Re: Re: Caloric Restriction extends life

[Guest guest]

The problem I have with the 30% is as Rodney stated it's 30 % more than the average of 77.6.

I already expect to live to ~ 95. If so, CR represents and increase of maybe 5 -10 yrs more than that. Not close to the max maybe of 122.

Secondly, is there some reason to think the monkey's "adlib" diet is junk food?

Look at www.dyets.com/140001.htm

I'm guessing something like that for both the CRed and the adlib.

Anyone know what it was?

Regardless what it was, are humans going to eat it?

Regards.

[ ] Re: Caloric Restriction extends life

Rodney reports:The slimmer monkeys staved off the diabetes, high cholesterol,hypertension and other weight-related ailments that typicallyshortened the lives of their heavier peers, she added.When the stardard lab diet is deleterious enough to produce suchresults in ad lib fed animals (conditions presumably unknown in wildanimals), we should not see it as positive proof of the efficacy ofcalorie restriction when an animal regains some mesure of healthbecause he is fed less of it. It will be generally well accepted amongus that an ad lib optimal nutrition diet will be far healthier than amere CR diet composed of junk food. The question remains open, in mymind at least, whether CR significantly potentiates ON. There isenough out there to believe it does. But 30% extension in lifespan?Again , a diet which results in diabetes is no where near an ON dietand a 30% increase just by limiting acces to such food is no greatachievement. >> Hi folks:> > By curious coincidence just a week ago I emailed the first-listed > author of the paper these people wrote in 2003 to ask if they had > updated data! (No reply so far). At that time they only had 117 > monkeys. Now they have 300 apparently.> > In any event, a 30% expansion in lifespan (the article does not > specify maximal lifespan) in Rhesus monkeys in response to CR, > certainly does seem to argue against the views of those who say that > in humans CR is likely to extend lifespan by only a couple of years.> > To make that argument when comparing humans with fruit flies was very > plausible; with mice, much less convincing; and in monkeys, beginning > to stretch the limits of credulity!> > BRAVO!> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

The problem I have with the 30% is as Rodney stated it's 30 % more than the average of 77.6.

I already expect to live to ~ 95. If so, CR represents and increase of maybe 5 -10 yrs more than that. Not close to the max maybe of 122.

Secondly, is there some reason to think the monkey's "adlib" diet is junk food?

Look at www.dyets.com/140001.htm

I'm guessing something like that for both the CRed and the adlib.

Anyone know what it was?

Regardless what it was, are humans going to eat it?

Regards.

[ ] Re: Caloric Restriction extends life

Rodney reports:The slimmer monkeys staved off the diabetes, high cholesterol,hypertension and other weight-related ailments that typicallyshortened the lives of their heavier peers, she added.When the stardard lab diet is deleterious enough to produce suchresults in ad lib fed animals (conditions presumably unknown in wildanimals), we should not see it as positive proof of the efficacy ofcalorie restriction when an animal regains some mesure of healthbecause he is fed less of it. It will be generally well accepted amongus that an ad lib optimal nutrition diet will be far healthier than amere CR diet composed of junk food. The question remains open, in mymind at least, whether CR significantly potentiates ON. There isenough out there to believe it does. But 30% extension in lifespan?Again , a diet which results in diabetes is no where near an ON dietand a 30% increase just by limiting acces to such food is no greatachievement. >> Hi folks:> > By curious coincidence just a week ago I emailed the first-listed > author of the paper these people wrote in 2003 to ask if they had > updated data! (No reply so far). At that time they only had 117 > monkeys. Now they have 300 apparently.> > In any event, a 30% expansion in lifespan (the article does not > specify maximal lifespan) in Rhesus monkeys in response to CR, > certainly does seem to argue against the views of those who say that > in humans CR is likely to extend lifespan by only a couple of years.> > To make that argument when comparing humans with fruit flies was very > plausible; with mice, much less convincing; and in monkeys, beginning > to stretch the limits of credulity!> > BRAVO!> > Rodney.