A news update.

Calorie restriction diets such as the one recommended by the CSIRO are known to prolong life in rodents. Does this also work in humans?

It may not be that simple. The increased longevity of animals on calorie restricted diets is associated with declines in the level of a protein called IGF-1 (Insulin like growth factor 1).

The question is this:

When humans are put on a calorie restricted diet do their levels of IGF-1 fall?

The answer, according to a paper in the Journal, Aging Cell*, is not always. IGF-1 levels in humans on a high-protein calorie-restricted diet such as the one recommended by the CSIRO have the same levels of IGF-1 as people on more normal diets.

Only when BOTH calories AND protein intake are restricted do IGF-1 levels fall.

Here is a quote from the authors' abstract:

"In addition, our data provide evidence that protein intake is a key determinant of circulating IGF-1 levels in humans, and suggest that reduced protein intake may become an important component of anticancer and anti-aging dietary interventions."

Note how rapidly the science moves. This paper appeared a month ago and the research would not have been available to the CSIRO scientists when they wrote their book.

*"Long-term effects of calorie or protein restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentration in humans," Luigi Fontana et al, Aging Cell, Oct2008, Vol. 7 Issue 5, p681-68

I agree, it's very difficult for the average lay person to distinguish between conflicting arguments about what we should eat, especially when those in conflict both claim to be evidence-based.

I'm currently embarking on what might be considered a dietary gamble. I'm going against all the conventional wisdom on the importance of low fat, low cholesterol food intake and have switched to a diet much richer in quality saturated fats and oils. I'm eating protein (mostly meat, but also egg, lentil and whey powder) and veg three times a day and finding I'm needing to do very little in the way of snacking. Apart from some occasional brown rice or wholemeal pasta, I'm eating very little carbohydrate and not much dairy either. It took a while to come at cooking things like eggs, sausages, bacon, mushrooms and tomatoes for breakfat but now I'm loving it and realising it really is the best way to start your day. My energy and mood levels are very stable and I'm the lowest weight I ever remember being.

I've made the switch on naturopathic advice which itself is based on the results of comprehensive blood testing. I was told, amongst other things, that my blood cholesterol was too low and that it was a contributing factor to some chronic health conditions. This flies in the face of every doctor's advice in the past that my low blood cholesterol was in fact a good indicator, not a bad one.

I'm also becoming persuaded to the idea that someone alluded to earlier on, that one-size-fits-all dietary regimes are not necessarily the best way for each individual to achieve good health outcomes. Tailoring dietary advice to individual needs is I think the way to go, but that in itself will often involve a flouting of conventionally accepted dietary givens.

I do feel I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm trusting the advice of respected and experienced professionals and as well my own gut instinct, based largely on prior knowledge and on how I feel. It's early days yet, so I guess only time will tell.

I guess when some “science” is not the product of absolute law but mere observation or even an academics personal conjecture it is open to not only dispute but claims of fraud.

Just look up “scientific fraud” (including the quotes) and google brings back79,400 hits in less than a second.

Anyone who has been around long enough to have observed human nature will likely agree that most folk place their own discovery and ego above pretty much all else.

Scientist are humans and subject to the same human traits.

When I read or hear of something which seems to be more “spin” than fact, I become skeptical.

My profession values skepticism and requires independent audit to verify results.

I have observed almost daily, people clinging to outdated and outmoded ideas because they have elements of themselves invested in anachronistic processes and systems. These folk will sabotage alternative opinions and beliefs, regardless of their merit.

So to answer the question

“How do lay people decide when scientists differ?”

It is simple, I apply common sense and the values which I personal consider those of the “reasonable man” (which is yet another subjective evaluation) and then try to defend the position in argument with others.

We all have a view on most things. Science is not some holy-of-holies which cannot be challenged by the lay-person, especially when we all know a lot of money and kudos might be up for grabs for the “winning” opinion (regardless of its veracity) - AGW being a case in point.

And I agree with Arjays points, when science is used to curb the free expression and consumption of people by tethering them to a political agenda it is no longer real science, it is merely Socialism by Stealth.

