Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues.. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:34:36 AM UTC-6, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
>
> https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes

Your Sloman rating: "recycled propganda", -1

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
>
> https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes

But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.

Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.

Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> >
> > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
>
> Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
>
> Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.

It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.

"To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."

"For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."

Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.

All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.

If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> > >
> > > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> >
> > But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
> >
> > Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
> >
> > Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.
>
> It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.

It's reporting "research" of a sort. It doesn't sound remotely "rigorous" - whatever that might mean in that context.
>
> "To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."
>
> "For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."
>
> Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.
>
> All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.
>
> If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.

What it meas to me is that the cohort - whose size you haven't specified - were eating too much to start with.
The US obesity statistics mean that this wasn't unexpected. All the waffle abut gene regulation is secondary to this obvious point.
Measuring specific mRNA levels to work out if the calorie reduction was helping sounds like a pretentious and expensive over-kill, and American medicine is famous for that.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> > >
> > > But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
> > >
> > > Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
> > >
> > > Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.
> >
> > It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.
> It's reporting "research" of a sort. It doesn't sound remotely "rigorous" - whatever that might mean in that context.
> >
> > "To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."
> >
> > "For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."
> >
> > Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.
> >
> > All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.
> >
> > If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.
> What it meas to me is that the cohort - whose size you haven't specified - were eating too much to start with.
> The US obesity statistics mean that this wasn't unexpected. All the waffle abut gene regulation is secondary to this obvious point.

For obesity studies they usually require a BMI of 30 or more. Apparently you missed the point about the before and after mRNA up-/down- regulation. It should be obvious the testing would be a waste of time on normal-/-lean bodyweight individuals since those markers are either already in line with normal limits or will change very little.

> Measuring specific mRNA levels to work out if the calorie reduction was helping sounds like a pretentious and expensive over-kill, and American medicine is famous for that.

mRNA are the new thing these days, bolstered by machine learning and advanced laboratory techniques ( microfluidics ) to acquire understanding of the underlying molecular chemistry. Deposition of excess fat in and of itself is too complicated in its effects to waste time studying when the endpoint is a working knowledge.

All the uninterested short attention span individual needs to know is : if you have a fat gut, cut back on your eating, by as little as 1/8 your normal portion, if you want to avoid early termination that is.

Don't skin your knuckles dragging them on the ground too much...

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> > > >
> > > > But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
> > > >
> > > > Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
> > > >
> > > > Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.
> > >
> > > It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.

That's what the authors want the audience to think.

> > It's reporting "research" of a sort. It doesn't sound remotely "rigorous" - whatever that might mean in that context.
> > >
> > > "To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."
> > >
> > > "For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."
> > >
> > > Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.
> > >
> > > All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.
> > >
> > > If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.
> >
> > What it meas to me is that the cohort - whose size you haven't specified - were eating too much to start with.
> > The US obesity statistics mean that this wasn't unexpected. All the waffle abut gene regulation is secondary to this obvious point.
>
> For obesity studies they usually require a BMI of 30 or more. Apparently you missed the point about the before and after mRNA up-/down- regulation. It should be obvious the testing would be a waste of time on normal-/-lean bodyweight individuals since those markers are either already in line with normal limits or will change very little.
>
> > Measuring specific mRNA levels to work out if the calorie reduction was helping sounds like a pretentious and expensive over-kill, and American medicine is famous for that.
>
> mRNA are the new thing these days, bolstered by machine learning and advanced laboratory techniques ( microfluidics ) to acquire understanding of the underlying molecular chemistry. Deposition of excess fat in and of itself is too complicated in its effects to waste time studying when the endpoint is a working knowledge.

The endpoint was making the paper sound impressive, so that other dimbos would cite it, as you have done here.
> All the uninterested short attention span individual needs to know is : if you have a fat gut, cut back on your eating, by as little as 1/8 your normal portion, if you want to avoid early termination that is.

That's standard advice. We know that very few people can actually cut back their eating for long enough to reduce their fat gut and keep it reduced, so it's not useful advice. Some new and fairly expensive prescription medicines do work.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/weight-loss-medication#Pros-and-cons-of-weight-loss-medications

> Don't skin your knuckles dragging them on the ground too much...

