FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2892868929> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2892868929 abstract "If you're interested in living a healthy, long life, mere calorie restriction probably won't do much for you. But wait! Before you impulsively dash to the fridge to gobble up a whole pot of artificially sweetened yoghurt − with a freshly cleared conscience, and resolved simply to enjoy your remaining mortal days − it's more complicated than that. Sorry, but this is, after all, biology that we're talking about. Increasing, epidemiological and sociological evidence, and critical examination of calorie restriction experiments, are combining to give a more scientifically-founded explanation for the “obesity epidemic” afflicting wealthy nations. Here's the bottom line: It's likely to be eating habits and the type of diet associated with them, not the calories per se, that threaten to curtail many people's lives short of their potential span. It's the way we eat and what we eat. First to the way: humans face a serious risk to health in having food constantly available, increasingly advertised, and ever less associated with regular eating times. Basically this is a type of industrially encouraged ad libitum feeding regime.1 What's the connexion with calorie-restriction studies? Having covered the risks of simplistically translating results from calorie restriction in animal models into personal eating habits in our previous issue,2 Le Bourg is back with a “Think again” article3 in this issue that basically forces us to examine the negative effects of ad libitum feeding. Herein is the reasoned claim that the seeming life extension effect of calorie restriction in laboratory animal studies is more likely to be due a lowered life expectancy in the ad libitum-fed control groups. Animals in this setting escape the predation, natural accidents, and most of the disease burden that wild animals suffer; however, if Le Bourg is right, the control group can't profit as much from these advantages as the calorie-restricted one, because ad libitum feeding is not healthy for them. These ad libitum fed diets at least contain foodstuffs that are species-appropriate. In the human population, by contrast, that is highly questionable. And so to the what. Industrialized wealthy nations are increasingly eating foodstuffs laced with refined carbohydrates and carbohydrates with high glycemic indexes (put crudely, that rapidly enter into the blood as monosaccharides, and hence have high insulin-releasing potential). George Monbiot's analysis,1 drawing on published peer reviewed literature, claims that today's obesity-prone populations are not eating more calories on average than their counterparts even in the 1970s; rather they are eating them in different forms, predominantly in more carbohydrate-rich foods − a trend that is promoted by the food industry's strategic development and advertising of attractive foods. Put dysregulated eating habits together with unbalanced nutrition, and one has a metabolic energy economy that is forced to run out of synchrony with physiological circadian rhythms, and on a fuel that exhausts the insulin machinery. And mere exercise won't help you much in that situation either.4 It seems, therefore, that putting calorie restriction into practice in human populations has never been further from the realms of realism − and at least as much for practical, as scientific, reasons. If there are any potential benefits in humans, these might only be realized if we manage to get our diet and eating habits back into order. Performing calorie restriction on such a poor, carbohydrate-rich, diet is a bit like saying to an obese person “If you cut down your consumption of fizzy orangeade, you'll live longer”, knowing that the fizzy drink is likely the major source of certain important vitamins in that person's diet… Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief" @default.
• W2892868929 created "2018-10-05" @default.
• W2892868929 creator A5050606301 @default.
• W2892868929 date "2018-09-24" @default.
• W2892868929 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
• W2892868929 title "Calorie Restriction off the Menu for the Time Being?…" @default.
• W2892868929 cites W2113220336 @default.
• W2892868929 cites W2808065191 @default.
• W2892868929 cites W2885627261 @default.
• W2892868929 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201800170" @default.
• W2892868929 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30246504" @default.
• W2892868929 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2892868929 type Work @default.
• W2892868929 sameAs 2892868929 @default.
• W2892868929 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2892868929 countsByYear W28928689292019 @default.
• W2892868929 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2892868929 hasAuthorship W2892868929A5050606301 @default.
• W2892868929 hasBestOaLocation W28928689291 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C138944611 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C2778707264 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C40438245 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C126894567 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C134018914 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C138944611 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C15744967 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C2778707264 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C40438245 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C71924100 @default.
• W2892868929 hasConceptScore W2892868929C74909509 @default.
• W2892868929 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W2892868929 hasLocation W28928689291 @default.
• W2892868929 hasLocation W28928689292 @default.
• W2892868929 hasOpenAccess W2892868929 @default.
• W2892868929 hasPrimaryLocation W28928689291 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2024565693 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2029917972 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2071597455 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2080496529 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2098051671 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2297798471 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W2336120962 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W3198573074 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W4255504770 @default.
• W2892868929 hasRelatedWork W4285043754 @default.
• W2892868929 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W2892868929 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2892868929 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2892868929 magId "2892868929" @default.
• W2892868929 workType "article" @default.