Col Rouge: << Just look up “scientific fraud” (including the quotes) and google brings back79,400 hits in less than a second

[...]

My profession values skepticism and requires independent audit to verify results. >>

That's very rich, coming from an accountant. I just googled "accounting fraud" (including the quotes) and it returned 245,000 hits in 0.27 seconds.

The trouble with applying the "commonsense" or "reasonable man" approach to scientific disputes is that very often such perspectives are plain erroneous. Much scientific discovery is counterintuitive, and indeed has to battle against entrenched ignorance that seems to be "commonsense" to "reasonable men". You know, stuff like the Earth being flat and the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Given that true science progresses via the falsification of theories and hypotheses, it's always wise to remain sceptical (in the true sense) of "scientific" claims and counter-claims that are reported in popular media, particularly when they have commercial implications.

<< Socialism by Stealth >>

Welcome back, Col - how was your holiday?

LOL Col Rouge,

For once I have to agree with CJ MORGAN. When it comes to fraud the scientists could learn from the auditors' correspondence course on how to make pond scum look like geniuses. Do the names Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, our own HIH, mean nothing to you? All these companies were given a clean bill of health from their auditors almost until the end. Yet we know that the problems were brewing for many years.

More to the point, the CEO and senior executives at these companies were able to reap bonuses worth tens of millions EACH on the basis of healthy "profits" attested to by the auditors' signatures on the financial statements.

See

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122713829045342487.html

I traced the quarterly returns of ENRON right up to the point at which the company went down the tubes. In the last quarterly report I counted the phrase "unconsolidated equity affiliate" 19 times. These "unconsolidated equity affiliates" accounted for over 85% of Enron's alleged profits. Yet their liabilities never appeared on the Enron group balance sheet.

And what the auditors did was legal and they were arguably in compliance with FASB.

IT TAKES REAL GENIUS TO DEVELOP ACCOUNTING STANDARDS THAT ENABLE YOU TO SIGN OFF ON THE BALANCE SHEETS OF A COMPANY MANIFESTLY ABOUT TO GO BUST.

You are correct in saying that lay people can challenge scientists. Actually anyone is free to challenge anybody.

However the reality is that people who lack a scientific training are rarely able to make a contribution to scientific debate.

Not never. It does happen on occasion.

But it is very rare.

In the end the world is what the world is and slowly science unravels the mysteries. Sometimes we take two steps back before taking three steps forward but we get there in the end.

Accountants, on the other hand, never seem to learn.

Hi steven, I am pleased you re-entered the debate, I am holding a policy position toward CJMoron, “don’t feed the trolls”, therefore could not reply to his stupidity.

Any comment upon the observance of fraud in the accountancy profession is easily countered

As a profession the reporting for corruption and fraudulent practices is high because of the number of opportunities available to unscrupulous and weak willed individuals.

It saddens me but I understand how my profession is so exposed to these flawed people.
However, it heartens me to know so many are caught and so many others are sacked (for which I proudly take credit of doing in a couple of specific circumstances) before they reach the level of notoriety and destruction of the Enrons, HIH, Cambridge Credit, WorldCom etc.

I watched a program on Bernie Ebers the other night, (Worldcom), I was living in Texas when that all happened, he was another shyster full of contempt for accountancy prudence and supported by the weak characters I referred to earlier. There are a lot of these ‘grifters’ who apparently work the ‘christian finance’ game, mostly ponzi schemes.

The Sarbane-Oxley legislation would disclaim your silly assertion that “Accountants, on the other hand, never seem to learn.”

I guess the reason the number of fraud references, as they apply to accountants, exceeds the number as they apply to scientist is

Accountants are far more scrupulous than scientists – certainly the scientists whose snouts are buried in the UN trough.

“However the reality is that people who lack a scientific training are rarely able to make a contribution to scientific debate.”

This world is not driven solely by the views and opinions of scientists, especially when those views are so often, like weak willed accountants, on offer to the highest bidder.

Re “You are correct in saying that lay people can challenge scientists. Actually anyone is free to challenge anybody.”

Yes, I know I am right and only by challenging things do we get to the truth.