From the CR Soc. Archives: From CRS: 'CR' vs. 'CRAN'
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 05:34:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Ben Best
To: Caloric Restriction
Subject: Is the "AN" of "CRAN" redundant?
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Brian Delaney has made the statement that the "AN" of "CRAN" is
redundant (or "understood"). I find it particularly ironic that such
a statement would come from Brian because he & I had a lengthy disagreement
over how many "natural examples" of Caloric Restriction *with Adequate
Nutrition* could be found in human history -- and the possibility that
our conception of human "maximum lifespan" may be mistaken. Brian
strenuously denied that there were many "natural examples" in human
history because of the "Adequate Nutrition" requirement.
I am continually subjected to a barrage of statements that I look
like a cancer victim or someone with AIDS, that I am not getting enough
protein, enough micronutrients, enough calories to "fight disease" (I
haven't had a sickness of any kind in 2 years) or fat for absorption of
fat-soluble vitamins. (I had a tussle with Brian over the last issue on
this list-server.) When I *say* "Caloric Restriction" or "Dietary
Restriction", I know from experience that what people *hear* is
"inadequate nutrition".
Adequate Nutrition was not even well-perceived by early researchers. As
late as 1969, 24% of the rat studies in the JOURNAL OF NUTRITION were proven
to contain inadequate amounts of vitamins & minerals (as reported in ANNUAL
REVIEW OF BIOCHEMISTRY, 40:549, 1971). Is it any wonder that so many of
these scientists questioned the idea that restricting calories increased
lifespan? Dr. Walford & Dr. Weindruch did much to establish a basic minimum
standard of nutrition to make CRAN studies scientifically replicatable.
In fact, in conversation with me Dr. Walford continually stressed the
"Adequate Nutrition" portion of his program. If AN were "redundant" or
"understood", he would have called his program the "low diet", not the
"high/low diet". He would not have used the (unfortunate) phrase
"undernutrition without malnutrition". The objective of his computer
programs is to ensure that nutrition *is* adequate. This is not a trivial
matter -- *especially* when one is attempting to restrict calories.
Moreover, CRAN isolates a phenomenon -- a phenomenon which is distinct
from other nutritional regimens. I believe that Douglas Skrecky has claimed
that he can get many of the benefits of CRAN without practicing CRAN by
taking antioxidants. I question this. I believe it is possible that
CRAN practitioners might even gain *more* from anti-oxidants than non-CRAN
practitioners -- although I would like to see studies.
I agree that most people on the CRSOCIETY list-server "understand"
that CR means CRAN. But only because of prior conditioning and the use
of "CR" as a kind of trademark. Followers of Dr. Walford also "understand"
what the "high/low diet" means, but it is not intuitive. There may even
be lurkers on this list-server who may not immediately "understand".
I think that a responsible practitioner of Caloric Restriction should
*always* emphasize that nutrition is adequate -- both to critics and to
those who might be influenced to emulate the practice. Therefore, I will
*stress* the AN part of my CR program at every opportunity, both here and
elsewhere in my life. I suggest that others give serious thought to the
value and importance of this practice.
-- Ben Best (benbest@io.org)
Message-Id: <9602291404.AA28456@beacon.WorldLink.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:04:37 -0500
To: crsociety@lists.csn.net
From: soma@WorldLink.ca (Douglas Hawey)
Subject: Re: Is the "AN" of "CRAN" redundant?
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Ben Best wrote:
>When I *say* "Caloric Restriction" or "Dietary
>Restriction", I know from experience that what people *hear* is
>"inadequate nutrition".
This is also my experience, especially with people who have only
a mainstream knowledge of nutrition (i.e. the 4 food groups) or
who have recently heard that dieting is not the way to go anymore.
Most people understand dieting has a mean to loose weight,
mainly for cosmetic reasons. First must come an understanding
of AN, then move on to cr. The later one without an understanding
of the other could bring problem, and so some of these could relate
to the other posting on yoyo dieting. I'm always extremely careful
to emphasize the AN part when I talk cr to other people.
However, further to Brian's posting, I am interested in understanding
the principles that make cr work regardless of AN. AN should
be redundant to an understanding of nutrition period. Do the
mecanisms of cr work only in the presence of AN, or do they
work only better or do they work anyway despite the fact that
one could run into other problems because of malnutrition. Are
we better off with a high cal/low nutrient diet or a low cal/low
nutrient one (assuming that CRAN would not be possible)? In
itself, doesn't the higher intake of calories itself augments the
requirements for nutrients and antioxidants?
>I think that a responsible practitioner of Caloric Restriction should
>*always* emphasize that nutrition is adequate -- both to critics and to
>those who might be influenced to emulate the practice. Therefore, I will
>*stress* the AN part of my CR program at every opportunity, both here and
>elsewhere in my life. I suggest that others give serious thought to the
>value and importance of this practice.
I completely agree with this. I believe most people I talk to won't
be interested in cr but if somehow I can get them interested in AN
it's a step in the right direction.
[....]
Douglas Hawey
soma@worldlink.ca
Message-ID: <3135DA60.291D@uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 08:54:56 -0800
From: Brian M. Delaney
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CRS
Subject: Re: Is the "AN" of "CRAN" redundant?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Ben- You misunderstand my point. I was making a point about
linguistic parsimony or economy, you are making a point
about public relations, loosely speaking. Consider what say
you here:
>..I find it particularly ironic that such a statement
>would come from Brian because he & I had a
>lengthy disagreement over how many "natural
>examples" of Caloric Restriction *with Adequate
>Nutrition* could be found in human history....
(That would be "Socratic irony," I take it? Just kidding.)
Here we could just say "Cal. Rest," it seems. But if we said
"_Food_ restriction," then we would certainly need to say
"Food Res. with Adequate Nutrition;" that is, we're
restricting the stuff in food which is Calories only, not
the stuff in food which is vitamins, minerals, etc. But
then, if we mean restricting the part of food which is Cals
only (and not the vitaimsin...) why not say simply
restricting the "Calories part" of food? That is, why not
just say: "CR"?
Minor point, and I won't comment further.
However, from a PR (public relations, not protein
restriction!) standpoint, the notion that the nutrition
should be adequate is certainly worth stressing! So is the
notion that we should get enough sleep, avoid excessive
stress, and much else. Perhaps we should call "CR"
"CRANASAESAME" or something. Just kidding. Seriously,
though, I sympathize with the issue of people worrying you
have AIDS or cancer. Happens to me all the time, and it's
getting to be a pain. I find, however, not that I need,
primarily, to reassure people that I'm getting enough
vitamins and such, but that the CR part of my practice is
something that is good. That's where the disbelief comes in.
It only takes a moment to explain how a diet with legumes,
whole grains and veggies covers all my
protein/vitamin/mineral needs. That's simple (though
important, I agree). The hard part is convincing people that
being hungry could possibly be a good thing, that giving the
body less energy than it seems to "want" is something which
is not only not bad, but could dramatically lengthen life.
People like the idea of "listening to one's body," in part
because it seems to square with the pop notion that
evolution has made the bod able to communicate its needs to
us perfectly (of course, it's the need of the species that's
being comm'ed...). So that's where I have to do most of my
PR work, moi.
Pardon typos,
Brian.
