• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Calorie restriction and exercise


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:48 AM


A lot of evidence suggests too much exercise (or doing it the wrong way, or with assistance of performance enhancing drugs) might be dangerous.

http://www.imminst.o...=171&t=11976&s=

However, a lot of other evidence suggests if one exercises, there are improvements in cognition to prevent other factors of aging from accelerating...

http://today.reuters...C3-healthNews-2

Physically active life good for the body and brain
Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:44 PM ET

By Megan Rauscher

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Exercise keeps the body, and mind, in tiptop shape, according to a review of published studies on the topic. Taken together, the data suggest that exercise and physical activity may slow age-related declines in cognitive function, the reviewers conclude.

Moreover, fitness training may improve some mental processes even more than moderate activity.

"Although we clearly still have much to learn about the relationship between physical activity and cognition, what we currently know suggests that physical activity can help keep us both healthy and mentally fit," Dr. Arthur F. Kramer told Reuters Health.

Kramer, from the Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois in Urbana, presented his team's work this week at the annual gathering of the American Psychological Association. The research is scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology.

In an effort to resolve the "varied opinions" on the impact of exercise on cognitive functioning, Kramer and colleagues conducted an "up-to-date" review of the scientific literature on the subject.

They found that many of the studies suggest "significant, and sometimes substantial" links between physical activity and later cognitive function and dementia. There is evidence that this relationship can span several decades.

In one study, for example, participating twice weekly in leisure time physical activity in middle age was associated with a reduced risk of dementia later in life.

However, "given the observational nature" of most of the studies on exercise and the brain, a "cause and effect" relationship cannot be established, Kramer and colleagues point out.

"Fortunately, there have been an increasing number of randomized intervention studies which have examined the relationship between fitness training and cognition and dementia," they note.

Some of these studies have shown significant improvements in mental performance and delayed dementia with fitness training, whereas others have not.

Pooled data from 18 intervention studies suggests a "moderate" positive influence of fitness training, particularly on "executive control" functions such as planning, scheduling, working memory and multi-tasking -- many of the processes that often show substantial decline with age.

Exercise is not only beneficial for healthy people but also for those already showing signs of dementia and related cognitive impairments, the team reports.

The medical research literature also contains evidence that "even relatively short exercise interventions can begin to restore some of the losses in brain volume associated with aging," they add.


Check this too:

http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=11800&s=

Now, if you are running a strict CR routine, can excercise be a big part of it...and, if so, how does one diet AND if doing CR, Excercise? It may be a dumb question, but I might be under the false impression that you can't do both CR and run a moderate weight training/cardio regimen.

#2 robosapiens

  • Guest
  • 163 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 30 July 2007 - 04:39 PM

A lot of evidence suggests too much of X (or doing it the wrong way, or with assistance of Y ) might be dangerous.

You dont need much exercise to get great results if you know what your doing...


And assistance from performance enhancing drugs can actually be healthy if used properly!

#3 electric buddha

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Helena,MT

Posted 06 August 2007 - 04:51 AM

A lot of evidence suggests too much of X (or doing it the wrong way, or with assistance of Y ) might be dangerous.


The problem is getting concrete measurements to show what actually is too much or too little.

#4 doug123

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 06 August 2007 - 08:10 AM

I took a close look at the following study recently; I wasn't aware that animal results don't always mean the same thing for human subjects. Before I present the following evidence, let me please define the primary source: The British Medical Journal:

Here's some introductory information regarding BMJ from Wikipedia that seems to be accurate as of August 6, 2007:

British Medical Journal

BMJ is one of the most popular and widely-read peer-reviewed general medical journals in the world.[2] It is published by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd (owned by the British Medical Association), whose other publications include popular sub-speciality journals like The Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, Heart, Thorax, among others, and Student BMJ for medical students globally. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was shortened to BMJ in 1988.[3]

The current editor of BMJ is Fiona Godlee, who replaced the former editor-in-chief, Richard Smith after he resigned in July 2004. She was appointed in February 2005, and Kamran Abbasi served as acting editor in the interim.


Journal content
BMJ is an emphatic advocate of evidence-based medicine, and publishes original research, clinical reviews, news, editorial perspectives, personal views and career focus articles, to mention a few. Recently its readership has witnessed a surge in the number of articles focusing on medical ethics and health in developing nations.[citation needed]

The journal also releases a number of 'theme issues' every year, when it publishes research and review articles pertaining to the theme addressed. Some of the popular theme issues in recent years include 'Health in Africa', 'Management of Chronic Diseases' and 'Global Voices on the AIDS Catastrophe'. A special 'Christmas Issue' is published annually, on the Friday before Christmas.

Editions

BMJ has four paper editions (which have the same content but different advertising):

o General Practice edition for General Practitioners.
o Clinical Research for hospital doctors.
o International edition for overseas subscribers.
o Compact Edition for retired members of the BMA.
o Some of the international editions are also available in local languages.

....

More info on BMJ at Wikipedia by clicking here


So here's the abstract of the study I'd like to examine:

Posted Image

BMJ  2007;334:197 (27 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE (published 15 December 2006)
Research
Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review


Pablo Perel, research fellow1, Ian Roberts, clinical coordinator CRASH 2 trial1, Emily Sena, PhD student2, Philipa Wheble, medical student2, Catherine Briscoe, medical student2, Peter Sandercock, professor of medical neurology2, Malcolm Macleod, senior lecturer2, Luciano E Mignini, researcher3, Pradeep Jayaram, senior house officer4, Khalid S Khan, professor of obstetrics-gynaecology4


1 Crash Trials Coordinating Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, 2 Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, 3 Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, WHO Collaborative Centre in Maternal and Child Health, Rosario 2000, Argentina, 4 Division of Reproductive and Child Health, Birmingham Women's Hospital, University of Birmingham

Correspondence to: P Perel pablo.perel@lshtm.ac.uk

Objective To examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials.

Study design Systematic review.

Data sources Medline, Embase, SIGLE, NTIS, Science Citation Index, CAB, BIOSIS.

Study selection Animal studies for interventions with unambiguous evidence of a treatment effect (benefit or harm) in clinical trials: head injury, antifibrinolytics in haemorrhage, thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke, antenatal corticosteroids to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis.

Review methods Data were extracted on study design, allocation concealment, number of randomised animals, type of model, intervention, and outcome.

Results Corticosteroids did not show any benefit in clinical trials of treatment for head injury but did show a benefit in animal models (pooled odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in clinical trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models. Thrombolysis improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct volume by 24% (95% confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal corticosteroids reduced respiratory distress and mortality in neonates whereas in animal models respiratory distress was reduced but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates increased bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In animal models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The corresponding treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5% (5.8% to 11.2%) and in the combined results for the forearms (baboons only) was 1.7% (–1.4% to 4.7%).

Conclusions
Discordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.


BBC News issued a reported on the findings of this study; you can access it by clicking here to view: "Animal studies 'of limited use'"

An excerpt:

Posted Image
Mice are commonly used for research into human conditions


The British Medical Journal research looked at studies in six areas and found animal studies agreed with human trials in just three.

...


If it's true that results of animal trails only translate to human trails approximately half the time, does that mean CR only works for half of the humans; or does that perhaps suggest that effectiveness of CR in humans in a 50/50 gamble? It seems we need more human studies -- and is CR perhaps dangerous?

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments?

Take care.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users