Quote:
Originally Posted by ValerieL
No, it doesn't. He's still just saying that only CR produces documentable longevity benefits. If you've got some studies that prove low-carb does the same thing, pony them up and we'll talk.
In the meantime, this... reinforces my original point. This discussion is degrading into name-calling and intolerance.
Val
|
There are no definitive 'studies' that prove low carb is healthier than high carb either. I'm afraid you'd be waiting a long time for those ponies too
.Yet this forum is about people discovering that current mainstream nutritional research hasn't got a clue.
Btw. I've never doubted that only CR produces documentable longevity benefits. The issue here is the 'hardline stance' (by his own admission) that macronutrient ratio is irrelevant to the degree of long term calorie restriction necessary to get the CR/ max longevity increment ball rolling.
I'm still a bit mystified by why Whoa is taking this hardline position on a low carb forum. At the very least he could recognize that the moderate calorie restriction that is automatic on a low carb diet may well produce some longevity improvement and that the calorie restriction necessary for the most longevity improvement may well also be influenced by macronutrient ratio. The fact that current
primate CRon research has not looked at macronutrient ration in CRon processes at all should at least give him pause. Sure it's looked at Rodents. Last time I looked, humans were primates.
But no. It's calories, just calories. Doesn't he have a life? Rosebud put it best when she asked many, many posts ago in this thread: 'Maybe Whoa is just trying to save us poor low carbers from our errant ways'.
I personally don't need saving. Me and most of the members of this forum. I'm healthier than I've ever thought possible after changing from a low fat high carb unprocessed food diet to a high fat/ very low carb diet four years ago. Being told on a low carb board that I'd be just as healthy and would live much longer on a starvation high carb diet with all the 'known' nutrients is a bit sad. Particularly when you actually take a look at the poor fellow, or (just so you don't feel tempted by the 'name calling' accusation again Valerie
) any other high carb severe CRonied mammal.
Observing that Whoa or
any of the CRonies I've seen photographs of, or the long term CR'd primates, look emaciated is just stating the obvious. Why do you think it's namecalling?. I mean Whoa is trying to recommend his version of CR as a good idea. I don't think it is, for precisely the reason of it's effects on body composition. It's interesting, sure. But to pretend it's 'absolutely' the best way to get the benefits of CR, just because the CRon research thus far just hasn't looked in the right places is almost as tragic (IMHO) as the physical effect it has on the animals who practice it (or are forced to practice it).
Let's face it Valerie,- how did you put it? - 'ponying up' the studies that would prove that low carb is healthier than higher carb would be just as impossible as proving that Whoa's dietary approach is unnecessary and emaciating.
But as I said before, he could just look in the mirror.