Organization: Full Length Life Society
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: neil.k2@ukonline.co.uk
CC: CRAN@ListService.net
Subject: Re: Cold hands & feet & ears
References: <34AEF4A1.1AAB@ukonline.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Neil Kenning wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
> >
> > At 3:22 am +0000 1/1/98, Neil Kenning wrote:>
> > >Energy lost to 1 gram of water in sweat or breath is about 540 cals or
> > >0.54 Cals.
> > >It seems rather a lot to me. Am I wrong?
> >
> > Depends whether the water evaporates or not. Also some of the latent energy
> > of vaporisation would come from the environment, not from the body, thus
> > reducing the heat lost.
> >
> > --
> > cheers, Ian
>
> True, but surely the question remains. Do people who drink more lose
> more energy to vaporisation or not? If so is drinking less a strategy
> for staying warm (less cold)?
I don't know of any physiological reasons why drinking more water should cause
more water vapor lost either from the lungs, the skin or or any other part of the
anatomy except the kidneys and bladder. Therefore, I believe that the answer to
your question is no. If the water that is drank is very cold, then the
requirement to raise its temperature to that of the body will burn up some
calories. I would suspect that this heating requirement is every bit as large for
those who drink lots of water as the minute incremental extra vaporization.
-- Paul --
wakfer@gte.net Voice/Fax: 909-481-9620 Page: 800-805-2870
The Prometheus Project -- http://prometheus.morelife.org
Perfected Suspended Animation for Patient Stabilization
until Cures for Their Terminal Diseases are Available
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Jan 5 02:21:33 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id CAA13108; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:21:33 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id CAA13101; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:21:32 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (2077 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:20:11 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <34AEF4A1.1AAB@ukonline.co.uk>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 17:35:19 +0000
To: neil.k2@ukonline.co.uk, CRAN@ListService.net
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: Cold hands & feet & ears
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 2:32 am +0000 4/1/98, Neil Kenning wrote:
>Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>
>> At 3:22 am +0000 1/1/98, Neil Kenning wrote:>
>> >Energy lost to 1 gram of water in sweat or breath is about 540 cals or
>> >0.54 Cals.
>> >It seems rather a lot to me. Am I wrong?
>>
>> Depends whether the water evaporates or not. Also some of the latent energy
>> of vaporisation would come from the environment, not from the body, thus
>> reducing the heat lost.
>>
>> --
>> cheers, Ian
>
>True, but surely the question remains. Do people who drink more lose
>more energy to vaporisation or not? If so is drinking less a strategy
>for staying warm (less cold)?
>Does anyone know of any research being carried out on water restriction?
>
My guess is that most of the heat loss from excessive water drinking comes
from urination. Thus, the heat loss depends on the temperature of the
ingested water. Since sweating is a strategy for heat loss, it seems
unlikely that it will happen excessively when cold. Breathing through the
nose reduces water and heat loss.
Having said that, I find that my feet can become cold and sweaty when I am
otherwise warm. This problem is reduced if I remove my shoes. It is
probably due to build up of moisture in my socks increasing heat transfer
through the socks. I guess a pair of well ventilated slippers would be
better to wear around the house.
--
cheers, Ian
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Jan 7 10:33:12 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA16002; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:33:12 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA15918; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:33:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26671;
Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:32:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA25271;
Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:31:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Water restriction, second thoughts
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I have been somewhat dismissive of the "water restriction" idea
because of the lack of empirical data. However, I am beginning to wonder
whether excessive levels of water might not result in excessive stress on
the kidney. A couple of months ago I cited one of the few lifespan studies
that evaluated cause of death for the rodent-subjects -- and kidney
failure was fairly frequent.
This is also quite relevant to me because my practice of CRAN is
anything *but* water-restricted. I eat extremely large quantities of
high water content vegetables (and some fruits). The positive effect
of this is that I have been able to maintain my currently targeted
"ideal" weight of 120 pounds with a mininum of stress & discomfort
from the point of view of hunger. But I suffer from the inconvenience
(and occasional discomfort) associated with having to make frequent
trips to the toilet to urinate -- and invariable wake-up at least
twice in the night with a need to urinate.
My high intake of vegetables provides me with a lot of phytochemicals,
although this is probably not true of cucumbers (of which I eat many,
especially of the dill variety). I suppose I could discipline myself to
eat less rather than to eat so many "watery" foods. But another
alternative might be to try to find ways of eating foods made up of
(essentially) "flavored fiber". The best thing I can think of for this
would be mixing wheat bran with some onion-juice & cheese (which have
intense flavors relative to their calorie content). Has anyone done
any experimentation along this area?
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Jan 7 14:43:43 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA19282; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:43:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA19219; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:43:39 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199801072143.OAA19219@listservice.net>
Received: (qmail 27469 invoked from network); 7 Jan 1998 21:44:02 -0000
Received: from al187.du.pipex.com (HELO yz34.dial.pipex.com) (193.130.251.187)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 1998 21:44:02 -0000
From: "Phil Harris"
To: "Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver"
Subject: raw food report
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:35:54 -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
Some weeks ago I said that I would report back if I completed my month on
raw food.
Briefly, I completed and have continued some of my menu for a further 3
weeks. Hope the following is not too long.
1) It was not completely raw; x1 per day cooked tomato soup from tomato
paste/tspn. olive oil and occasionally soya flour.
2) The sprouted lentils were a success.
3) The very spicy blended cold raw veg soup -carrot, orange, onion, garlic,
apple, sweet pepper, celery et al -was a real find, although the
proportions of ingredients needed careful adjustment. After pouring off the
majority for soup I blended in most of my lentils with the remainder. This
made an interesting curd on top of my soup. I have carried on with this
menu item, after the more purist phase, with the addition of tomato paste
and a little olive oil . This is a real energy wow midday with no
post-eating dip. The downside of 3 cloves of raw garlic seems to be
practically abolished.
4) I was disappointed with some of my ingredients. The oat and barley
berries turned out to be dead - no sprouting, but I continued to use them
after a 24/36 hour soak. I blended a little of the soaked grains with a
little soaked 'dry' fruit to add flavour to the chewy berries.(I cut in
some banana for taste and B6) I wondered about the age of the grain I ate.
Thiamin is heat sensitive so it is maybe age sensitive as well. OK if you
take a supplement but not so good if you want all your vitamins from food
ingredients. I have thoughts also about protein deterioration. I would not
have known of course if I had not attempted to eat grains raw.
5) I benefited from having to measure my portions for soaking in advance.
This, with x5 meals a day gave me the best calorie control without hunger
that I have known. I am losing the last bit of weight nicely as I approach
my target weight.
6) I guess the raw food experience has given me a better base line than I
have known before. The glycemic index seems favorably lower and I begin to
think I can actually sense that difference. The post-eating satiety takes
longer to click in but lasts longer.
7) I think that raw (veg) food is possibly a better supplier of many (?)
vitamins (there are exceptions) and of protein than the cooked versions
although that scarcely matters if you are in excess; or does it? Heavy
(heat) processing is reported to lower protein absorption from 90 to 70%.
Are all the heated amino acids usable for structural protein? OK they are
metabolized and excreted if not, but there are interesting epidemiological
reports of the downside of even modest intakes particularly of animal
protein.
8) I missed the cooked food and became incredibly sensitive to smells of
cooking. However, curiously, have not swung back into all-cooked food.
9) The diet seemed more benign for the gut flora though no complete
cessation of my evening breeze.
10) I will do it again sometime with a wider range of ingredients; I tend
to be very staid otherwise with what I eat and this has been a useful
change and introduction to new experience.
best wishes
Phil Harris
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Thu Jan 8 00:24:53 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id AAA08813; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:24:53 -0700 (MST)
Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (root@proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id AAA08801; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:24:51 -0700 (MST)
Received: from infoscreen.com (timothy.vip.best.com [206.86.94.206]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) with SMTP id XAA10202; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:23:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tim@localhost) by infoscreen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00335; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:11:29 -0800
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:11:29 -0800
From: Tim Freeman
Message-Id: <199801080811.AAA00335@infoscreen.com>
To: benbest@benbest.com
CC: CRAN@ListService.net, tim@infoscreen.com
In-reply-to: (message from Ben Best on Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:31:53 -0500 (EST))
Subject: Re: Water restriction, second thoughts
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
>However, I am beginning to wonder
>whether excessive levels of water might not result in excessive stress on
>the kidney.
Looking at the "Recommended Dietary Allowances" book by the (US)
National Research Council, the only problem they list with having too
much water is "hyposmolarity", which presumably means that the blood
and other bodily fluids become too dilute to work properly. They
don't mention kidney problems as a consequence of excess water intake.
"Such a condition (that is, hyposmolarity) is rarely observed in a
normal healthy adult. The manifestations usually include a gradual
mental dulling, confusion, coma, convulsion, and even death." (Page
250 of the 1989 edition)
(I quote these guys only because they have an opinion on everything,
generally with some positive amount of research supporting their
opinion, and I had them conveniently on hand; I do not accept them as
the word of God. Also, it's obvious that they're talking about acute
consumption of too much water, but Ben is concerned about chronic
consumption. My point here is that at least we know that acute water
toxicity is hard to achieve.)
>A couple of months ago I cited one of the few lifespan studies
>that evaluated cause of death for the rodent-subjects -- and kidney
>failure was fairly frequent.
That's just rodents being rodents. Most humans don't die from kidney
problems.
There have probably been a few crazy people who have died from
consumption of too much water. If you look them up and make sure your
water intake is an order of magnitude less than theirs, you'll
probably be okay.
