Whats up with Pearson & Shaw
Barry Merriman
original book (~ 1982 ). What are they up to these days, and is there
any evidence that have actually slowed their aging (I think they
are about 50 years old now). Have they radically altered their
regimes since 1982? ( I recall there was another book a few
years later that soundly refuted many of their hypotheses. And
in general, they are on very thin ground by extrapolating heavily
from animal and test tube results.)
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Ronald B. Keys J.D. Ph.D
I saw Dirk & Sandy at the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine last Dec,
1994 and spoke with both of them. They look good. They both seem oriented
as to person, time and place!! Last I heard, they were still engulfed in a
lawsuit against the FDA charging them (FDA) with violation of their first
amendment rights, freedom of speech in particular. I don't know what the
status of the case is in Federal District Court. They are going around the
country talking and passing the hat to fund the lawsuit. I am not sure what
their current research status is. No--I did not see Sandy bend a horshoe
nor did I ask. But I really find them both to be very friendly, likeable
people. Someday, I believe the history of gerontology will treat them well
for having popularized gerobiology, free radical chemistry and the clinical
nutritional sciences and having stimulated the growth of complimentary
medicine.
Ronald B. Keys, JD, PhD (rkey...@nyc.pipeline.com) (6-3-95) Queens, NYC
(718) 460-3966
Anima
>I haven't followed the doings of P & S since a few years after their
>original book (~ 1982 ). What are they up to these days, and is there
>any evidence that have actually slowed their aging (I think they
>are about 50 years old now). Have they radically altered their
>regimes since 1982? ( I recall there was another book a few
>years later that soundly refuted many of their hypotheses. And
>in general, they are on very thin ground by extrapolating heavily
>from animal and test tube results.)
What book is that? Far as I know, the "free radical" theory they
popularized is more widely believed every day. Whether all the rest
stands up would be interesting to know, but considering that it was in my
lifetime official AMA policy that anyone who advocated dietary changes to
treat cancer was a quack, it seems obvious no one side has a monopoly on
truth.
--
an...@io.com When making public policy decisions about new technologies
for the Government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would
best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the Government
to deploy those technologies. --Philip Zimmermann
J. Prange
Merriman) writes:
>
>I haven't followed the doings of P & S since a few years after their
>original book (~ 1982 ). What are they up to these days, and is there
>any evidence that have actually slowed their aging (I think they
>are about 50 years old now). Have they radically altered their
>regimes since 1982?
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
>
I too would gladly shell out another wad of money for a new and updated
"Life-Extention II" book. It has been 13 years since their original
book. It seems that most of the Life Extention writers have put out
updated versions of their ideas such a Albert Rosenfeld's
"Pro-Longevity II" and Roy Walford now has 3 books out. Do they still
Publish a News letter? Is anyone here in personal contact with them?
--
--
\\\//
(o o)
--ooO--(_)--Ooo--------------------------------------
"I try not to make comments on things which I know
nothing about...unless I see a political advantage
in it." -Haley Barbour, Chairman of the Republican
National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------
Angelo Schouten
In <3ql7q2$p...@soenews.ucsd.edu> ba...@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) writes:
>
>I haven't followed the doings of P & S since a few years after their
>original book (~ 1982 ). What are they up to these days, and is there
>any evidence that have actually slowed their aging (I think they
>are about 50 years old now). Have they radically altered their
>regimes since 1982?
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
I remember asking the same question months ago. Never got any reply though.
I would kill for the newest release of part II (or a new one from John A Mann
i.g.). I would expect them to have at least a cyber address, but I imagine it
would become "constipated" as soon as it is known. Anyway suppose you discover
something, could you let me -send me a postcard- (or us) know about it.
Angelo Schouten
"I die harder than Bruce Willis, Saxophone Bill, True lies Bob Dole and
Powerbook Newt Gingrich")
E-mail address is no longer valid.