You do seem to be projecting you own problems again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> > > > >
> > > > > But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death.. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.
> > > >
> > > > It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.
> That's what the authors want the audience to think.
> > > It's reporting "research" of a sort. It doesn't sound remotely "rigorous" - whatever that might mean in that context.
> > > >
> > > > "To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."
> > > >
> > > > "For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."
> > > >
> > > > Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.
> > > >
> > > > All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.
> > > >
> > > > If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.
> > >
> > > What it meas to me is that the cohort - whose size you haven't specified - were eating too much to start with.
> > > The US obesity statistics mean that this wasn't unexpected. All the waffle abut gene regulation is secondary to this obvious point.
> >
> > For obesity studies they usually require a BMI of 30 or more. Apparently you missed the point about the before and after mRNA up-/down- regulation.. It should be obvious the testing would be a waste of time on normal-/-lean bodyweight individuals since those markers are either already in line with normal limits or will change very little.
> >
> > > Measuring specific mRNA levels to work out if the calorie reduction was helping sounds like a pretentious and expensive over-kill, and American medicine is famous for that.
> >
> > mRNA are the new thing these days, bolstered by machine learning and advanced laboratory techniques ( microfluidics ) to acquire understanding of the underlying molecular chemistry. Deposition of excess fat in and of itself is too complicated in its effects to waste time studying when the endpoint is a working knowledge.
> The endpoint was making the paper sound impressive, so that other dimbos would cite it, as you have done here.
> > All the uninterested short attention span individual needs to know is : if you have a fat gut, cut back on your eating, by as little as 1/8 your normal portion, if you want to avoid early termination that is.
> That's standard advice. We know that very few people can actually cut back their eating for long enough to reduce their fat gut and keep it reduced, so it's not useful advice. Some new and fairly expensive prescription medicines do work.
>
> https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/weight-loss-medication#Pros-and-cons-of-weight-loss-medications

Majority of those fools are self-indulging. Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.

> > Don't skin your knuckles dragging them on the ground too much...
> You do seem to be projecting you own problems again.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:34:36 AM UTC-6, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
>
> https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes

I believe I saw in this group (maybe John Larkin) the quote "hunger is your friend".

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:44:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.
> > That's what the authors want the audience to think.
> > > > It's reporting "research" of a sort. It doesn't sound remotely "rigorous" - whatever that might mean in that context.
> > > > >
> > > > > "To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."
> > > > >
> > > > > "For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."
> > > > >
> > > > > Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.
> > > > >
> > > > > If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.
> > > >
> > > > What it meas to me is that the cohort - whose size you haven't specified - were eating too much to start with.
> > > > The US obesity statistics mean that this wasn't unexpected. All the waffle abut gene regulation is secondary to this obvious point.
> > >
> > > For obesity studies they usually require a BMI of 30 or more. Apparently you missed the point about the before and after mRNA up-/down- regulation. It should be obvious the testing would be a waste of time on normal-/-lean bodyweight individuals since those markers are either already in line with normal limits or will change very little.
> > >
> > > > Measuring specific mRNA levels to work out if the calorie reduction was helping sounds like a pretentious and expensive over-kill, and American medicine is famous for that.
> > >
> > > mRNA are the new thing these days, bolstered by machine learning and advanced laboratory techniques ( microfluidics ) to acquire understanding of the underlying molecular chemistry. Deposition of excess fat in and of itself is too complicated in its effects to waste time studying when the endpoint is a working knowledge.
> > The endpoint was making the paper sound impressive, so that other dimbos would cite it, as you have done here.
> > > All the uninterested short attention span individual needs to know is : if you have a fat gut, cut back on your eating, by as little as 1/8 your normal portion, if you want to avoid early termination that is.
> > That's standard advice. We know that very few people can actually cut back their eating for long enough to reduce their fat gut and keep it reduced, so it's not useful advice. Some new and fairly expensive prescription medicines do work.
> >
> > https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/weight-loss-medication#Pros-and-cons-of-weight-loss-medications
>
> Majority of those fools are self-indulging.

They aren't fools, and the mechanisms that regulate our food intake have been evolving for millions of years, and aren't well adapted to times of abundance.

> Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.

They are not neuroscientists. They just keep track of what sell well, and modify it in ways that they hope will make it sell better, and build on what turns out to work.
It's empirical science, but the nervous system isn't only one being explored. And it is irresponsible idiocy. Making your customers obscenely fat so that they die young shrinks your market.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:47:16 -0800 (PST), John Smiht
<utube.jocjo@xoxy.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:34:36?AM UTC-6, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
>>
>> https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
>
>I believe I saw in this group (maybe John Larkin) the quote "hunger is your friend".

Not me. I love food.

I just brewed an enormous batch, a gallon or so, of turkey broth. We
freeze it into cubes so we can toss it into whatever needs it.

