Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Hi folks: I had forgotten about the findings of this study. In case anyone else has also forgotten, the key part of the abstract seems to be: " Compared with the DR monkeys, the AL monkeys had a 2.6-fold increased risk of death. Hyperinsulinemia led to a 3.7-fold increased risk of death (p <.05); concordantly, the risk of death decreased by 7%, per unit increase in insulin sensitivity (M). There was significant organ pathology in the AL at death. The age at median survival in the AL was approximately 25 years compared with 32 years in the DR. " DR = dietary restricted; AL = ad lib. So the above would seem not to support de Grey's view that CRON would be expected to increase human lifespan by only a couple of years. PMID: 12634286 Can anyone provide a link to enlighten us as to how a 'unit' of insulin sensitivity is defined/determined? Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hi folks: A couple more details about this study: A) The restricted monkeys were put on this program at an average age of 16.6 (monkey) years. That is very roughly the equivalent of 50 years in humans. Insulin sensitivity index data seem to range, in humans, between values of about 8 and 50. It seems all individuals with a BMI above 28 have numbers around 10. At a BMI of around 20 there is a full range of values from ~10 up to 50. I am not sure of the significance of this range. Figs 2 and 3 in the following study are instructive: http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/1195 Rodney. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > Hi folks: > > I had forgotten about the findings of this study. In case anyone > else has also forgotten, the key part of the abstract seems to be: > > " Compared with the DR monkeys, the AL monkeys had a 2.6-fold > increased risk of death. Hyperinsulinemia led to a 3.7-fold increased > risk of death (p <.05); concordantly, the risk of death decreased by > 7%, per unit increase in insulin sensitivity (M). There was > significant organ pathology in the AL at death. The age at median > survival in the AL was approximately 25 years compared with 32 years > in the DR. " > > DR = dietary restricted; AL = ad lib. > > So the above would seem not to support de Grey's view that CRON would > be expected to increase human lifespan by only a couple of years. > > PMID: 12634286 > > Can anyone provide a link to enlighten us as to how a 'unit' of > insulin sensitivity is defined/determined? > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hi folks: A couple more details about this study: A) The restricted monkeys were put on this program at an average age of 16.6 (monkey) years. That is very roughly the equivalent of 50 years in humans. Insulin sensitivity index data seem to range, in humans, between values of about 8 and 50. It seems all individuals with a BMI above 28 have numbers around 10. At a BMI of around 20 there is a full range of values from ~10 up to 50. I am not sure of the significance of this range. Figs 2 and 3 in the following study are instructive: http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/1195 Rodney. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > Hi folks: > > I had forgotten about the findings of this study. In case anyone > else has also forgotten, the key part of the abstract seems to be: > > " Compared with the DR monkeys, the AL monkeys had a 2.6-fold > increased risk of death. Hyperinsulinemia led to a 3.7-fold increased > risk of death (p <.05); concordantly, the risk of death decreased by > 7%, per unit increase in insulin sensitivity (M). There was > significant organ pathology in the AL at death. The age at median > survival in the AL was approximately 25 years compared with 32 years > in the DR. " > > DR = dietary restricted; AL = ad lib. > > So the above would seem not to support de Grey's view that CRON would > be expected to increase human lifespan by only a couple of years. > > PMID: 12634286 > > Can anyone provide a link to enlighten us as to how a 'unit' of > insulin sensitivity is defined/determined? > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Does anyone have any estimate of what portion of the 30 % life extension the monkeys got is an increase of the maximum verses increases of the average lifespan? Like what was the maximum life span on record for this species of monkey? One one site I saw 40 years was the maximum so getting to 30 doesn't seem like a big deal if that is true. Other perspectives please. Barry Gamble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Does anyone have any estimate of what portion of the 30 % life extension the monkeys got is an increase of the maximum verses increases of the average lifespan? Like what was the maximum life span on record for this species of monkey? One one site I saw 40 years was the maximum so getting to 30 doesn't seem like a big deal if that is true. Other perspectives please. Barry Gamble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hi Barry: Well let me put it in human terms. The average human lives 77.6 years. Jeanne Calment lived to be 122. If, purely by changing nothing except caloric intake, the average lifespan could be increased a similar 30%, then the average person could live to 77.6 x 1.3 = 100.9 years. Now is anyone likely to complain about that, just because they didn't live longer than Jeanne Calment? Bear in mind also that caloric restriction was, as far as I know, the ONLY intervention. The food quality was not better (we here ought to be able to do better than that); the restricted monkeys did not meditate (some of us here do); the monkeys didn't exercise at all, as far as I know (some exercise is likely to be helpful for average lifespan). But to answer your question directly, I do not know to what extent the maximum lifespan of the restricted monkeys exceeded the maximum lifespan of the controls. And yes, it would be interesting to know. Rodney. --- In , " Barry Gamble " <chronart@...