Physics and Chemistry/ Leiden Inst Chem-Leiden Univ The Netherlands
******************************************************************************
Correspondence to:
(Mailbox)
PO Box 6229
2702 AE Zoetermeer
The Netherlands
David Wright
>I too would gladly shell out another wad of money for a new and updated
>"Life-Extention II" book. It has been 13 years since their original
>book. It seems that most of the Life Extention writers have put out
>updated versions of their ideas such a Albert Rosenfeld's
>"Pro-Longevity II" and Roy Walford now has 3 books out. Do they still
>Publish a News letter? Is anyone here in personal contact with them?
I was wondering if anyone besides me on this newsgroup had read
"Prolongevity II", which I found in the library a couple of years ago.
Everyone has encountered Pearson & Shaw, but Rosenfeld seems to be
damn near invisible. A pity, as I thought his book was fascinating,
and covered material I haven't seen elsewhere (particularly the idea
of a pituitary "aging hormone").
-- David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
wri...@hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily Hitachi's,
but you're free to disagree, you poor deluded creature
Brian Manning Delaney
an...@io.com (Anima) wrote, among other things:
>ba...@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>>... I recall there was another book a few
>>years later that soundly refuted many of their hypotheses. And
>>in general, they are on very thin ground by extrapolating heavily
>
>What book is that? Far as I know, the "free radical" theory they
>popularized is more widely believed every day. Whether all the rest
The criticism (found in many articles and books) was never
directed at the free rad. theory of aging, but rather at the
astonishingly simplistic Good v. Evil view of anti-oxidants
and free rads that seemed to animate much of P&S's thinking.
(In fact, folks' inability to see the diff. between these
two potential targets of criticism could well suggest
that.... Nevermind.) Their 1st book was, scientifically,
fairly bad. Nevertheless, the book got people thinking
about dietary interventions in medicine and life extension
in general, and they did get a few important things right.
Moreover, they've changed their views considerably in the
last 10+ years. I see interviews w/them in some nutrition
rags (didn't notice which) every now and then, and I've been
favorably impressed.
Plus, they seem to be very sweet, open-minded people, from
what I saw at last year's Las Vegas anti-aging medicine
conference (tho' I didn't talk to them personally). That
counts for a lot.
--
Brian M. Delaney <b-de...@uchicago.edu> [DO NOT cc: articles to me.]
<bmde...@midway.uchicago.edu> [Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they are not
statements of fact. * "Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.
Bryan Shelton
: Moreover, they've changed their views considerably in the
: last 10+ years. I see interviews w/them in some nutrition
: rags (didn't notice which) every now and then, and I've been
: favorably impressed.
What views have they changed? Be specific.
Bryan
Brian Manning Delaney
br...@phoenix.phoenix.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote, among other things:
No time to be extremely specific, but, generally (!): they
recognize more deeply the need for studies w/relevant
endpoints -- i.e., they don't just 1) see that a nutrient
performs a function that contributes to longevity; 2) try --
based on their considerable (given they're laypeople,
esp'ly) knowledge of physiology -- to deduce that higher tan
normal doses would perform the function better, then 3)
advocate mega-doses. Instead, they seem to recognize that
studies that actually show the function's being performed
better are needed.
Sandra Russell
Manning Delaney) writes:
>
>In article <anima.8...@pentagon.io.com>,
>an...@io.com (Anima) wrote, among other things:
>>ba...@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>
>>>... I recall there was another book a few
>>>years later that soundly refuted many of their hypotheses. And
>>>in general, they are on very thin ground by extrapolating heavily
>>>from animal and test tube results....
>>
>>What book is that? Far as I know, the "free radical" theory they
>>popularized is more widely believed every day. Whether all the rest
>>stands up would be interesting to know....
>
>The criticism (found in many articles and books) was never
>directed at the free rad. theory of aging, but rather at the
>astonishingly simplistic Good v. Evil view of anti-oxidants
>and free rads that seemed to animate much of P&S's thinking.
