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]