> wrote: > > Does anyone have any estimate of what portion of the 30 % life extension the monkeys got is > an increase of the maximum verses increases of the average lifespan? > > Like what was the maximum life span on record for this species of monkey? One one site I > saw 40 years was the maximum so getting to 30 doesn't seem like a big deal if that is true. > > Other perspectives please. > > Barry Gamble > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hi Barry: Well let me put it in human terms. The average human lives 77.6 years. Jeanne Calment lived to be 122. If, purely by changing nothing except caloric intake, the average lifespan could be increased a similar 30%, then the average person could live to 77.6 x 1.3 = 100.9 years. Now is anyone likely to complain about that, just because they didn't live longer than Jeanne Calment? Bear in mind also that caloric restriction was, as far as I know, the ONLY intervention. The food quality was not better (we here ought to be able to do better than that); the restricted monkeys did not meditate (some of us here do); the monkeys didn't exercise at all, as far as I know (some exercise is likely to be helpful for average lifespan). But to answer your question directly, I do not know to what extent the maximum lifespan of the restricted monkeys exceeded the maximum lifespan of the controls. And yes, it would be interesting to know. Rodney. --- In , " Barry Gamble " <chronart@...> wrote: > > Does anyone have any estimate of what portion of the 30 % life extension the monkeys got is > an increase of the maximum verses increases of the average lifespan? > > Like what was the maximum life span on record for this species of monkey? One one site I > saw 40 years was the maximum so getting to 30 doesn't seem like a big deal if that is true. > > Other perspectives please. > > Barry Gamble > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Hi folks: A further 'detail': The restricted rhesus monkeys were fed three times a day. 8am, 1pm, and 4pm. And, as with the essentially fasted mice, the monkeys also lived a lot longer. Which is evidence that the fasting the mice experienced was not an essential factor contributing to the expanded lifespan. Rodney. > > > > Does anyone have any estimate of what portion of the 30 % life > extension the monkeys got is > > an increase of the maximum verses increases of the average lifespan? > > > > Like what was the maximum life span on record for this species of > monkey? One one site I > > saw 40 years was the maximum so getting to 30 doesn't seem like a > big deal if that is true. > > > > Other perspectives please. > > > > Barry Gamble > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Hi folks: A further 'detail': The restricted rhesus monkeys were fed three times a day. 8am, 1pm, and 4pm. And, as with the essentially fasted mice, the monkeys also lived a lot longer. Which is evidence that the fasting the mice experienced was not an essential factor contributing to the expanded lifespan. Rodney. > > > > Does anyone have any estimate of what portion of the 30 % life > extension the monkeys got is > > an increase of the maximum verses increases of the average lifespan? > > > > Like what was the maximum life span on record for this species of > monkey? One one site I > > saw 40 years was the maximum so getting to 30 doesn't seem like a > big deal if that is true. > > > > Other perspectives please. > > > > Barry Gamble > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 > > Bear in mind also that caloric restriction was, as far as I know, the > ONLY intervention. The food quality was not better (we here ought to > be able to do better than that); the restricted monkeys did not > meditate (some of us here do); the monkeys didn't exercise at all, as > far as I know (some exercise is likely to be helpful for average > lifespan). > Rodney, you are my personal hero in this group! I love your posts and scientific expertise. Thanks for your many contributions to my own little efforts at CR. As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically-formulated monkey chow, which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. They ate less of it than the control group of course. Exercise? I'd also guess that monkeys naturally ('naturally') exercise more than most American office-workers do, although if they were confined to cages maybe not. It would be interesting to know how open their environment was, or how often they were allowed out for playtime. Judging from most mammalian reactions to CR, though, I'd also guess that the CR monkeys were more dormant than the control group. I tend to get a little sleepy when I eat too few calories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 > > Bear in mind also that caloric restriction was, as far as I know, the > ONLY intervention. The food quality was not better (we here ought to > be able to do better than that); the restricted monkeys did not > meditate (some of us here do); the monkeys didn't exercise at all, as > far as I know (some exercise is likely to be helpful for average > lifespan). > Rodney, you are my personal hero in this group! I love your posts and scientific expertise. Thanks for your many contributions to my own little efforts at CR. As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically-formulated monkey chow, which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. They ate less of it than the control group of course. Exercise? I'd also guess that monkeys naturally ('naturally') exercise more than most American office-workers do, although if they were confined to cages maybe not. It would be interesting to know how open their environment was, or how often they were allowed out for playtime. Judging from most mammalian reactions to CR, though, I'd also guess that the CR monkeys were more dormant than the control group. I tend to get a little sleepy when I eat too few calories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Well Apuleius (Do you still live in Rome? Or did you return to Carthage?): It looks like you and have much to discuss ; ^ ))) believes: " The slimmer monkeys staved off the diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension and other weight-related ailments that typically shortened the lives of their heavier peers ........ .......... When the standard lab diet is deleterious enough to produce such results in ad lib fed animals (conditions presumably unknown in wild animals), ............. " While your (Apuleius') comment was that: " As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically-formulated monkey chow, which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. " -------------- My two cents on this is, first, good point about the Snickers, etc.. Second, that for sure these health conditions are almost unknown in the wild as says, but not for the reason thinks. Animals in the wild rarely live to a remarkable age because they are hunted by predators 24 hours a day; are easy prey to microbes of all kinds because they do not even know they need to avoid them, much less know how to avoid them (hygeine); are easily prone to accidents and the vagaries of the weather, including starvation; and have no access to medicare. But in lab conditions they are quite analogous to present day humans. They have much reduced danger from predators; live in hygienic conditions; can have many of their medical problems treated; and are not likely to die from accidents, or starvation. So they can live to an age where they develop what have come to be known as 'the diseases of affluence' - that is largely those you die of if you live long enough because you didn't die of something else first. For anyone who needs to be convinced of this, all they have to do is look at the human population not long ago. In 1850 life expectancy at birth was just 38 in Massachusetts, perhaps the most civilized part of the US at the time. No doubt is was even lower than that for the country as a whole. Now how many people do you think will be dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes when half the population is dead by the age of 38 from afflictions that can now be avoided altogether, treated or often cured? Even around 1900, six times as many people in the US died of typhoid and diptheria as died of diabetes. The same number of people died from appendicitis as diabetes. Ten percent of deaths were attributed to epimemic diseases. Five percent died from 'violence' (i.e. predation). Seven percent from heart disease, not because the diet was so good (as appears to believe is the case for wild animals) but simply because only 7% of them lived long enough for their arteries to become clogged: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsushistorical/mortstatsh_1905.pdf So I do not believe 's assertion that the deaths in the control group were the result of a very poor diet. And I do believe the restricted group benefited predominatly from their lower caloric intake. But if there is evidence that suggests otherwise we will all be interested to take a look at it, since people interested in CR have a lot to learn from this study. Rodney. > As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and > snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically- formulated monkey chow, > which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. They ate > less of it than the control group of course. > > Exercise? I'd also guess that monkeys naturally ('naturally') exercise more than most > American office-workers do, although if they were confined to cages maybe not. It would > be interesting to know how open their environment was, or how often they were allowed > out for playtime. Judging from most mammalian reactions to CR, though, I'd also guess > that the CR monkeys were more dormant than the control group. I tend to get a little > sleepy when I eat too few calories. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Well Apuleius (Do you still live in Rome? Or did you return to Carthage?): It looks like you and have much to discuss ; ^ ))) believes: " The slimmer monkeys staved off the diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension and other weight-related ailments that typically shortened the lives of their heavier peers ........ .......... When the standard lab diet is deleterious enough to produce such results in ad lib fed animals (conditions presumably unknown in wild animals), ............. " While your (Apuleius') comment was that: " As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically-formulated monkey chow, which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. " -------------- My two cents on this is, first, good point about the Snickers, etc.. Second, that for sure these health conditions are almost unknown in the wild as says, but not for the reason thinks. Animals in the wild rarely live to a remarkable age because they are hunted by predators 24 hours a day; are easy prey to microbes of all kinds because they do not even know they need to avoid them, much less know how to avoid them (hygeine); are easily prone to accidents and the vagaries of the weather, including starvation; and have no access to medicare. But