>(In fact, folks' inability to see the diff. between these
>two potential targets of criticism could well suggest
>that.... Nevermind.) Their 1st book was, scientifically,
>fairly bad. Nevertheless, the book got people thinking
>about dietary interventions in medicine and life extension
>in general, and they did get a few important things right.
>
>Moreover, they've changed their views considerably in the
>last 10+ years. I see interviews w/them in some nutrition
>rags (didn't notice which) every now and then, and I've been
>favorably impressed.
>
>Plus, they seem to be very sweet, open-minded people, from
>what I saw at last year's Las Vegas anti-aging medicine
>conference (tho' I didn't talk to them personally). That
>counts for a lot.
>
>--
>Brian M. Delaney <b-de...@uchicago.edu> [DO NOT cc: articles to me.]
><bmde...@midway.uchicago.edu> [Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
>Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they are not
>statements of fact. * "Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.
>
I pretty much share your views, here, Brian. They are libertarians, and
you can forgive libertarians a lot, because they are willing to forgive
others a lot. And most of the libertarians I know need a lot of
forgiving <g>.
The savaging of P&S you may be thinking of was a long chapter in Jack
Yetiv, M.D., Ph.D.'s _Popular Nutrition Practices_, circa 1986 or so.
An excellent book which naturally didn't sell nearly as well.
Steve Harris
Barry Merriman
Russell) writes:
> The savaging of P&S you may be thinking of was a long chapter in Jack
> Yetiv, M.D., Ph.D.'s _Popular Nutrition Practices_, circa 1986 or so.
> An excellent book which naturally didn't sell nearly as well.
>
> Steve Harris
Yes, that is the book. A very good book, in fact. I have it
at home. Anyone who read P & S's book must read this one, or
they are going about sadly unbalanced in their point of view.
smw
magazine (aligned with Libertian Party views) - Sandy more than Durk. In
the latest issue of Life Extension magazine, there is an advertisement
for tapes of lectures done in 1994 - one on controlling brain chemistry.
Brian Manning Delaney
srus...@ix.netcom.com (Sandra Russell) wrote, among other things:
>The savaging of P&S you may be thinking of was a long chapter in Jack
>Yetiv, M.D., Ph.D.'s _Popular Nutrition Practices_, circa 1986 or so.
>An excellent book which naturally didn't sell nearly as well.
Is the goal of universal literacy really worth it? (Oops --
spontaneous uncontrollable channeling of Nietzsche; Sorry,
of course it's worth it [esp. for people like P&S...] --
just must also teach other things.)
Tim Freeman (now at t...@netcom.com), a long time ago, contributed the
following to this group about Yetiv's book:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a pointer to a book written by a physician who seemed to me to
have his head on straight and to be highly critical of Pearson & Shaw:
Type of Material: Book
LC Call Number: RM217 .Y47 1986
Author: Yetiv, Jack Z.
Title: Popular nutritional practices : a scientific appraisal /
Jack Zeev Yetiv.
Publication Info: Toledo, Ohio : Popular Medicine Press, c1986.
Phys. Description: 318 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographies and index.
Subjects: Diet therapy--Evaluation.
Subjects: Reducing diets--Evaluation.
Subjects: Nutrition.
Subjects: Therapeutic systems--Evaluation.
Subjects: Diet Therapy.
Subjects: Nutrition.
Subjects: Vitamins--therapeutic use.
LC Card Number: 85023243
ISBN: 0-936575-30-1 : $32.95
ISBN: 0-936575-29-8 (pbk.) : $23.95
I suspect the book is out of print; you can probably get it by
interlibrary loan.
Many physicians seem to equate "X is not proven" with "X is false". I
started reading this book expecting the author to make the same
mistake, but he didn't; he seemed to understand the idea of a rational
gamble. His recommendation is fairly conservative: low fat, mostly
vegetarian diet and exercise. But the more interesting part of the
book is his debunking of various nutritional fads.