--
Tim Freeman
tim@infoscreen.com http://www.infoscreen.com/resume.html
Web-centered Java and Perl programming in Silicon Valley or offsite
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Thu Jan 8 05:55:04 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id FAA16995; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 05:55:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id FAA16980; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 05:55:02 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (2082 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:52:41 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <199801080811.AAA00335@infoscreen.com>
References:
(message from Ben Best on Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:31:53 -0500 (EST))
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:56:31 +0000
To: Tim Freeman , benbest@benbest.com
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: Water restriction, second thoughts
Cc: CRAN@ListService.net, tim@infoscreen.com
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 8:11 am +0000 8/1/98, Tim Freeman wrote:
>
>There have probably been a few crazy people who have died from
>consumption of too much water. If you look them up and make sure your
>water intake is an order of magnitude less than theirs, you'll
>probably be okay.
Users of MDMA ('Ecstacy') are among them. There is a mechanism that
produces satiety with excess consumption of water. It does not rely on
volume (you can drink much more beer than water). MDMA inhibits this
feedback mechanism.
Most MDMA victims die from dehydration (in the UK, where MDMA is closely
associated with dance music), but overcompensation for this possibility has
resulted in some deaths from excess water consumption. The popular myth is
that you have to drink lots of water when you take MDMA, the truth is that
you only need to do this if you are dancing a lot.
The most famous case here is that of Leah Betts, whose parents are now
vigorous campaigners against drug abuse. The alleged suppliers of the drugs
were shot dead in their car, in a field in the countryside, some weeks
later.
>--
>Tim Freeman
>tim@infoscreen.com http://www.infoscreen.com/resume.html
>Web-centered Java and Perl programming in Silicon Valley or offsite
--
cheers, Ian
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Thu Jan 8 21:53:15 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id VAA03278; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:53:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from vcn.bc.ca (oberon@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id VAA03267; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:53:14 -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 UAA16429
for ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:53:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky
To: cran@listservice.net
Subject: 19'th update on fly longevity experiments
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
This is the nineteenth update of my fly experiments. There was a delay
in starting the 7'th run, since my breeding stock unexpectedly almost
died out. I restarted some more breeding bottles and the flies seem to be
doing well now.
Onion 4X did a good job of "squaring the survival curve" in run #6. No
onion 4X flies outlived the longest lived control flies, so no antiaging
effect could be detected. I suspect that high doses of onion powder may
be acting as a non-toxic bactericide, something I have been searching for
a long time. This stimulated me to test combinations of onion 4X and some
other supplements in the 7'th run.
The trouble with my experiments up till now, is that early mortality
is so high, that no antiaging supplement can be expected to significantly
increase life span, unless it also acts against early mortality as well.
Since I am assuming that early deaths are due partly to pathogens, then
antiaging supplements, which do not also act as a bactericides, may not
increase life span significantly. It is this dual action (bactericidal &
antiaging) that may account for the good results with paprika, sage and
sumac in the 6'th run.
For the sixth run I used cool water that had been boiled. In the
seventh run, except for a few control bottles, I am adding water that is
still boiling, so as to help sterilize the fly food/supplement powder
mixtures. We'll see if this makes a difference.
Sixth Run SURVIVAL ON DAY
BB# Supplement #10 #14 #18 #26 #36 #41 #45 #52 #57 #62 #65
1 cntl 1 93% 87% 80% 47% 20% 20% 7% 7% 0% - -
1 cntl 1 +yeast 90 85 70 45 20 5 5 5 0 - -
1 B complex 94 82 71 47 12 12 6 0 - - -
1 B complex 4X 83 78 67 44 6 0 - - - - -
1 chitosan 86 79 64 36 7 0 - - - - -
1 chitosan 4X 83 83 83 75 42 33 25 8 8 0 -
1 chondroitin sulfate 89 83 83 78 56 33 11 0 - - -
1 chondroitin sulfate 4X 88 82 65 65 24 12 6 0 - - -
1 chromium picolinate 75 65 60 50 25 10 5 5 5 0 -
1 chromium picolinate 4X 92 88 83 79 58 33 21 13 4 0 -
1 cinnamon 90 85 85 75 55 50 35 10 0 - -
1 cinnamon 4X 93 87 80 40 33 20 13 7 0 - -
1 DMAE bitartrate 85 62 62 46 31 15 15 0 - - -
1 DMAE bitartrate 4X 78 78 78 56 44 22 6 0 - - -
2 cntl 2 89 82 67 37 15 7 4 0 - - -
2 cntl 2 +yeast 82 82 64 18 5 5 5 5 0 - -
2 french mushroom 80 72 56 40 8 0 - - - - -
2 french mushroom 4X 74 43 43 26 4 4 4 0 - - -
2 kava kava 79 67 54 38 25 0 - - - - -
2 kava kava 4X 83 75 64 56 22 11 6 3 0 - -
2 onion 77 73 68 32 18 9 9 0 - - -
2 onion 4X 81 75 75 63 56 56 50 25 0 - -
2 paprika, spanish 84 76 60 48 20 24 12 4 4 4 4
2 paprika, spanish 4X 94 82 76 59 24 12 12 6 0 - -
2 l-proline 73 60 53 33 20 20 13 7 0 - -
2 l-proline 4X 94 81 75 59 34 19 9 6 3 0 -
2 sage 95 68 63 32 16 16 5 0 - - -
2 sage 4X 95 90 90 85 60 35 30 20 15 10 0
2 sodium citrate 62 46 46 38 15 8 8 8 0 - -
2 sodium citrate 4X 89 83 61 33 28 11 11 6 6 0 -
3 cntl 3 77 68 64 59 18 14 5 5 0 - -
3 cntl 3 +yeast 92 85 62 15 0 - - - - - -
3 St John's Wort 85 75 70 40 15 10 0 - - - -
3 St John's Wort 4X 72 50 39 0 - - - - - - -
3 sumac 43 43 43 36 14 7 7 0 - - -
3 sumac 4X 79 71 57 36 29 21 21 21 7 7 0
3 wild yam 50 42 25 25 8 8 0 - - - -
3 wild yam 4X 82 55 50 32 14 5 5 0 - - -
Seventh Run
BB# Supplement
1 cntl 1
1 hot cntl 1 (boiling water used - same as with supplement bottles)
1 creatine: 1/16'th T (teaspoon)
1 creatine 4X: 1/4 T
1 fennel: 1/16 T
1 fennel 4X: 1/4 T
1 gaba: 1/16 T
1 gaba 4X: 1/4 T
1 garam masala: 1/16 T
1 garam masala 4X: 1/4 T
1 guggulipid: 1/4 capsule, 62.5 mg (1.56 mg guggulsterone)
1 guggulipid 4X: 1 capsule, 250 mg (6.25 mg guggulsterone)
1 hawthorn: 1/4 capsule, 125 mg
1 hawthorn 4X: 1 capsule, 500 mg
1 lemon peel: 1/16 T
1 lemon peel 4X: 1/4 T
1 l-lysine: 1/4 capsule, 125 mg
1 l-lysine 4X: 1 capsule 500 mg
1 l-ornithine: 1/4 capsule, 125 mg
1 l-ornithine 4X: 1 capsule, 500 mg
2 cntl 2
2 hot cntl 2
2 onion 4X: 1/4 T
2 onion 4X/chitosan 4X: 1 capsule, 300 mg
2 onion 4X/chitosan 8X: 2 capsules, 600 mg
2 onion 4X/chromium picolinate 4X: 1 capsule, 500 mcg
2 onion 4X/chromium picolinate 8X: 2 capsules, 1000 mcg
2 onion 4X/cinnamon: 1/16 T
2 onion 4X/cinnamon/chitosan 4X
2 onion 4X/paprika: 1/16 T
2 onion 4X/paprika/chitosan 4X
2 onion 4X/sage 4X: 1/4 T
2 onion 4X/sage 4X/chitosan 4X
3 cntl 3
3 hot cntl 3
3 shark cartilage: 1/4 capsule, 187.5 mg
3 shark cartilage 4X: 1 capsule, 750 mg
3 silymarin: 1 capsule, 50 mg
3 silymarin 4X: 4 capsules, 200 mg
3 thiodiproprionic acid: 1/16 T
3 thiodiproprionic acid 4X: 1/4 T
3 trimethylglycine: 125 mg (also called betaine)
3 trimethylglycine 4X: 500 mg
3 l-tyrosine: 1/4 capsule, 125 mg
3 l-tyrosine 4X: 1 capsule, 500 mg
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Jan 9 00:17:03 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id AAA20533; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:17:03 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id AAA20526; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:17:02 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA27492;
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:17:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA06376;
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:16:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:16:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Water restriction, second thoughts
In-Reply-To: <199801080811.AAA00335@infoscreen.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Tim Freeman wrote:
> >However, I am beginning to wonder
> >whether excessive levels of water might not result in excessive stress on
> >the kidney.
>
> Looking at the "Recommended Dietary Allowances" book by the (US)
> National Research Council, the only problem they list with having too
> much water is "hyposmolarity",
[snip]
> My point here is that at least we know that acute water
> toxicity is hard to achieve.)
On page 13 of the January-February 1998 issue of FDA CONSUMER magazine
there is the statement:
"Fad diets, such as those very high in
protein, however, can hurt your kidneys. Drinking very little water, or
an overabundance of water (more than 8 quarts a day), may also damage
these organs."
If acute damage occurs at 8 quarts per day, could lesser amounts
produce sub-acute damage? This is of special importance for those of
us who are hoping to live a long, long time.
> >A couple of months ago I cited one of the few lifespan studies
> >that evaluated cause of death for the rodent-subjects -- and kidney
> >failure was fairly frequent.
>
> That's just rodents being rodents. Most humans don't die from kidney
> problems.
Yes, rodents are much less susceptible to cardiovascular disease.
On page 98 of HOW AND WHY WE AGE by Leonard Hayflick, there is a
table of leading causes of death for people over 65:
1 Heart disease
2 Cancer
3 Stroke
4 Chronic obstructive lung disease
5 Pneumonia and influenza
6 Diabetes
7 Accidents
8 Atherosclerosis
9 Kidney Disease
10 Blood Infections
For a person practicing CRAN, items 1,2,3,6 and 8 should be very
much lower on the list. 5 may also be included if it is indicative of
a hospital infection acquired due to a weakened immune system (as so
often happens). I would assume that people practicing CRAN would
probably be nonsmokers, so that would probably knock-out 4. Thus,
kidney disease would be a major danger for people who are practicing
a healthy & careful lifestyle.
And I need to practice what I preach and cut-down on my protein
consumption.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Jan 9 07:09:01 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id HAA19470; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:09:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from arl-img-8.compuserve.com (arl-img-8.compuserve.com [149.174.217.138]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id HAA19431; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:08:56 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
by arl-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) id JAA05738;
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:07:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:05:35 -0500
From: "Michael R. Edelstein"
Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
To: Ben Best
Cc: Janice Edelstein ,
Joe Fuhrig , John Howard ,
Jeff Hummel , CRAN List ,
Rossella Livraga , Nando Pelusi ,
Kathryn Pinna ,
Roberta Rosen
Message-ID: <199801090906_MC2-2EB5-B8EC@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST)
Ben Best wrote in part:
> I don't know anything about the CHINA PROJECT -- a book, I =
> presume. Since you obviously know more about the matter than I do, why
> don't we start (and maybe end) with you sharing *your* thoughts about w=
hy
> this is a matter deserving our (or my) attention.
T. Colin Campbell's CHINA PROJECT, conducted under the auspices of
Cornell, Oxford, and Beijing Universities, is a "massive survey designed =
to study diet, lifesyle and disease across the far reaches of China; it =
includes almost 7,000 Chinese families. By investigating simultaneously =
more diseases and more dietary characteristics than any other study to =
date, the project has generated the most comprehensive database in the =
world on the multiple causes of disease." =
(Source: www.envirolink.org/arrs/essays/veg_diet.html)
Some findings and conclusions from the China Study:
"Even small intakes of animal foods, which simultaneously alter the intak=
e =
of countless nutrients and other constituents, are capable of significant=
ly
elevating plasma cholesterol and similar biomarkers, and thereby elevate =
the risk of degenerative diseases."
"Quite simply, the more you substitute plant foods for animal foods, the =
healthier you are likely to be. I now consider veganism to the the ideal
diet. =
A vegan diet - particularly one that is low in fat - will substantially
reduce =
disease risks. Plus, we've seen no disadvantages from veganism. In every =
respect, vegans appear to enjoy equal or better health in comparison to
both =
vegetarians and non-vegetarians." --T. Colin Campbell, Nutritional
Biochemist,
Cornell University; Director,Cornell-Oxford-China Project on Nutrition,
Health =
and Environment.
The findings of the China Project are summarized in two chapters by T.
Colin =
Campbell in: WESTERN DISEASES: THEIR DIETARY PREVENTION AND =
REVERSIBILITY, by N. Temple and D. Burkitt, (eds). Totowa, NJ: Humana
Press, 1994.
Michael
Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D. =
Clinical Psychologist
San Francisco
415-673-2848 (24 hours)
Author of THREE MINUTE THERAPY: =
CHANGE YOUR THINKING, CHANGE YOUR LIFE*
(with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.)
FEATURES HELP FOR ANXIETY, DEPRESSION,
RELATIONSHIPS, PANIC ATTACKS AND ADDICTION
*A Quality Paperback Book Club/Book-of-the-Month Club Selection
TO ORDER: www.amazon.com
Or toll free: 1-800-986-4135
DrEdelstein@ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Tue Jan 13 22:34:13 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA27681; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:34:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (root@proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA27658; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:34:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from infoscreen.com (timothy.vip.best.com [206.86.94.206]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) with SMTP id VAA06583; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tim@localhost) by infoscreen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00218; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:56:49 -0800
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:56:49 -0800
From: Tim Freeman
Message-Id: <199801130756.XAA00218@infoscreen.com>
To: benbest@benbest.com
CC: CRAN@ListService.net, tim@infoscreen.com
In-reply-to: (message from Ben Best on Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:16:07 -0500 (EST))
Subject: Re: Water restriction, second thoughts
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
From: Ben Best
> On page 13 of the January-February 1998 issue of FDA CONSUMER magazine
>there is the statement:
> "Fad diets, such as those very high in
>protein, however, can hurt your kidneys. Drinking very little water, or
>an overabundance of water (more than 8 quarts a day), may also damage
>these organs."
Thanks for looking this up. Do they give a number for the lower
bound? In general I believe that one should aim for the middle.
I multiplied out my highest water intake, and it came out to 2.5
quarts/day. So the ratio between the normal intake and their estimate
of the toxic intake isn't that much.
Water is approximately conserved, so if you want to measure your
total water intake, including the water in the vegetables, you can
measure the volume of your urine. The volume of your bladder is
approximately constant, so you can get a good approximation by
measuring once and then multiplying by the number of times you pee.
--
Tim Freeman
tim@infoscreen.com http://www.infoscreen.com/resume.html
Web-centered Java and Perl programming in Silicon Valley or offsite
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Jan 14 14:07:42 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA22918; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:07:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id OAA22817; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:07:35 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA07601;
Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:07:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA01673;
Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:07:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:07:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
In-Reply-To: <199801090906_MC2-2EB5-B8EC@compuserve.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Michael R. Edelstein wrote:
> Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
>
> On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST)
> Ben Best wrote in part:
>
> > I don't know anything about the CHINA PROJECT -- a book, I
> > presume. Since you obviously know more about the matter than I do, why
> > don't we start (and maybe end) with you sharing *your* thoughts about why
> > this is a matter deserving our (or my) attention.
>
> T. Colin Campbell's CHINA PROJECT, conducted under the auspices of
> Cornell, Oxford, and Beijing Universities, is a "massive survey designed
> to study diet, lifesyle and disease across the far reaches of China; it
> includes almost 7,000 Chinese families. By investigating simultaneously
> more diseases and more dietary characteristics than any other study to
> date, the project has generated the most comprehensive database in the
> world on the multiple causes of disease."
> (Source: www.envirolink.org/arrs/essays/veg_diet.html)
>
> Some findings and conclusions from the China Study:
[snip]
> "Quite simply, the more you substitute plant foods for animal foods, the
> healthier you are likely to be. I now consider veganism to the the ideal
> diet.
[snip]
>At 2:31 pm +0000 22/12/1997, Ben Best wrote:
>
>On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Michael R. Edelstein wrote:
>
>> Ben,
>>
>> I value the astuteness with which you've evaluated research
>> in the past. Consequently, I'm interested in your thoughts
>> about T. Colin Campbell's CHINA PROJECT, in terms of its
>> implications for our own health and longevity.
>
> Thanks for the flattering remarks, Michael, but they seem to translate
>into *work*. I don't know anything about the CHINA PROJECT -- a book, I
>presume. Since you obviously know more about the matter than I do, why
>don't we start (and maybe end) with you sharing *your* thoughts about why
>this is a matter deserving our (or my) attention.
Michael,
Thanks again for your remarks of 19-Dec-1997 and your own
follow-up of 9-Jan-1998.
I looked at the URLs that Ian Eiloart supplied and am able to give
a more detailed response.
Overall, the CHINA PROJECT looks like an epidemiologist's dream:
large studies of a genetically homogenous population with negligible
migration and considerable variation in food consumption patterns.
At http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/campbell_china1.html
I find the statement "the main nutritional conclusion from this
study is the finding that the greater the consumption of a variety
of good quality plant-based foods, the lower the risk of those
diseases which are commonly found in western countries (eg, cancers,
cardiovascular diseases, diabetes). Based on these and other data,
we hypothesize that 80-90% of all such diseases could be prevented
before about age 90 years.
Ostensibly this would appear to be an impressive "squaring of
the curve", although it would only postpone the diseases of old
age and have no effect on maximum lifespan. In practice, however,
I think the rate of aging would be slowed because anything that
retards the development of adult-onset diabetes is likely to be
retarding glycation (which I regard as an aging mechanism). And
anything that reduces the incidence of cancer is likely to reduce
DNA damage in general (another mechanism of aging, in my view).
However, I think the categories of "plant foods" and "animal
foods" are too gross. I don't believe that a diet high in peanut
butter & cane sugar would be healthier than a diet high in
skim milk cheese. I believe that fruits & vegetables in general
are much more protective against cancer than nuts & grains (except
that wheat bran & psyllium can be highly protective against colon
cancer -- as per a study I cited earlier). Douglas Skrecky has presented
convincing evidence that cabbage is highly protective against cancer,
whereas cauliflower may increase the incidence of cancer. Soybeans are
more protective than other kinds of beans. The precise identity of the
"plant food" and "animal food" is important -- as is the type of cancer.
See my essay on cancer at http://www.benbest.com/health/cancer.html
Another caveat is the statement I see at the URL
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/campbell_china2.html
"Presently in China, many foods are preserved either by salting
or by fermentation, leaving opportunities for widespread exposure
to endogenous nitrosamine formation and mold toxins..."
It seems likely to me that animal foods are subject to this kind of
storage much more than plant foods, which could bias the results more
strongly than would be the case where freezing is a more common method
of food preservation and storage.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Jan 14 21:39:22 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id VAA17882; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:39:22 -0700 (MST)
Received: from vcn.bc.ca (oberon@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id VAA17817; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:39:17 -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 UAA21104;
Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:39:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Skrecky
To: cran@listservice.net
cc: oberon@vcn.bc.ca
Subject: perilla oil prevents growth of fat tissue
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Authors
Okuno M. Kajiwara K. Imai S. Kobayashi T. Honma N. Maki T. Suruga K.
Goda T. Takase S. Muto Y. Moriwaki H.
Institution
First Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University School of Medicine,
Gifu 500, Japan.
Title
Perilla oil prevents the excessive growth of visceral
adipose tissue in rats by down-regulating adipocyte differentiation.
Source
Journal of Nutrition. 127(9):1752-7, 1997 Sep.
Abstract
We examined the effect of dietary oils with different fatty acid compositions
on the growth of visceral adipose tissue in rats. Rats were fed for 4 mo
starting at weaning a basal diet containing (12 g/100 g diet)
perilla oil rich in (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids
(PUFA), safflower oil rich in (n-6) PUFA, olive oil rich in monounsaturated
fatty acid, or beef tallow rich in saturated fatty acids. The amount of food
consumed and body weight gain did not differ among the four dietary groups.
The weight of the epididymal fat pad and the serum triglyceride concentration
in perilla oil-fed rats were significantly lower (P < 0.05)
than those of olive oil- and beef tallow-fed groups. The product of [(volume
of individual adipocytes) x (number of adipocytes in epididymal fat pad)],
which presumably represents total adipocyte volume in the fat pad, was
significantly lower (P < 0.05) in perilla oil-fed rats than
in beef tallow- and olive oil-fed groups. Expression of the late genes of
adipocyte differentiation, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha,
adipocyte P2 and adipsin, was significantly (P < 0. 05) down-regulated in
epididymal fat tissue of rats that had been fed perilla oil
rather than beef tallow or olive oil, whereas expression of the early gene,
lipoprotein lipase, was not significantly affected. Greater levels (P < 0.05)
of (n-3) PUFA in the membrane phospholipid fraction of the fat tissue were
observed in perilla oil-fed rats than in the other dietary
groups. These results suggest that perilla oil or (n-3) PUFA
prevents excessive growth of adipose tissue in rats at least in part by
suppressing the late phase of adipocyte differentiation.
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Jan 16 11:02:51 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA26660; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:02:51 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA26641; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:02:48 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04230;
Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:02:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10966;
Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:02:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:02:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Water restriction, second thoughts
In-Reply-To: <199801130756.XAA00218@infoscreen.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Tim Freeman wrote:
> From: Ben Best
> > On page 13 of the January-February 1998 issue of FDA CONSUMER magazine
> >there is the statement:
> > "Fad diets, such as those very high in
> >protein, however, can hurt your kidneys. Drinking very little water, or
> >an overabundance of water (more than 8 quarts a day), may also damage
> >these organs."
>
> Thanks for looking this up. Do they give a number for the lower
> bound? In general I believe that one should aim for the middle.
No, I quoted the entire reference. I feel somewhat ashamed to be
quoting from the FDA CONSUMER. They give no references for their
"authoritative information" and I have little respect for that
organization (I subscribed to the magazine in a "know your enemy"
frame of mind). The magazine is really written for those who believe
(like the FDA bureaucrats themselves) that the FDA is the ultimate
font of Truth. Personally, I'm more interested in the results of
researchers.
I will have to go the a BioMedical library to try to find references
that support/refute and/or explain these FDA assertions. I will certainly
let you (and this list) know if I find anything (or if I don't).
> I multiplied out my highest water intake, and it came out to 2.5
> quarts/day. So the ratio between the normal intake and their estimate
> of the toxic intake isn't that much.
>
> Water is approximately conserved, so if you want to measure your
> total water intake, including the water in the vegetables, you can
> measure the volume of your urine. The volume of your bladder is
> approximately constant, so you can get a good approximation by
> measuring once and then multiplying by the number of times you pee.
I have never studied the matter closely, but I think there is
a large variation in my pee volumes. Mood and circumstance greatly
affect my decision to urinate -- moreso (up to a point) than my
"urinary urgency". Precise measurements would involve collections
of all urine (not too hard to do with a plastic gasoline container,
or something similar).
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Jan 17 23:42:25 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id XAA12930; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:42:25 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id XAA12922; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:42:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA28370;
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 01:42:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA22902;
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 01:42:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 01:42:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Diabetes Mellitus and the mechanisms of CRAN
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I apologize in advance for being ignorant of something that may have
been well-known to many of you. However, I have just been reading the
section in HARRISON'S PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE dealing with
Diabetes Mellitus and it opened my eyes to a few fundamental facts.
In many ways diabetes resembles accelerated aging, and I have long
assumed that this was due to *glycation* (ie, nonenzymatic addition of
hexoses -- sugars -- to proteins). I have also assumed that high levels
of blood glucose cause the insulin resistance of adult onset diabetes
(which affects about 15% of people over 65 years of age, as I recall).
HARRISONS' simply says "Obesity is the most common cause of insulin
resistance" without saying *how* obesity causes insulin resistance
or where this knowledge came from.
HARRISONS' mentions glycation due to the high blood glucose of
diabetics as leading to high incidence of atherosclerotic disease
by virture of the fact that glycated LDL cholesterol is not recognized
by the LDL receptor, which increases LDL plasma half-life.
(Arteriosclerosis also seems likely because, as HARRISONS' says,
"glycated collagen is less soluble and more resistant to degredation
by collagenase".)
But HARRISONS' brought my attention to a second detrimental effect
of elevated blood glucose: reduction of glucose to sorbitol by the
enzyme aldol reductase. Sorbitol is toxic to tissues, and it is this
toxicity which has been held responsible for the retinopathy, nephropathy
and neuropathy associated with diabetes.
Retinopathy -- although most diabetics don't become blind, diabetic
retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in the US
Nephopathy -- renal disease is the leading cause of death in
diabetics, and about half of the cases of end-stage
renal disease in the US occur due to diabetic
nephropathy
Neuropathy -- a painful condition affecting almost every aspect
of the nervous system except the brain, which can
lead to cardiorespiratory arrest and sudden death
HARRISONS' says there is now an increasing tendency to attribute
both these "pathy"'s and the atherosclerosis of diabetes to both
glycation *and* sorbitol toxicity.
In any case, this information serves to reinforce the idea that
many of the benefits of CRAN are due to reduced blood glucose due
to reduced calorie consumption and reduced calorie utilization
(though lost weight in adaptation to the reduced calories).
Douglas Skrecky has asserted that he can obtain most of the
benefits of CRAN by consuming low glycemic index foods. However,
HARRISONS' state that "The rate of glycation with fructose is
seven or eight times that with glucose". Thus, despite the fact
that fructose has a low glycemic index (why should it cause elevation
in blood glucose, when it is a sugar itself?), it is evidently more
damaging than glucose. This statement also has implications for
those who consume large amounts of fruits (which are high in
fructose) -- the benefits of the phytochemicals may be more than
offset by the harm of fructose. All the more reason why *vegetables*
not *fruits* (and not "fruits & vegetables") is the base of my
"food pyramid".
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Jan 18 10:45:16 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA28371; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:45:16 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA28365; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:45:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (3465 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:43:34 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: <199801090906_MC2-2EB5-B8EC@compuserve.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:22:04 +0000
To: Ben Best ,
Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
Cc: Ben Best
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
> However, I think the categories of "plant foods" and "animal
>foods" are too gross. I don't believe that a diet high in peanut
>butter & cane sugar would be healthier than a diet high in
>skim milk cheese.
Oh, damn! ;^)
>I believe that fruits & vegetables in general
>are much more protective against cancer than nuts & grains (except
>that wheat bran & psyllium can be highly protective against colon
>cancer -- as per a study I cited earlier).
I reac recently (Probably in the 'Independent', a serious Uk newspaper,
that a specific chemical present in fibre was responsible for this effect,
and not the scouring effect that is usually supposed to be the mechanism.
anybody have any details on this?
>Douglas Skrecky has presented
>convincing evidence that cabbage is highly protective against cancer,
>whereas cauliflower may increase the incidence of cancer. Soybeans are
>more protective than other kinds of beans. The precise identity of the
>"plant food" and "animal food" is important -- as is the type of cancer.
>See my essay on cancer at http://www.benbest.com/health/cancer.html
There is a lot of talk around about the importance of phytochemicals (are
these all anti-oxidants?) as anti-cancer agents. Not may animals make
phytochemicals, but perhaps retinas could be an important part of an anti
cancer diet!
>
> Another caveat is the statement I see at the URL
>http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/campbell_china2.html
>"Presently in China, many foods are preserved either by salting
>or by fermentation, leaving opportunities for widespread exposure
>to endogenous nitrosamine formation and mold toxins..."
As an undrgraduate, I was shown a BBC video about a village in china that
had about 25% of all adult deaths attributable to esophageal cancer
(otherwise rare). The video was about how the researchers discovered that
the cancer was due to a certain pickled vegetable that had high content of
some nasty mineral from the soil. The pickling method made the mineral more
bioavailable. Could be an example of what you quote. Traditionally only
wealthy chinese (humans, even) eat a lot of meat. There still aren't many
wealthy chinese (proportionally).