(I'm also doing a 6-layer PCB layout as a concurrent activity.)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:44:37 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > > > > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But not getting enough to eat will lead to your starving to death. There's obviously a happy medium between gross obesity and lethal malnutrition. and the low and declining US life expectancies suggest that Americans don't know where it is. "Reducing calorie intake by as little as 12%" isn't exactly the kind of specific advice that could help.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Useful dietary advice probably has to be given to individuals, and based on their individual genomes and personal histories.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Keeping your waistline below 94cm if you are a male or below 80cm if you are female avoids a whole bunch of problems, but - like all broad-brush advice - isn't the whole story.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's not 'advice', it's a report of rigorous scientific research conducted by the National Institute on Aging part of the U.S. NIH.
>> That's what the authors want the audience to think.
>> > > It's reporting "research" of a sort. It doesn't sound remotely "rigorous" - whatever that might mean in that context.
>> > > >
>> > > > "To figure out which human genes were impacted during calorie restriction, the scientists isolated messenger RNA (mRNA), a molecule that contains the code for proteins, from muscle samples. The team determined the protein sequence of each mRNA and used the information to identify which genes originated specific mRNAs. Further analysis helped the scientists establish which genes during calorie restriction were upregulated, meaning the cells made more mRNA, and which were downregulated, meaning the cells produced less mRNA. The researchers confirmed calorie restriction affected the same gene pathways in humans as in mice and nonhuman primates. For example, a lower caloric intake upregulated genes responsible for energy generation and metabolism, and downregulated inflammatory genes leading to lower inflammation."
>> > > >
>> > > > "For the current study, scientists used thigh muscle biopsies from CALERIE participants that were collected when individuals joined the study and at one-year and two-year follow-ups."
>> > > >
>> > > > Their goal was to analyze a 25% calorie reduction, but the cohort could only make 12%.
>> > > >
>> > > > All the biomarkers associated strongly with good health, longevity, and slowing progression of chronic disease, were enhanced.
>> > > >
>> > > > If none of that means anything to you then neither will the headline.
>> > >
>> > > What it meas to me is that the cohort - whose size you haven't specified - were eating too much to start with.
>> > > The US obesity statistics mean that this wasn't unexpected. All the waffle abut gene regulation is secondary to this obvious point.
>> >
>> > For obesity studies they usually require a BMI of 30 or more. Apparently you missed the point about the before and after mRNA up-/down- regulation. It should be obvious the testing would be a waste of time on normal-/-lean bodyweight individuals since those markers are either already in line with normal limits or will change very little.
>> >
>> > > Measuring specific mRNA levels to work out if the calorie reduction was helping sounds like a pretentious and expensive over-kill, and American medicine is famous for that.
>> >
>> > mRNA are the new thing these days, bolstered by machine learning and advanced laboratory techniques ( microfluidics ) to acquire understanding of the underlying molecular chemistry. Deposition of excess fat in and of itself is too complicated in its effects to waste time studying when the endpoint is a working knowledge.
>> The endpoint was making the paper sound impressive, so that other dimbos would cite it, as you have done here.
>> > All the uninterested short attention span individual needs to know is : if you have a fat gut, cut back on your eating, by as little as 1/8 your normal portion, if you want to avoid early termination that is.
>> That's standard advice. We know that very few people can actually cut back their eating for long enough to reduce their fat gut and keep it reduced, so it's not useful advice. Some new and fairly expensive prescription medicines do work.
>>
>> https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/weight-loss-medication#Pros-and-cons-of-weight-loss-medications
>
>Majority of those fools are self-indulging. Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.
>

Actually, most junk food (and some very good food) is developed by
trial and error in professional test kitchens. Some rent for $400 per
hour.

They do use some basic ingredients developed by food chemists, but
most supermarket foods are made of mostly-natural ingredients, stuff
that we evolved to like.

The real tradeoff is taste vs cost. Kraft doesn't use a lot of butter
or saffron.

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 2:15:29 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:44:37 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> >Majority of those fools are self-indulging. Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.
> >
> Actually, most junk food (and some very good food) is developed by trial and error in professional test kitchens. Some rent for $400 per hour.

Who cares how it is developed? The effect is that the stuff that is most vigorously marketed is addictive, and the customers eat more of it than is good for them.
> They do use some basic ingredients developed by food chemists, but most supermarket foods are made of mostly-natural ingredients, stuff that we evolved to like.
>
> The real tradeoff is taste vs cost. Kraft doesn't use a lot of butter or saffron.

The real trade-off is in the effect on the customers. Americans are frequently over-weight to the point of being obese, and have remarkably low life expectancies for an advanced industrial country.

It doesn't limit the market enough to give the food suppliers any motivation to modify the food they sell to help their customer live longer, and the regulatory apparatus is leery of upsetting well-heeled companies who can afford to spend a lot on lawyers to protect their income stream.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:47:20 PM UTC-5, John Smiht wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:34:36 AM UTC-6, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Reducing overall calorie intake [ by as little as 12%] may rejuvenate your muscles and activate biological pathways important for good health, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues. Decreasing calories without depriving the body of essential vitamins and minerals, known as calorie restriction, has long been known to delay the progression of age-related diseases in animal models. This new study, published in Aging Cell, suggests the same biological mechanisms may also apply to humans.
> >
> > https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/calorie-restriction-humans-builds-strong-muscle-and-stimulates-healthy-aging-genes
> I believe I saw in this group (maybe John Larkin) the quote "hunger is your friend".

