CUBBY, ANNETTE AND THE AIN-M

Health Sciences Institute e-Alert 

November 7, 2002 

Dear Reader, 

As the old Frank Sinatra song goes... 

Here is the best part You'll have a head start If you are a mouse and very young at heart 

Okay - it doesn't go exactly like that, of course. But a recent study (using mice) claims to provide some new information about how to reduce the effects of aging by altering just one dietary habit. 

If you're a mouse, this could be great news. But if you're a human, and can read, it actually brings up a question bigger than the one it answers. 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Counting calories - but from where? 
--------------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, when I sat down to write this e-Alert I thought I might be on to something with valuable information. Tipped off by a news item released by Reuters Health, I was intrigued by the title: "Cutting Calories May Keep Heart Young." The concept of reducing caloric intake to increase your chances of longevity isn't new. But this was the first time I'd seen it applied specifically to the heart. In a nutshell, here are the details: 

A combined team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Alabama fed a uniform diet to a group of mice until they reached the age of 14 months - which for a mouse is considered middle-age. The mice were then split into two groups. The mice in one group were allowed to eat almost as much as they could, while those in the second group had their caloric intake reduced by 26%. 

Sixteen months later, at the age of 30 months (equal to about 
90 years in a human lifespan), heart tissue samples from the mice were analyzed. The researchers found that the group fed the lower calorie diet had a 19% reduction in age-related genetic changes compared to the mice with the less-restricted diet. The low-cal mice also showed less DNA damage, a stronger immune system, and a suppression of programmed cell death, or apoptosis. 

Even though the subjects in the study were mice, these results still seemed to have the potential to be promising. Nevertheless I've read through enough of these to know how to read what wasn't there. What exactly were the mice eating? Were the diets identical? And how much more was one group eating than the other? Obviously, the details of their diet would be a critical factor to determine what contributed to the results. So I went hunting and found a report of the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Who's hungry? 
--------------------------------------------------------------

The mouse diet in the study turned out to be AIN-M semipurified diet. In other words, it's apparently standard mouse food designed to be used in clinical trials. But still, there was no information on exactly what was in the food. It could be anything. It could be the mouse equivalent of the Atkins diet. Or it could be a vegetarian diet. Or it could be gummi-bears - who knows? In a study about caloric intake, it certainly seems like an oversight to not identify the source of the calories. Particularly because we know that the source of the calories, more than the quantity, can have a huge impact on heart health. 

Coming up empty, I finally dug deep enough to discover this detail: The mice who were fed the restricted diet were fed a SPECIAL AIN-M semipurified mouse food that was enriched with "proteins, vitamins and minerals to avoid malnutrition." Is it just me, or does that one fact make the results of this study suspect? 

No - it's not just me. 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pass the AIN-M! 
--------------------------------------------------------------

If the mice weren't fed the same nutrients, how can you possibly hold the results of one group up against the other? And if the mice on the restricted diets received vitamins and minerals, it's certainly possible that the positive effects they enjoyed from their diet came from the supplements as much (or more?) than the lower caloric intake. 

Reuters and the other media outlets that reported this story aren't outlining dietary guidelines for health-conscious mice. And they aren't giving mice owners advice on how to make their pets live longer. The clear implication is that this study supports the hypothesis that lower caloric intake increases longevity and decreases the risk of heart problems in humans. And the casual reader of these reports, or headlines, would almost certainly come away with the idea that lowering calories, any calories, will add years to his life. 

There may be something valid in the idea that managing calories could help us achieve better health as we age. But it's not as simplistic as just lowering the numbers. 

If this study tells the mice anything, I would say it's to increase their intake of vitamins and minerals regardless of caloric intake. And, please pass the protein, vitamin and mineral enriched AIN-M semipurified mouse food. Yum! 

...and another thing 

Last Saturday I attended a charity benefit for a group that supports research for children with cancer. At one point during the evening there was a special grant presentation for a gentleman who I'll call Dr. B. - an author, professor, noted cancer researcher, and the director of pediatric neurosurgery at a leading U.S. research hospital. Over the years, Dr. B, a pioneer in his field, had received more than $1.1 million in grants for cancer research for children from this group alone. 

During his speech, Dr. B. shared with the crowd that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer the year before. And although it was an aggressive cancer, it was caught early enough for treatment to be effective. He said that his cancer experience had given him a better appreciation of the value of time and of his loved ones. And then he made a startling comment: He said that for the first time it also made him shift his focus away from thinking just about a cure for cancer, and instead wonder about the causes of cancer and their possible prevention. 

Here's a remarkably well educated man, a renowned figure in the field of cancer research, who by all outward appearances is thoughtful and compassionate, saying that after a career of 16 years in medicine, he had just recently thought about considering the cause of cancer for the first time. 

Believe me, I'm not taking Dr. B. to task personally - the world would be a better place with more Dr. B's in it. But his remark made me realize that the mainstream medical profession still has a "total vision" problem when it comes to treatment. It seems to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the system when someone as accomplished as Dr. B. has focused on cures for more than a decade and a half without ever questioning the causes. 

Imagine how much more advanced the field of cancer treatment might be if the best and the brightest, like Dr. B., were being trained by a system that made prevention as high a priority as cures. 

To Your Good Health, 

Jenny Thompson Health Sciences Institute 

Sources: "Transcriptional Profiles Associated with Aging and Middle Age-onset Caloric Restriction in Mouse Hearts" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 10:1073, 11/5/02 "Cutting Calories May Keep Heart Young: Study" Suzanne Rostler, Reuters Health, 10/28/02 "Low-Cal Diet Keeps Mice Young at Heart" Adam Marcus, HealthScoutNews Reporter, 10/28/02 

Copyright (c)1997-2002 by www.hsibaltimore.com, L.L.C. The e-Alert may not be posted on commercial sites without written permission.

Copyright Issues?