> It seems likely to me that animal foods are subject to this kind of
>storage much more than plant foods, which could bias the results more
>strongly than would be the case where freezing is a more common method
>of food preservation and storage.
Probably not true. The chinese aren't as wealthy as us westerners. I bet
most chinese don't use freezing at all. Which is why they use so much
pickling. 'Fraid I'm just guessing, like you. Where can one get that kind
of info?
--
cheers, Ian
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Jan 18 12:20:17 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA14030; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:24:33 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA14017; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:24:31 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (3225 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:19:39 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:17:01 +0000
To: Doug Skrecky , cran@listservice.net
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Does perilla oil prevent growth of fat tissue
Cc: oberon@vcn.bc.ca
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 4:39 am +0000 15/1/98, Doug Skrecky wrote:
>Authors
> Okuno M. Kajiwara K. Imai S. Kobayashi T. Honma N. Maki T. Suruga K.
> Goda T. Takase S. Muto Y. Moriwaki H.
>Institution
> First Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University School of Medicine,
> Gifu 500, Japan.
>Title
> Perilla oil prevents the excessive growth of visceral
> adipose tissue in rats by down-regulating adipocyte differentiation.
>Source
> Journal of Nutrition. 127(9):1752-7, 1997 Sep.
>Abstract
> We examined the effect of dietary oils with different fatty acid
>compositions
> on the growth of visceral adipose tissue in rats. Rats were fed for 4 mo
> starting at weaning a basal diet containing (12 g/100 g diet)
> perilla oil rich in (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids
> (PUFA), safflower oil rich in (n-6) PUFA, olive oil rich in monounsaturated
> fatty acid, or beef tallow rich in saturated fatty acids. The amount of food
------------------
> consumed and body weight gain did not differ among the four dietary groups.
--------------------------------------------
Given that the weight gain did not differ, what do we think is the
significance of this research? Presumably there was some other tissue gain,
and the question is which tissue is it better to have, if any?
> The weight of the epididymal fat pad and the serum triglyceride
>concentration
> in perilla oil-fed rats were significantly lower (P < 0.05)
> than those of olive oil- and beef tallow-fed groups. The product of [(volume
> of individual adipocytes) x (number of adipocytes in epididymal fat pad)],
> which presumably represents total adipocyte volume in the fat pad, was
> significantly lower (P < 0.05) in perilla oil-fed rats than
> in beef tallow- and olive oil-fed groups. Expression of the late genes of
> adipocyte differentiation, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha,
> adipocyte P2 and adipsin, was significantly (P < 0. 05) down-regulated in
> epididymal fat tissue of rats that had been fed perilla oil
> rather than beef tallow or olive oil, whereas expression of the early gene,
> lipoprotein lipase, was not significantly affected. Greater levels (P <
>0.05)
> of (n-3) PUFA in the membrane phospholipid fraction of the fat tissue were
> observed in perilla oil-fed rats than in the other dietary
> groups. These results suggest that perilla oil or (n-3) PUFA
> prevents excessive growth of adipose tissue in rats at least in part by
> suppressing the late phase of adipocyte differentiation.
--
cheers, Ian
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Jan 18 20:18:12 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA02697; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:21:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA02692; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:21:04 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199801182321.QAA02692@listservice.net>
Received: (qmail 1454 invoked from network); 18 Jan 1998 23:21:05 -0000
Received: from ak070.du.pipex.com (HELO yz34.dial.pipex.com) (193.130.250.70)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 1998 23:21:05 -0000
From: "Phil Harris"
To: "Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver"
Subject: Re: Diabetes Mellitus and the mechanisms of CRAN
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:33:26 -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 BEST WROTE
> From: Ben Best
> To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
SNIP
> In many ways diabetes resembles accelerated aging, and I have long
> assumed that this was due to *glycation* (ie, nonenzymatic addition of
> hexoses -- sugars -- to proteins). SNIP
>I have also assumed that high levels
> of blood glucose cause the insulin resistance of adult onset diabetes
> (which affects about 15% of people over 65 years of age, as I recall).
> HARRISONS' simply says "Obesity is the most common cause of insulin
> resistance" without saying *how* obesity causes insulin resistance
> or where this knowledge came from.SNIP
Comment: perhaps diabetes IS the result an accelerated aging of a specific
target(s). Even if we avoid this premature aging by cultivating low blood
sugar, we will "square the curve", we are still not going to maximise our
potential for longevity without CR's more general effects.
Most but not all late onset diabetes happens to people who are obese. Not
all obese people get clinical diabetes. Some rise in blood sugar level (due
to insulin resistance), however, is also a feature of most of us as we age,
I believe. This may be a relatively modern feature as the clinical diabetes
has an increased incidence for (all ?) the at-risk age bands and is still
rising. As well as increased obesity, sugar intake over modern times also
correlates (peaking at more than 100 pounds per year, per capita: sucrose
rapidly breaks down to 50/50 fructose/glucose) and severely reduced refined
sugar intake is a ubiquitous management intervention. This last seems to
work; ie. is evidence based and counteracts insulin resistance, but is
often linked to some CR and weight reduction, so which is the important
factor?
If diet is not sufficient they give drugs because if we do not control
higher blood glucose we get powerful synergisms and rapid accelaration in
atheroschlerosis. (I was interested in the kidney connection: news to me.)
However, if CR and low refined sugar gives good control of blood glucose
even as we age I do not see a problem for CR people eating sensible amounts
of fruit containing variable amounts of sucrose and fructose.
Agree with Ben, interesting area and have long thought that CR can learn
from diabetes management. However management changes; there is still not
much emphasis on glycemic index. A guy I know eats a lot of bread (glucose)
but successfully counteracts his insulin resistance with low sucrose,
walking and mild weight control.
Best wishes
Phil Harris
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Jan 19 22:36:57 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id VAA22229; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:56:14 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id VAA22221; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:56:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA01498;
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:56:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA16191;
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:55:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:55:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> There is a lot of talk around about the importance of phytochemicals (are
> these all anti-oxidants?) as anti-cancer agents. Not may animals make
> phytochemicals, but perhaps retinas could be an important part of an anti
> cancer diet!
Literally, "phytochemical" means any chemical from a plant, but its
contemporary ("colloquial") use (and the way I use the word) invariably
means "anti-oxidant". What evidence do you have that retinas could be
so important? Why would they be better than Vitamin A or E? It seems
to me that there are plenty of phytochemicals with more demonstrable
potency.
> > It seems likely to me that animal foods are subject to this kind of
> >storage much more than plant foods, which could bias the results more
> >strongly than would be the case where freezing is a more common method
> >of food preservation and storage.
>
> Probably not true. The chinese aren't as wealthy as us westerners. I bet
> most chinese don't use freezing at all. Which is why they use so much
> pickling. 'Fraid I'm just guessing, like you. Where can one get that kind
> of info?
My choice of words was ambiguous. What I meant by what I said is that
in comparing Chinese consumption with North American consumption, one
should remember that meats in China are stored by pickling and meats in
North America are stored by freezing. Thus, comparing a plant-product
eater with an animal-product eater in China might not be the same as
making that comparison in North America.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Jan 19 22:49:44 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA11958; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:49:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA11940; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:49:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA07484;
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:49:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA18811;
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:49:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:49:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Diabetes Mellitus and the mechanisms of CRAN
In-Reply-To: <199801182321.QAA02692@listservice.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Phil Harris wrote:
> Comment: perhaps diabetes IS the result an accelerated aging of a specific
> target(s). Even if we avoid this premature aging by cultivating low blood
> sugar, we will "square the curve", we are still not going to maximise our
> potential for longevity without CR's more general effects.
I think that insulin resistance, leading to adult-onset diabetes,
is likely due to glycation of insulin receptors -- and that this could
easily be regarded as "accelerated aging". Since everyone must have
glucose in their blood, this means that everyone must be -- to *some
extent* -- glycating their insulin receptors. The result could be one
of the symptoms of "aging".
But even if what you say is true, I don't snub my nose at "squaring
the curve". I would be very happy to know that I had even-odds of living
to be 100, even if my chance of living beyond 120 weren't increased a
bit. The next few decades have terrific prospects of discoveries which
will extend lifespan by many means -- including maximum lifespan. Anything
I can do to maintain my survival in this period gives me greater chances
of achieving an "indefinitely long" lifespan.
> Most but not all late onset diabetes happens to people who are obese.
You are looking at this from a conventional medical perspective,
which is not my perspective. I will try to make myself more clear.
My point is that blood glucose causes glycation of insulin receptors,
which increases insulin resistance, which causes more elevation of
blood glucose in a viscious cycle that eventually leads to greatly
increase glycation of a wide variety of proteins all over the body
leading to generalized performance degredation of almost all body
systems ("aging"?). Just because this degredation occurs to some
threshold value sooner in obese people (who undoubtedly have had
high blood glucose) doesn't mean it is not occurring to a lesser
degree in everyone. And for people who plan-to, or are capable-of,
living a long, long time, the results of this process are bound to
eventually become manifest (even if they are NOT obese). It is
all a "matter of degree" -- not "all-or-nothing" diabetes or
non-diabetes. The phenomenon only happens more slowly in a CRAN
practitioner -- in no one is the process *halted*.
> As well as increased obesity, sugar intake over modern times also
> correlates (peaking at more than 100 pounds per year, per capita: sucrose
> rapidly breaks down to 50/50 fructose/glucose) and severely reduced refined
> sugar intake is a ubiquitous management intervention. This last seems to
> work; ie. is evidence based and counteracts insulin resistance, but is
> often linked to some CR and weight reduction, so which is the important
> factor?
Your language seems fuzzy to me, and it is hard to get a fix on what
you mean by this. But my point is simple and should, I hope, be clear: the
lower the blood glucose, the less glycation and hence (I suggest) the less
aging. CRAN lowers the glucose requirement, therefore a CRAN practitioner
can (and will) have a lower blood glucose than a non-practitioner --
without suffering hypoglycemia.
> However, if CR and low refined sugar gives good control of blood glucose
> even as we age I do not see a problem for CR people eating sensible amounts
> of fruit containing variable amounts of sucrose and fructose.
Making "refined sugar" into a villian reflects the same kind of
anti-technology bias that we have seen earlier with the "primitive
man" pantheism of the "natural foods" vegan-mystics. Simple sugars are
simple sugars, and I don't think it matters too much whether they come
from "refined sugar" or honey or maple syrup or molasses. But even
the old saw about "simple sugars versus complex carbohydrates" has
proven to be overly simplistic from the point of view of empirical
science. As "glycemic index" experiments have shown, white potatoes
elevate blood sugar 70% as much as glucose (glycemic index = 70) and
corn flakes elevate blood sugar 80% as much as glucose (glycemic index
= 80), despite the fact that these are complex carbohydrates and
glucose is a simple sugar.
Concerning fruits and fructose, however, if it is true that
fructose causes 8 times the glycation that is caused by the same
amount of glucose, then the fact that fructose has a glycemic index
of 20 is very misleading. Glycemic index would be an index of glycation
damage only if nothing but glucose caused glycation.
> A guy I know eats a lot of bread (glucose)
> but successfully counteracts his insulin resistance with low sucrose,
> walking and mild weight control.
How do you *KNOW* he is successful?
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Tue Jan 20 06:03:37 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id GAA22873; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 06:03:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id GAA22762; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 06:03:27 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199801201303.GAA22762@listservice.net>
Received: (qmail 29350 invoked from network); 20 Jan 1998 13:03:24 -0000
Received: from ae094.du.pipex.com (HELO yz34.dial.pipex.com) (193.130.244.94)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 1998 13:03:24 -0000
From: "Phil Harris"
To: "Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver"
Subject: Re: Diabetes Mellitus and the mechanisms of CRAN
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:54:59 -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 BEST WROTE A REPLY TO MY POSTING
HE IS QUOTED > BELOW
I agree with Ben's general points about glycation and it being a "matter of
degree". Sorry if I was not clear. Was trying to stick to the obvious known
terrain.eg. I wrote "> > Most but not all late onset diabetes happens to
people who are obese."
Ben wrote SNIP
> But even if what you say is true, I don't snub my nose at "squaring
> the curve". I would be very happy to know that I had even-odds of living
> to be 100, even if my chance of living beyond 120 weren't increased a
> bit. SNIP
Absolutely! Looks even better to me because I came close to finishing at
49.
My points were x2 essentially.
1) Sucrose
Lowering sucrose does appear to be a useful disease management
intervention for late onset diabetes (see also below).
Sucrose intake does appear to have had a historically unique high in
industrial countries developed over the last 100 years.
Tipping in 2 pounds or more per week extra plausibly contributes to
problems. That is also 1 pound plus of fructose. Ben has found a case
against fructose irrespective of the argument about blood glucose and GI
index.
The point about "refined sucrose" is that you can so easily take it in such
EXTRA quantities compared with fruits and vegetables (there are also sugars
in vegetables). It is a matter of degree. The same story over fibre. [ Ben
does not like "anti-technology". I admit to being "anti-" in the sense that
many recent 'half-baked' technologies will probably need centuries of
undoing. If Ben wants a fuller list of what I have in mind it had better be
off this List. Some intellectually respectable arguments have been deployed
eg Sarewitz et al. I note BTW that my diet, apart from food security which
is not a trivial point, is essentially pre-industrial. I live in a modern
farming area and eat virtually nothing of what is being grown round me.
Sorry about all that.]
More to the point. Summing up. There does appear prima facie something odd
about sucrose, perhaps over and above direct effects on blood glucose or
obesity. Maybe it is the associated high fructose delivery, I do not know.
The arguments against over-eating as against selective over-eating probably
could go on, so I won't. For the purpose of this comment, one is not
selectively obese. I assume obesity to be a risk factor.
2) I assume that the numerous beneficial effects of CR are not all down to
blood glucose control and lower degrees of glycation. One could argue about
that, but my knowledge is not sufficient to contribute much except to say
that lots of metabolic pathways appear involved and effects on hormones
appear very interesting. I assume also that premature aging ( which
diabetes might accelerate; I agree with Ben) can be highly selective in
middle life. Break a weak link and you do not live as long. Although CR's
effect on the max age limit also appears prima facie unlikely due to one
mechanism, I continue to think glycation control appears a very good thing.
(Having said that, I have had a rethink and am not so sure now about the
validity of this concept of *premature aging* I seem to have been carrying
around for a while. Another day.)
I WROTE> > A guy I know eats a lot of bread
(glucose)
> > but successfully counteracts his insulin resistance with low sucrose,
> > walking and mild weight control.
BEN WROTE
> How do you *KNOW* he is successful?
Well, the reason I used him was because he was following a standard
recommendation and they monitor his progress carefully because thy need to
give him drugs if it is not successful enough (OK it is a matter of
degree). They measure his *fasting* blood level which seems to change with
changing diet, ie. with what happens during and after food assimilation. I
am not a student of the mechanisms that might be involved. They have case
histories and the recommendations apparently are reasonably evidence-based.
In his case, when for a while he left off walking so much, his monitored
blood glucose started to drift up again. So he put in the walking again and
went back to his post-intervention 'satisfactory' base-line. He is not on
CR but lost a lot of weight after diagnosis several years ago and has not
put on very much since.
Interesting area
I have shot my bolt on this one I think
best wishes
Phil Harris
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Tue Jan 20 12:23:04 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id MAA19576; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:23:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id MAA19484; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:22:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (4338 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:19:34 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:57:37 +0000
To: Ben Best ,
Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: CHINA PROJECT
Cc: Ben Best
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 4:55 am +0000 20/1/98, Ben Best wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>> There is a lot of talk around about the importance of phytochemicals (are
>> these all anti-oxidants?) as anti-cancer agents. Not may animals make
>> phytochemicals, but perhaps retinas could be an important part of an anti
>> cancer diet!
>
> Literally, "phytochemical" means any chemical from a plant, but its
>contemporary ("colloquial") use (and the way I use the word) invariably
>means "anti-oxidant". What evidence do you have that retinas could be
>so important? Why would they be better than Vitamin A or E? It seems
>to me that there are plenty of phytochemicals with more demonstrable
>potency.
Oops, sorry that was very careless of me. I was confusing 'phytochemical'
with 'photochemical'. The bit about retinas was in jest (a very obscure
joke considering my mistake!)
I just checked my dictionary, 'Chambers science and technology dictionary,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1988'. It gives
PHYTOCHEMISTRY: (Bot.) The study of the chemical constituents, and
especially the secondary metabolites, of plants. SECONDARY METABOLITES:
Applied to those compounds which do not function directly in biochemical
activites like photosynthesis (see how wrong I was!), respiration and
protein synthesis which support growth. They include alkaloids, terpenoids,
flavinoids which may function in defence against insects, fungi and
herbivores, in allelopathy or as attractants to pollinators or fructivores.
ALLELOPATHY: (Biol) The condition when one strain is harmful to another of
the same species. (Ecol) Adverse influence exerted by one individual plant
over another by the production of a chemical inhibitor, often a terpenoid
or phenolic.
Presumably these chemicals (especially those for defence) have very
specific metabolic action (because the cost of producing such chemicals has
to be balanced against the benefits), which is one of the attributes of
useful drugs. I don't know if the chemicals are necessarily anti-oxidants.
>
>> > It seems likely to me that animal foods are subject to this kind of
>> >storage much more than plant foods, which could bias the results more
>> >strongly than would be the case where freezing is a more common method
>> >of food preservation and storage.
>>
>> Probably not true. The chinese aren't as wealthy as us westerners. I bet
>> most chinese don't use freezing at all. Which is why they use so much
>> pickling. 'Fraid I'm just guessing, like you. Where can one get that kind
>> of info?
>
> My choice of words was ambiguous. What I meant by what I said is that
>in comparing Chinese consumption with North American consumption, one
>should remember that meats in China are stored by pickling and meats in
>North America are stored by freezing. Thus, comparing a plant-product
>eater with an animal-product eater in China might not be the same as
>making that comparison in North America.
>
Fair point, but plant products are also pickled, so the comparison may not
be so bad. Traditional chinese diets contain little or no meat (at least
for peasant farmers). In fact that is true in most cultures, relative to
the importance played in the US.
Actually, what meats are pickled? I would have assumed that curing was more
common. I can't think of any pickled meats (fish, maybe) but cured meats
are quite popular in the west, where curing is the traditional method of
meat preservation (Bacon, beef jerky, smoked ham). I bet Americans eat more
of these products than Chinese peasants.
--
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 Jan 23 22:32:25 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA11667; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:32:25 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@[198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id WAA11645; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:32:23 -0700 (MST)
X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host root@[198.53.145.6] claimed to be smtp.interlog.com
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA24342;
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:32:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA22235;
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:31:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Douglas Skrecky and bananas in PRIME HEALTH & FITNESS
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
Congratulations to Douglas Skrecky for his piece in the latest issue
(one I received today, anyway) of PRIME HEALTH & FITNESS, page L-2. I
understand that this magazine pays very well, so I am happy to see that
Douglas is finally seeing some fame&fortune in return for all his
scholarly researches.
Douglas to some extent repeats his advocacy of bananas against cancer
which he had previously published in the Winter 1997 issue of my magazine
CANADIAN CRYONICS NEWS. He cites studies of protective effects against
colorectal, oral and lung cancer. He also cites a study in
GASTROENTEROLOGY which "states that bananas protect the lining of the
stomach against injuries from the hydrochloric acid found in the digestive
system, as well as alcohol and indomethicine, a potent aspirin
substitute."
I have a love/hate relationship with bananas because they are the
common fruit that is the highest in calories -- practically a confection.
Too often I have binged on bananas, and I mostly now try to avoid them.
Bananas are the first choice of fruit among dieters who think that "fruits
& vegetables" are the way to lose weight. The colorectal cancer study
Douglas cites in NUTRITION & CANCER [25:297-303 (1996)] was based on a
small study in Uruguay. I did not notice any special treatment of bananas
in a wide review of 40 cancer studies in THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL
CANCER INSTITUTE [82:650-661 (1990)]. From this -- and another review of
200 fruit & vegetable studies in NUTRITION & CANCER [18(1):1-29 (1992)] --
I saw quite a wide variety of results which led me to believe that one
could make a case for or against many fruits or vegetables by picking &
choosing among the studies. Douglas did, however, convince me that
cauliflower may be carcinogenic and that cabbage is one of the best
anti-carcinogens in the vegetable family.
I doubt that bananas have very much in the way of phytochemicals.
I suspect that its anti-carcinogenic properties in the gastrointestinal
tract are due to its mucilaginous texture. Cancers are provoked by
both mutagens ("inducers") and mitogens ("promoters" -- which stimulate
cell growth, often by irritation). The fact that bananas protect against
irritation by stomach acid, alcohol and indomethicin leads me to suspect
that it is acting as an anti-mitogen against irritants. The fact that
I do not take aspirin or indomethicin -- or drink alcohol -- leads me
to believe that bananas are probably of less value to me than to people
who consume these irritants. This is the problem with epidemiological
studies -- they can mislead non-smokers & non-drinkers like myself into
believing that substances (which counter the effects of these and other
toxins which I do not normally ingest) of benefit to selected others
will be of benefit to me.
There is no quantitative evaluation of how anti-carcinogenic bananas
actually are, even in a high mitogen-consuming group. For protection
against colorectal cancer, I'm still very highly impressed with the
study which showed that a diet of 4% wheat bran & 4% psyllium reduced
the incidence of colon tumors to one-quarter that of controls
[CANCER LETTERS 75:53-58 (1993)].
Anyway, I don't mean to sound overly critical of Douglas. What
is really driving me is my love/hate relationship with bananas and
their siren-song. Bananas may offer me some additional (small, I suspect,
but possibly not zero) protection against cancer. But this must be weighed
against their high calories and (for me) addictive potential.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sun Jan 25 15:31:06 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA09445; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:31:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id PAA09434; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:31:04 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199801252231.PAA09434@listservice.net>
Received: (qmail 11878 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1998 22:31:05 -0000
Received: from ap043.du.pipex.com (HELO yz34.dial.pipex.com) (193.130.255.43)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 1998 22:31:05 -0000
From: "Phil Harris"
To: "Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver"
Subject: Bananaa
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:25:18 -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
Dont't know about cancer prevention and bananas (Ben's posting about
Douglas Skrecky article) and agree they are too easily swallowed, but even
one or two can be a very useful source of vit B6 according to Walford.
A while ago I heard something about their useful 'soluble
fibre/indigestible carbohydrate' fraction which might relate to cancer
prevention. No reference available now. Anybody else heard this?
best wishes
phil harris
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Mon Jan 26 18:29:31 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA19856; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:09:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id QAA19733; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:09:46 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA27294;
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:09:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA11839;
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:09:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:09:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Douglas Skrecky and bananas in PRIME HEALTH & FITNESS
In-Reply-To: <34C9C5A8.D7578204@Calmec.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
One of the subscribers to the CRAN list, who is somewhat "shy" about
posting messages, sent me the following private e-mail. I will quote
the message, but not reveal his identity:
> In your commentary on Doug Skrecky's article in PRIME HEALTH & FITNESS you
> mention "Douglas did, however, convince me that cauliflower may be
> carcinogenic...." I believe you mentioned the same thing several days ago.
> Since I eat cauliflower as one of the supposedly anti-cancer cruciferous
> vegetables, I'm very interested in this line of thought. Can you tell me where
> it comes from, or what convinced you of its accuracy?
Douglas gave the following references:
(1) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER 58:644-649 (1994)
(2) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 139(1):1-15 (1994)
(3) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER 53:711-719 (1993)
I examined these along with larger reviews, namely, NUTRITION AND
CANCER 18(1):1-29 (1992) and THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
82:650-661 (1990) and came to the conclusion that the increased incidence
of cancer with cauliflower could easily have been due to people usually
eating cauliflower with fatty dressings. Later I examined the data again,
and decided that the same argument could also be applied to broccoli --
yet broccoli is somewhat protective. I then decided that this makes a
stronger case against cauliflower.
Now that the issue has been raised again, I am questioning my thinking
again. The truth may be that both broccoli & cauliflower is eaten with
fatty dressings in the vast majority of cases, but that broccoli is so
anti-carcinogenic that it overcomes the effects of the dressings, whereas
cauliflower is not effective enough to do this.
This is the problem with these epidemilogical studies. I eat broccoli
& cauliflower uncooked and without fatty dressings, whereas the vast
majority of people only eat them either cooked & covered with greasy slop
or in salads covered with greasy slop. The studies would only be relevant
to me if they studied cases of people eating the vegetables plain &
uncooked.
Cauliflower was central to my diet until Doug Skrecky got me to
thinking it is carcinogenic. Now I'm thrown back into a condition of
uncertainty. I definitely WANT to believe that cauliflower is not
carcinogenic. Even if I believed it was carcinogen neutral, that would
be a strong argument for eating it because it is very low in calories,
it is more filling that any comparable vegetable calorie-for-calorie
and it tastes great. I've got half a mind to go back to eating the stuff.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Tue Jan 27 02:00:34 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id CAA10367; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 02:00:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id CAA10225; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 02:00:09 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17491;
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA26555;
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 03:59:29 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 03:59:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Bananas for Vitamin B6
In-Reply-To: <199801252231.PAA09434@listservice.net>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Phil Harris wrote:
> Dont't know about cancer prevention and bananas (Ben's posting about
> Douglas Skrecky article) and agree they are too easily swallowed, but even
> one or two can be a very useful source of vit B6 according to Walford.
There are only a few nutrients for which I rely on food -- mostly I
rely on my Life Extension Mix to provide me with Adequate Nutrition.
Relying on food for nutrition is too costly in terms of time and requires
too much attention (my main exceptions are fiber, protein, calories,
phytochemicals and probably a few others). Why should I eat bananas at
100-calories-a-pop to get B6, when I can get more than enough in my
Life Extension Mix? If I was to do the same thing for every vitamin &
mineral & essential amino acid & essential fatty acid it would compromise
my objectives of minimizing my calories while minimizing my discomfort
& maximizing my eating pleasure.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Wed Jan 28 11:16:32 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA12750; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:16:32 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id LAA12653; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:16:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05253;
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:16:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA21065;
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:15:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:15:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Vegetarians and weakness
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
When John Woodman published his survey of caloric restriction
practitioners on the CRSOCIETY last March (25-Mar-1997), one of
his results was:
"Eight out of nine on 'mild to moderate' CR reported either normal
(44%) or increased (44%) energy levels. However, this ranged dropped
to normal (60%) and DEcreased (40%) energy levels for the 5 at
higher level CR."
I get the impression that almost all CRAN practioners are (to some
extent) vegetarians. This seems like almost a necessity to me. So I am
wondering the following:
(1) Is anyone practicing CRAN who regularly includes
RED meat in their diet?
(2) Is there a correlation between symptoms of decreased
energy and the absense of meat from the diet (due
to decreased B12 and/or Carnitine)
Any help answering these questions would be appreciated.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Thu Jan 29 04:24:46 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id EAA21291; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:24:46 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id EAA21234; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 04:24:40 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (1623 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:22:07 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References: <34C9C5A8.D7578204@Calmec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:58:36 +0000
To: Ben Best ,
Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: Douglas Skrecky and bananas in PRIME HEALTH & FITNESS
Cc: Ben Best
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
>
> Now that the issue has been raised again, I am questioning my thinking
>again. The truth may be that both broccoli & cauliflower is eaten with
>fatty dressings in the vast majority of cases, but that broccoli is so
>anti-carcinogenic that it overcomes the effects of the dressings, whereas
>cauliflower is not effective enough to do this.
>
Here in the UK, Cauliflower Cheese (cauliflower in a milk-based chees
sauce) is the classic vegetarian dish, whereas broccoli is usually easten
as a plain boiled vegetable.
My grandfather was probably the first vegetarian I knew, whenever we
visited him for dinner (in the '70s), he cooked cauliflower cheese or
macaroni cheese. At the time there were very few vegetarians in the UK,
maybe less than 1% of people, now it is approaching 10% of the population.