That's just an eating schedule rhythm effect, it will go away with adaptation.

On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 2:15:29 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:44:37 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >> > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >> > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> <snip>
> > >Majority of those fools are self-indulging. Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.
> > >
> > Actually, most junk food (and some very good food) is developed by trial and error in professional test kitchens. Some rent for $400 per hour.
> Who cares how it is developed? The effect is that the stuff that is most vigorously marketed is addictive, and the customers eat more of it than is good for them.
> > They do use some basic ingredients developed by food chemists, but most supermarket foods are made of mostly-natural ingredients, stuff that we evolved to like.
> >
> > The real tradeoff is taste vs cost. Kraft doesn't use a lot of butter or saffron.
> The real trade-off is in the effect on the customers. Americans are frequently over-weight to the point of being obese, and have remarkably low life expectancies for an advanced industrial country.
>
> It doesn't limit the market enough to give the food suppliers any motivation to modify the food they sell to help their customer live longer, and the regulatory apparatus is leery of upsetting well-heeled companies who can afford to spend a lot on lawyers to protect their income stream.

https://www.obesity.org/

Looks like it's complicated:

https://www.obesity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/TOS-Reasons-for-obesity-infographic-2015.pdf

Doesn't seem a person needs to know all that to realize they can't continue eating a whole 18" pizza for 'dessert.'

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:21:58 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 12:50:07 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 3:44:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>
> > > > https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/weight-loss-medication#Pros-and-cons-of-weight-loss-medications
> > >
> > > Majority of those fools are self-indulging.
> > They aren't fools, and the mechanisms that regulate our food intake have been evolving for millions of years, and aren't well adapted to times of abundance.
> > > Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.
> > They are not neuroscientists. They just keep track of what sell well, and modify it in ways that they hope will make it sell better, and build on what turns out to work.
> > It's empirical science, but the nervous system isn't only one being explored. And it is irresponsible idiocy. Making your customers obscenely fat so that they die young shrinks your market.
> You're being naïve:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritional_neuroscience

That's stuff that has been known about for most of the century. It's stuff my mother was taught when she did biochemisty in the later 1930's.
> The top selling mass produced food products, things like pizza, are classified as hyperpalatable, and that is by design, not the accidental creation of some piddler in a kitchen.

That's pretty much what I was saying.
> Get an education:
>
> https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2023/what-can-we-do-about-ultraprocessed-foods

Since what I posted reflected exactly that point of view, it strikes me that I have already had the education you seem to be claiming that I need. When I worked at Haffmans BV on measuring instruments for the brewing industry, I did have a little contact with Wageningen researchers. They are good at exploiting popular science journalist (and Dutch science journalists know a lot more about science than their American equivalents).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:37:02 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 2:15:29 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 08:44:37 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:45:09?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 4:28:04?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > >> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:46:51?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > >> > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 3:26:34?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > >> > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:34:55?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > >> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:34:36?AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > >Majority of those fools are self-indulging. Mass market 'cuisine' is not created by chefs, it's created by neuroscientists who have unlocked the secrets of fats, sugars, and salts as stimulating agents for the pleasure and reward centers of the brain.
> > > >
> > > Actually, most junk food (and some very good food) is developed by trial and error in professional test kitchens. Some rent for $400 per hour.
> > Who cares how it is developed? The effect is that the stuff that is most vigorously marketed is addictive, and the customers eat more of it than is good for them.
> > > They do use some basic ingredients developed by food chemists, but most supermarket foods are made of mostly-natural ingredients, stuff that we evolved to like.
> > >
> > > The real tradeoff is taste vs cost. Kraft doesn't use a lot of butter or saffron.
> >
> > The real trade-off is in the effect on the customers. Americans are frequently over-weight to the point of being obese, and have remarkably low life expectancies for an advanced industrial country.
> >
> > It doesn't limit the market enough to give the food suppliers any motivation to modify the food they sell to help their customer live longer, and the regulatory apparatus is leery of upsetting well-heeled companies who can afford to spend a lot on lawyers to protect their income stream.
>
> https://www.obesity.org/
>
> Looks like it's complicated:
>
> https://www.obesity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/TOS-Reasons-for-obesity-infographic-2015.pdf
>
> Doesn't seem a person needs to know all that to realize they can't continue eating a whole 18" pizza for 'dessert.'

It there's an American group that purports to represent the public interest in obesity, there's a fair chance that it was set up by the food industry to spread counter propaganda. If it wasn't. the food industry would infiltrate it to make sure that their interests were properly represented, which is to say to make sure that none of the advice given cut into their market share.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney