I had posted most of the nuts and bolts of caloric restriction prior to
the loss of a close family member.  I tend to construct arguments as
pyramids; three or four supporting lines, capped by the point.  The
discussion was in the process of tying the supportive arguments together
to make the final point.  Perhaps because of my sudden and unexpected
loss, or the constant petty, close-minded attitudes of a tiny minority of
the FML, I never returned to the task.  Perhaps with enough encouragement
I will finish the series, but truthfully, it gets wearying to spend hours
obtaining, reading, and double-checking references (some extremely
difficult to obtain), to write the equivalent of a term paper each
night, to have at least two outside experts review and comment on the
work, to bust your balls simplifying the language so you don't have to
concurrently post a dictionary, and THEN to hear the peanut gallery chant
"its only a hypothesis" PRIOR to reading the series, prior to reading the
final point, prior to hearing the recommendations, and prior to checking
out the references.  It makes my desire to finish less than paramount.
 
The difference between a real scientist and a pseudoscientist is that the
real one reads and evaluates new ideas or material, judges the quality
and quantity of the references, and carefully checks to see if the point
is indeed supported by the data.  Pseudoscientiests simply disagree
without review, chanting the mantra "its only a hypothesis" from the
first mention of an oppositional viewpoint.  ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is
"only a hypothesis," and I see little attempt to support their opposition
other than suggesting that because people can successfully do it, it must
be ok.  That type of argument supports early separation of kits from
jills; they can live with it, so it must be ok.  Why not use the argument
to support canine tooth cutting, declawing, early neutering, etc.?  It's
an infantile argument, the same one used to justify slavery! (slaves
were in the Bible, so slavery MUST be ok with God!)  Just because ferrets
are adaptive and capable of surviving horrific conditions, it doesn't
follow that those conditions in captivity are optimal, healthy, moral, or
ethical.  Responsible ferret caretaking demands constant reappraisal of
current "methods and theory," even to the point of challenging existing
accepted dogma.  Our ferrets deserve it, our collective reputation is
dependent upon it, and if someone can't handle the challenge of
"introspective caretaking," well, perhaps they should stick to the more
dogmatic help groups that censor discussion, outlaw discussions of
unethical moderation, and chase away people who disagree.  I admit Bill
and I have had our differences on the razor line between personal and
public, but he doesn't censor discussion, he allows negative comments
regarding his moderation to be posted, and only after extreme warning
and communication after protracted violations does he tell anyone to go
play in someone else's litter box.  Its no wonder the FML has been so
successful for so long.  Do I hear an "Amen?"
 
In the meantime, I am hesitant to post ANY recommendations to the FML
regarding caloric restriction unless or until I finish the series.  I
simply will not risk the health of ferrets by making a statement that
could be misunderstood.  However, I will say this; the National Academy
of Science and many other professional organizations, while admitting
the mechanisms are not well understood, nonetheless acknowledge caloric
restriction reduces overall cancer rates, reduces the impact of
cardiovascular and other organ diseases, extends lifespan by as much as
25-30%, and if done correctly, has NO negative impact on the health of
the individual.  They consider the phenomenon to cross ALL mammalian
species lines (even all animal species lines for the most part).  It has
been shown true in other carnivores, including canids, felids, mustelids
and viverids.
 
Only the most obtuse would suggest the observations that generated these
duplicable data are some sort of panacea.  Caloric restriction impacts
cellular biochemistry at some primal core, the start of the "enzymatic
hiking trail" if you will, so it has a tremendous impact on many widely
divergent physiological functions.  Is this so hard to accept?  Tumors
in bone, liver, lungs, brain, spine, and spleen are easily recognized as
metastases from a single "parent" cancerous tumor.  Ultimately, that
"parent" cancer is a clone of a SINGLE cell gone bad.  If we can accept
that a ferret, riddled with dozens of cancerous lesions in multiple organ
systems, owes its health problems and demise to a SINGLE mutated cell,
why is it so hard to understand that a physiological process, in some way
impacted at a basic core level, can likewise influence a wide range of
organ systems and physiological events?
 
I don't make carbohydrate laden pet foods designed for obligate, primary
carnivores, but I am ultimately a nutritionist (a zooarchaeologist
trained in paleonutrition).  My chicken gravy has passed the review of
world-class nutritionists.  I have a paper being published (as we speak)
debunking the myth that bone grease production (by humans) was primarily
for caloric benefits, but rather for trace nutrients, and I have given
professional papers on the subject.  I am working on an economic theory
of domestication that attempts to explain the conditions where carnivores
would be predicted to be domesticated.  It would be criminal to ignore
its beneficial aspects in terms of increased longevity, reduced risk of
cardiovascular, pancreatic, and gastrointestinal disease, and decreased
risk of cancer for those without the disease, and reduction or spread of
it for those that do.  Caloric restriction is not a panacea, but it does
impact a biochemical "core" that results in a wide range of physiological
outcomes.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4126]