Talk:Caloric restriction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  ATTN orig author: Incorrect information in "Caloric restriction" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  caloric reduction paradox