Talk:Caloric restriction

I see that the neutrality of the living foods article was disputed and then rectified. The same should be done of this article.

Hi Melody Can you say why you think this is so.There are a lot of unsupported claims made on it. I will try to rewrite, but look forward to your views.

I think the page needs a radical rewrite, or possibly a move to a more suitable page eg longevity or something like that.

TonyClarke 11:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree a rewrite might be in order. To start with, prefacing it with quotes isn't normal format - especially since Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Swift are both 18th century non-clinicians. Its also written from the POV as though this theory is accepted and non-controversial, which is certainly isn't. Most of the references you've given have to do with mice studies (where did that link go?) and extrapolation to humans isn't quite that simple. I assume the New Scientist article says more about humans, but I have no idea what that might be, as the only evidence cited is "Evidence that CR works comes from many sources: animal and human, both direct and indirect evidence". Explaining all of these would help. There's probably more but hope that assists. Melody 21:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi I've done it! Hope it meets the points you made. I've left the intiial quotes in as historicl curiosities, but I won't be upset if soemone wants to remove them, particularly the first.

The disappearing link was simply a link to a site which gave abstracts of papers, and it didnt really fundtion to take you to the abstract itself. (However, Google could take you there with a little effort). So I replaced the link with the original reference, always preferable anyway as websites come and go but the wikipedia goes on forever. TonyClarke 12:36, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, much better. Research in this area certainly isn't my thing so apart from the fact that I now feel able to remove the dispute, I can't offer much more help. It reads a lot better now though. Melody

Hi Melody Thanks for prompting me to do this! Take care with those calories now! :<

TonyClarke 00:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)]]

Throughout human history numerous societies have touted the health benefits of frugal eating habits, including the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The first widely recognized study of dietary restriction was conducted in 1934 by Clive McCay and his colleagues at Cornell University. At the time it seemed reasonable that if the growth of an animal was slowed, say by restricting food intake, its lifespan would correspondingly increase. They tested this idea by substituting 10-20% of the rats’ diet with indigestible cellulose, thus cutting back on their caloric intake. Consistent with predictions, the underfed rats did develop slower and lived substantially longer, although the hypothesis was ultimately proven incorrect.

ATTN orig author: Incorrect information in "Caloric restriction"
There is some information on this page that is INCORRECT and needs to be changed:

"The first major demonstration of the benefits of caloric restriction was an experimental trial conducted by Richard Weindruch. In 1986, ..."

No: It was McKay, in 1934, that first demonstrated the benefits of calorie restriction.

See: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28346?fulltext=true&print=yes http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm13/topic2a.html http://www.lammd.com/A3R_brief_in_doc_format/1999-No2-Caloriesthatcount.cfm

Or read Walford AND Weindruch's co-authored book, The Retardation of Aging and Disease by Dietary Restriction

"Recent research has demonstrated (see Bluher et al) that it is not reduced intake which influences longevity. This was done by studying animals which have their metabolism changed to reduce insulin uptake, consequently retaining the leanness of animals in the earlier studies. It was observed that these animals can have a normal dietary intake, but have a similarly increased lifespan."

Absolutely false. And, even if it were true (which it's NOT), it does not belong in a def for "calorie restriction" per se (but, rather, anti-aging interventions or similar)

"This suggests that lifespan is increased for an organism if it can remain lean and if it can avoid any accumulation of fatty tissue:"

Incorrect. Vist http://www.calorierestriction.org for more information. Or contact me: khashmi@calorierestriction.org

As far as "Why CR increases longevity", there are several THEORIES, including:

- Genetic changes

- Biological defense upregulation

- Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory (less free radicals due to fewer calories being processed/metabolized )

- Disposable Soma Theory

- and more (see: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28346?fulltext=true)

So, CR increases both maximum lifespan and average lifespan based on several (though prob not equally powerful), simultaneously occurring factors.

Finally, its better to use the term "Calorie Restriction" rather than "Caloric Restriction"; it is the one most-often encountered in science and the press.

--24.152.129.86 15:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Khurram Hashmi

caloric reduction paradox
there's an aspect of caloric reduction diet i don't really understand. It is said that a person takes less than needed. Say 70%. But then the energy intake is less than energy spent, so by that the body would be continuously loose weight!? Xah Lee 01:03, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC) ____

That's an interstng point. Maybe our energy requirments decrease as well, less weight to carry around, less body metabolism etc. Maybe our energy spent depends on energy intake, so that it naturally balances out? TonyClarke 14:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kaeberlein and Kennedy
This encylopedia is not the place for scientists to argue about their theories. See recent rebuttal by Sinclair et al., Science, Sept. 2005.

Nor is it the place for any scientist to promote his or her contributions to the field. The article is about caloric restriction, not scientists' bios. There is nothing wrong with citing but part of this article seems as if it were written by a couple scientists promoting their views instead of by a neutral (a property central to Wikipedia) party. Please exercise restraint. -j

Confusing Paragraph: Contradiction?
I'm referring to the following:

reported that a bark extract that was known to inhibit fungal growth, actually stimulated growth when given at very low concentrations. They coined the term "hormesis" to describe such beneficial actions resulting from the response of an organism to a low-intensity biological stressor.

Assuming that fungal growth is BAD, I'm wondering if the words "inhibit" and "stimulated" were switched. A beneficial action would be inhibiting, not stimulating fungal growth. Right? -- tharsaile 12 Oct 2005