From the CR Soc. Archives: CR vs. "Fat-free"
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 20:30:43 -0500
From: Brian M. Delaney
Message-Id: <199504280130.UAA10634@ellis.uchicago.edu>
To: crsociety@chunks.csn.net
Subject: Hunger and Sleep [Stuff on sleep deleted]
Dr. Michael R. Edelstein <75533.2676@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On 8 Apr 1995 Brian M. Delaney wrote:
>> CR does much more than retard aging, it prevents diseases
>> which could strike at any age.
>Yes, that's the theory. However to accomplish only the latter,
>I would recommend a (non-CR) McDougall diet. It has more solid
>research supporting it and it's more fun since you get to eat
>more.
I think it's pretty hard not to do something close to McD.
while doing CR. Not impossible, but pretty hard. This is
because the goal of getting sufficient nutrients w/a very
low-Cal diet would be impossible w/a lot of fat in the diet
(tho' if you ate a lot of fish, it might be possible). But I
suppose there's a big diff. between "pretty close" and all
the way there -- at least that's the McD. line: "15-20% Cals.
from fat is TOO HIGH!", etc.
But I wouldn't say that the Ornish/McD has a lot of solid
research behind it. There are a lot of studies underway, but
the completed studies are fe and far between. Also, most of
them aren't very well-controlled. McD's early studies mixed
in a bunch of variables: meditation, etc. Also, the China
S(s)tudy/ies (and similar ones) don't do a very good job of
controlling for Cal-intake, moi. I suspect when the jury
comes in, we'll find that a lot of what now appears to be a
fat-cancer link will turn out to be a Cal-cancer link. Maybe
not all cancers (breast, colon might be exceptions), but
many. Could be true for the alleged heart disease link. But
this is a long, complicated story -- I'm guessing there are
probs involving bomb calorimetry that complicate much of
China Study/McD research. Could belong in the Wacky Theory
Department -- but I'll run it by y'all when I have more
time.
But CR, on the other hand, has tons of very well-controlled
animal studies to support it. The absence of human studies
(aside from the Biosphere II data) is a prob, though, to be
sure. But not a fatal one, I'd say.
[....]
Pardon typos,
Brian.