in lab conditions they are quite analogous to present day humans. They have much reduced danger from predators; live in hygienic conditions; can have many of their medical problems treated; and are not likely to die from accidents, or starvation. So they can live to an age where they develop what have come to be known as 'the diseases of affluence' - that is largely those you die of if you live long enough because you didn't die of something else first. For anyone who needs to be convinced of this, all they have to do is look at the human population not long ago. In 1850 life expectancy at birth was just 38 in Massachusetts, perhaps the most civilized part of the US at the time. No doubt is was even lower than that for the country as a whole. Now how many people do you think will be dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes when half the population is dead by the age of 38 from afflictions that can now be avoided altogether, treated or often cured? Even around 1900, six times as many people in the US died of typhoid and diptheria as died of diabetes. The same number of people died from appendicitis as diabetes. Ten percent of deaths were attributed to epimemic diseases. Five percent died from 'violence' (i.e. predation). Seven percent from heart disease, not because the diet was so good (as appears to believe is the case for wild animals) but simply because only 7% of them lived long enough for their arteries to become clogged: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsushistorical/mortstatsh_1905.pdf So I do not believe 's assertion that the deaths in the control group were the result of a very poor diet. And I do believe the restricted group benefited predominatly from their lower caloric intake. But if there is evidence that suggests otherwise we will all be interested to take a look at it, since people interested in CR have a lot to learn from this study. Rodney. > As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and > snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically- formulated monkey chow, > which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. They ate > less of it than the control group of course. > > Exercise? I'd also guess that monkeys naturally ('naturally') exercise more than most > American office-workers do, although if they were confined to cages maybe not. It would > be interesting to know how open their environment was, or how often they were allowed > out for playtime. Judging from most mammalian reactions to CR, though, I'd also guess > that the CR monkeys were more dormant than the control group. I tend to get a little > sleepy when I eat too few calories. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Hi Apuleius: Regarding your comment that the humans who represent the current average life expectancy of 77ยท6 years, are eating french fries and Snickers bars ............. it had not immediately occurred to me the consequences of this remark. The consequence of course is, as you will have realized from the outset, that while the CR monkeys lived 30% longer on the basis of a shift from an ad lib scientifically determined diet, to a CR scientifically determined diet, humans who not only do CRON but also forgo the french fries and Snickers would logically be expected to have an even greater percentage improvement in lifespan than the monkeys. Sorry that I had not initially figured this detail out. Thank you. Rodney. > As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and > snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically- formulated monkey chow, > which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. They ate > less of it than the control group of course. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@> had written: > > > > Bear in mind also that caloric restriction was, as far as I know, the > > ONLY intervention. The food quality was not better (we here ought to > > be able to do better than that); the restricted monkeys did not > > meditate (some of us here do); the monkeys didn't exercise at all, as > > far as I know (some exercise is likely to be helpful for average > > lifespan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Hi Apuleius: Regarding your comment that the humans who represent the current average life expectancy of 77ยท6 years, are eating french fries and Snickers bars ............. it had not immediately occurred to me the consequences of this remark. The consequence of course is, as you will have realized from the outset, that while the CR monkeys lived 30% longer on the basis of a shift from an ad lib scientifically determined diet, to a CR scientifically determined diet, humans who not only do CRON but also forgo the french fries and Snickers would logically be expected to have an even greater percentage improvement in lifespan than the monkeys. Sorry that I had not initially figured this detail out. Thank you. Rodney. > As for the rhesus monkey study, I imagine that none of the monkeys ate french fries and > snickers bars. Mostly likely they ate standard, scientifically- formulated monkey chow, > which offers a good profile of nutrients as far as they are currently understood. They ate > less of it than the control group of course. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@> had written: > > > > Bear in mind also that caloric restriction was, as far as I know, the > > ONLY intervention. The food quality was not better (we here ought to > > be able to do better than that); the restricted monkeys did not > > meditate (some of us here do); the monkeys didn't exercise at all, as > > far as I know (some exercise is likely to be helpful for average > > lifespan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.