He had several criticisms of P&S. Here are some, best as I remember:
1. Their text had no pointers to their bibliography, which means that
if you question one of their claims, you either have to do the
literature search yourself, or you have to look up all of the
relevant-looking references in the bibliography. You can't ever
really prove they made something up; it could be in a paper not
indexed by the database you use for your literature search, or it
could be in one of the hopelessly obscure references from their
bibliography that you couldn't find. (For example, I wasn't ever able
to find any documents about L-phenylalanine being used as an
antidepressant, although personal experience tells me it is
amphetamine-like when taken with appropriate doses of vitamins B6 and
C.)
2. They got many, many details wrong. Yetiv spends pages pointing to
errors of fact in Life Extension.
3. P&S assume that if a treatment makes sick people better, it will
make healthy people better in the same way. For instance, L-Dopa
improves the mental functioning of people with Parkinson's disease.
Durk Pearson took L-Dopa when LE was written, even though he didn't
have Parkinson's. There isn't any evidence that L-Dopa prevents
Parkinson's; it just makes the symptoms go away for a while. So
taking it if you don't have Parkinson's seems like a poor risk.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Russell
Manning Delaney) writes:
Yeah, I had much the same problems with P&S, dispite being influenced by
their outlook to some degree (they go in my guilty pleasures file--
fantasy about what the world would be like if you could just mix your
own nutrients and slow your aging process while all your enemies got
wrinkles and heart disease....). Regarding screwups, I managed to track
one of their references to the (supposedly) somniferous effects of
inositol back through some of the primary literature they'd cited
(loosely) in the back of the chapter. Wups, guess what? They'd been
reading a paper on natural ligands of the benzodiazepine receptor, and
confused inositol with inosine (helped out by Pffeifer's claims that
inositol is sleep inducing). Inosine actually HAS some demonstrated
Valium like effects in some animals (birds), but to this day you're
going to see inositol in sleep remedies, and inosine in body builder
stuff to pump you up. Another great example of the fact that most pills
do pretty much what you expect them to <g>.
And by the way, there's absolutely NO evidence for all that stuff
about having to take vitamin C with cysteine to prevent cystine stones,
although even Walford fell for it, and repeats it in his book. If
anything, vitamin C increases cystine excretion.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Barry Merriman
> >
> >What views have they changed? Be specific.
> >
>
> No time to be extremely specific, but, generally (!): they
> recognize more deeply the need for studies w/relevant
> studies that actually show the function's being performed
> better are needed.
>
This would indeed be a wise move on their part---that type of
thinking was the major flaw with their original proposals.
In a nutshell, they did way too much extrapolation from animal
experiments (and even non animal experiment---extrapolating from basic
chemistry in the case of some anti-oxidants). It is, basically,
impossible to accurately extrapolate from animal experiments to humans.
Certainly, it gives guidance in selecting things to _try_ on humans, but
it has much less correlation with the _outcome_ of such trials.
This is well demonstrated in cancer research, where, for instance, there are
compounds that are carcinogens in rats but not mice, for example.
Their original game plan was to identify compounds that extended lifespan
in (much lower) animals, and extrapolate the results to human use.
That is likely to fail, as there is too much variablity on the results:
some of the things probably would help, and others would proabably hurt---on
average, its hard to tell where you would end up. Most likely you'd
end up dying from cancer induced by one of the compounds that worked
differently in humans than in rodents (or bacteria) :-).
A much more likely-to-be-beneficial strategy is that espoused
by Dr. Sheldon Hendler (MD, Phd here at UCSD), whose book
``The complet guide to anti-aging nutrients'' came out a couple
years later than P&S's. His game plan was to identify compounds
that were correlated with benefits in actual human trials
(either clincal tests ore epidemiological evidence), and supplemt
the diet with them, at level which did not have significant negative
side effects in human trials.
His work still involves some extrapolation and assumption about
cause and effect in the human studies, but as it is all between humans,
it is much much more reliable than the extrapolations of P &S. And
because he keeps dosesbelow those that have shown significant side effects in
humans, the possibility of a large negative outcome is greatly reduced.
theoblit
: In article <3rfdch$o...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> pra...@ix.netcom.com (J. Prange ) writes:
: I was wondering if anyone besides me on this newsgroup had read
: "Prolongevity II", which I found in the library a couple of years ago.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Everyone has encountered Pearson & Shaw, but Rosenfeld seems to be
: damn near invisible. A pity, as I thought his book was fascinating,
: and covered material I haven't seen elsewhere (particularly the idea
: of a pituitary "aging hormone").
: -- David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
I have that book and from what I recall it is very good, as was his
first book.
BTW, I am still looking for a really good and up-to-date book on life
extension. I think it is high time that one be written. A few days
ago I was trying to find the full (complicated) SOD cycle but did not
find it in any of the books I had. This despite that fact that SOD
levels are probably one of the best generic aging rate regulators
there are. What books have this diagram?
Angelo S.: I tried getting John A. Mann's book, but it appears to only be
printed in German and is now out of date. And my German skills are
pretty poor by now. :(
---
Jason Taylor * "Doctor, don't cut so deep!
Greenbelt, MD| That's the third operating table you've ruined this week!"
theoblit
: Angelo S.: I tried getting John A. Mann's book, but it appears to only be
: printed in German and is now out of date. And my German skills are
: pretty poor by now. :(
I spoke too soon Angelo. Mann just published a new LE book. Here is
the info:
Foutains of Youth: Secrets of Life Extension
by John A. Mann and Chadd Everone
ISBN:0914171763
(c) 1995
Ronin Publishishing
Berkeley, CA USA
I just ordered that book along with _Understanding Ageing_ by Robin
Holliday (Oxford University Press, ISBN:0521417880, 1995). Can't
wait.
__________________________________________________________________
Jason Taylor | "Doctor, don't cut so deep!
Angelo Schouten
Hi Jason,
Great book that is (and glad you receiv. msgs). My German version of Mann's is
lacking an index (a little bit chaotic), but I know it by heart.
There is another one which comes to my mind: B. Strehler's (Eng. version) Time
Cells and Ageing. Very theoretical, good summary, incl. Gompertz
functions/parameter, pictures of tissues during age-changes etc. I have got
one of the earlier editions (antique by now).
Pauling (How to live longer and feel better, Vit C and the Common Cold ...)is
just nice, but he was better at crystallography.
There is a good review about Brain Chemistry in the Annual J. Med. Chem.
(Articles titled: The Decade of the Brain). Do not buy it (otherwise you will
have to sell parts of your NewYorker Hotrod for it, what a waste for NOx
emission) but do copy the first few chapters. (<cough><cough>). If I am
correct it is the 1993 or 1994 edition. A must read!
Rosenfeld's caught my attention too -but I forgot about it. Partially because
I am a "Chemo-minder" and not so much of a poet, "ortho-man" or
"alternative-health" yup. (but I do not mind others are <grin> <grin>)
Perhaps I will write a book, I have got a pretty strong idea about it.
Regards and Enjoy
Angelo Schouten
(Chem & Phys)
"I die harder than Bruce Willis, Saxo' Bill, True Lies Bob Dole and
Notebook Newt"
E-mail address is no longer valid.
Physics and Chemistry/ Leiden Inst Chem-Leiden Univ The Netherlands
Correspondence to:
MAC VS PC
popularization of life extension or the los angelization of it. they were
addicted to hyperbole. but the apparently not yet ready for prime time
john a mann is the great unsung hero of the revolution. his secrets of
life extension is still the best overview out there 15 years after
publication and how about the church of the tree of life? was that a
stroke of subversive genius or what? john, im glad to hear you are still
manning the guns. live long and prosper.