--
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 Jan 30 05:14:04 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id FAA08111; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 05:14:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk (root@rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.48.12]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id FAA08046; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 05:13:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [139.184.53.39](iane.ppp.cogs.susx.ac.uk[139.184.53.39]) (3883 bytes) by rsunx.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
via smail with P:esmtp/R:bind/T:smtp
(sender: )
id
for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:10:56 +0000 (GMT)
(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #13 built 1997-Dec-4)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:29:30 +0000
To: Ben Best ,
Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
From: Ian Eiloart
Subject: Re: Vegetarians and weakness
Cc: Ben Best
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
At 6:15 pm +0000 28/1/98, Ben Best wrote:
> When John Woodman published his survey of caloric restriction
>practitioners on the CRSOCIETY last March (25-Mar-1997), one of
>his results was:
>
> "Eight out of nine on 'mild to moderate' CR reported either normal
>(44%) or increased (44%) energy levels. However, this ranged dropped
>to normal (60%) and DEcreased (40%) energy levels for the 5 at
>higher level CR."
>
> I get the impression that almost all CRAN practioners are (to some
>extent) vegetarians. This seems like almost a necessity to me. So I am
>wondering the following:
>
> (1) Is anyone practicing CRAN who regularly includes
> RED meat in their diet?
I seem to remember running a survey on this, and getting one positive
response among about 15, but I think that person ate a very limited amount
of red meat. I'm not sure if I kept the results. I'll check.
>
> (2) Is there a correlation between symptoms of decreased
> energy and the absense of meat from the diet (due
> to decreased B12 and/or Carnitine)
You'd have to be a vegan to get B12 deficiency, and then you'd have to be a
vegan for about five years without supplementation, because it is stored
very efficiently. Daily requirements are around 1 microgram, storage (80%
in the liver) is around 2-5mg, so that's at least 2000 days. B12 may be
taken at up to 3mg/day without toxic effects. So, take one of these every
five years! Seriously though, I have heard that there are limits to the
possible daily absorption, around 20 micrograms, but I couldn't quote a
source.
My source for this info is an undergraduate/graduate textbook 'Principles
of Human Nutrition' by Martin Eastwood pub: Chapman Hall, 1997. The author
is a retired consultant physician at the University of Edinburgh, UK.
Eastwood says that it is not known whether adult vegans can synthesize
enough carnitine for requirements, but that it is produced from lysine, a
limiting amino acid.
>TI: L-CARNITINE - REASONABLE AND SENSELESS SUBSTITUTION OF A
> PHYSIOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE .1. PHYSIOLOGY AND REASONABLE SUBSTITUTION
> LA: German
> AU: SCHEK_A
> NA: UNIV GIESSEN,INST ERNAHRUNGSWISSENSCH,ARBEITSKREIS ERNAHURNG &
> SPORT,GOETHESTR 55,D-35390 GIESSEN,GERMANY
> JN: ERNAHRUNGS-UMSCHAU, 1994, Vol.41, No.1, pp.9-15
> IS: 0340-2371
The English language abstract includes the claim that adult humans
synthesise enough carnitine for requirements. Also an ISI search (past 6
years publications) for keywords 'carnitine' and 'vegan' yields no results,
although a search for 'vegan' and 'deficiency' does yield 6 results, all
regarding B12 or iodine. A search on 'carnitine' and 'diet' yields about 6
results, all talking about carnitine enriched diets as a therapy for
'carnitine deficiency', which amounts to a variety of metabolic disorders,
at least one of which is heritable.
I've been a vegan for about 15 years (but overweight), I haven't ever
given B12 much thought until I started dieting about 14 months ago. B12 is
added to a lot of the substitute foods that I like (vegeburgers etc).
--
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 Jan 30 10:29:26 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA17465; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:29:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id KAA17452; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:29:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA13618;
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:29:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA21417;
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:28:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:28:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Re: Douglas Skrecky and bananas in PRIME HEALTH & FITNESS
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> > Now that the issue has been raised again, I am questioning my thinking
> >again. The truth may be that both broccoli & cauliflower is eaten with
> >fatty dressings in the vast majority of cases, but that broccoli is so
> >anti-carcinogenic that it overcomes the effects of the dressings, whereas
> >cauliflower is not effective enough to do this.
> >
> Here in the UK, Cauliflower Cheese (cauliflower in a milk-based chees
> sauce) is the classic vegetarian dish, whereas broccoli is usually easten
> as a plain boiled vegetable.
This would make a case for epidemiological studies showing an
incidence of carcinogenicity for cauliflower, but not broccoli, due to
food preparation rather than inherent carcinogenicity *IF* the "milk-based
cheese sauce" were carcinogenic. Frankly, I can't see any reason why it
should be. A bit of saturated fat might increase cardiovascular disease.
Are there other suspicious ingredients?
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Fri Jan 30 20:54:21 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id UAA23120; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:54:21 -0700 (MST)
Received: from click.ucr.edu (click.ucr.edu [138.23.226.101]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id UAA23093; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:54:19 -0700 (MST)
Received: from lizard (s13-pm37.snwestsac.campus.mci.net [208.155.134.32])
by click.ucr.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA02020
for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199801310354.TAA02020@click.ucr.edu>
X-Sender: browley@galaxy.ucr.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
From: Brian Rowley
Subject: Gerontology essays
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
There are 3 excellent essays on gerontology by *Roy Walford*, *Aubrey de
Grey* and *Mike Fossel* at the new Geron-Sci (Longevity-Digest) site, URL:
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~browley/index.htm
All 3 essays are extremely informative, and totally new. Roy Walford's essay
on caloric restriction is the most up-to-date review of the subject I've
ever read.
The design of the site is still in process, and might not be finished for
quite some time. Lisa Walford did graphics for the site, but I then became
overcommitted and had to put the project on hold so it's stalled in an
unfinished state. I imagine I'll have more time for Longevity-Digest and its
web site during the summer, though I will delegate all editing and other
work to volunteers. I'm hoping only to organize the list, dividing the nitty
gritty among many. Gone are the days when I had time to edit messages in person.
Anyway, do check out the site,
Brian
>From owner-cran@ListService.net Sat Jan 31 18:17:18 1998
Received: (bounced@localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id SAA11017; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:17:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from smtp.interlog.com (root@smtp.interlog.com [198.53.145.6]) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id SAA10990; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:17:12 -0700 (MST)
Received: from shell1.interlog.com (benbest@shell1.interlog.com [207.34.202.8])
by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA23437;
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:15:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from benbest@localhost)
by shell1.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA26968;
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:14:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 20:14:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
X-Sender: benbest@shell1.interlog.com
To: Caloric Restriction with Adequate Nutrition Listserver
cc: Ben Best
Subject: Hunger & glycation from cooked starches
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cran@ListService.net
Precedence: bulk
I recently read a Short Report based on an experiment with 11 medical
students who were given test doses of glucose, uncooked cornstarch and
cooked cornstarch [BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 282:1032 (1981)]. The results
were as follows:
Blood Glucose Increase Insulin Increase
(mmol/litre) (microUnits/ml)
30 minutes 90 minute 30 minutes 90 minutes
Glucose 3.8 - 0.2 44 22
Cooked Cornstarch 2.9 - 0.4 22 7
Raw Cornstarch 0.8 0.3 8 7
The report states that cooking increases starch viscosity, which
is said to increase glucose & insulin response to carbohydrate. It also
states that cooking splits the starch granules, thereby increasing the
availability of the starch to amylase. I have earlier read that cooking
bursts cells, thereby making the cell contents more accessible. This
increases digestibility, but also increases the glucose/insulin response.
According to this table, the effect of cooking makes the starch
raise 30-minute blood glucose nearly to the level of pure glucose --
compared to the raw starch. The insulin response is midway, possibly
because it is a non-linear response to elevated blood glucose. By 90
minutes, however, the insulin has caused blood glucose to fall below
normal for glucose & cooked starch dosing -- but not for raw starch.
The effects of elevated insulin & low blood glucose are, I believe,
an increase in HUNGER. This is a very serious concern for people
practicing CRAN. Even though sugars and cooked starches can provide a
very immediate relief from hunger, they provoke more hunger over the next
couple of hours.
The more serious long-term effect of repeatedly elevated blood
sugars is increased glycation (non-enzymatic crosslinking of protein by
glucose). In vivo and in vitro experiments have proven that long periods
of hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) reduce the response to glucose.
This is known as insulin resistance.
Juvenile diabetes is due to loss of insulin-producing cells in the
pancreas. But non-insulin-dependent diabetes (90% of cases) is due to
increased insulin resistance, usually due to a decreased number of insulin
receptors and (primarily) a failure of insulin to activate the enzyme
tyrosine kinase at existing insulin receptors.
Technically, "insulin resistance" is defined as the requirement of
200 or more units of insulin per day to control hyperglycemia and prevent
ketosis. Obviously, this number is arbitrary. Increased insulin resistance
exists on a continuum -- increasing insuling resistance is a feature of
"normal aging". I believe that glycation is probably the major cause. And
insulin resistance would only be the tip of the iceburg -- glycation
destroys tissue suppleness (including increased arteriosclerosis), as well
as promoting cataracts, lipofuscin (especially in non-dividing cells like
neurons, heart muscle cells, etc.), etc.
So to reduce these problems: practice CRAN (reducing blood glucose
requirements), avoid candy and other sweets (suppress your "sweet tooth")
and don't cook food any more than you must.
I know that I have criticized the "raw food" faddists in the past,
but mainly because their reasoning was based on pantheism and
anti-technological superstitions rather than scientific reasons. If they
were right about cooking being hazardous to health, it was for the wrong
reasons. Therefore, they did not deserve to be taken seriously.
--------------------------------------------
Ben Best (benbest@benbest.com)
http://www.benbest.com/
![[GO TO BEN BEST'S HOME PAGE]](../homeback.gif)
HOME PAGE