Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Anyone else notice this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515231417.htm a~z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2006 Report Share Posted May 17, 2006 Hi A=Z: Again we see an apparent disagreement between the animal studies, including studies in animals that are quite closely related to humans, and studies in humans themselves. What are we to make of this? Well it may come down to the nature of the studies. When studies are done in animals the animals do not decide, or approve, whether they are one of the subjects or are put in the control group instead. The members of the groups in animal studies are selected randomly. This is very definitely not true of studies in humans. In human studies many members of the 'slim' study group are self selected, and not infrequently for reasons of which they themselves are unaware. One might call these 'aberrant' group members. The 'slim' group will include people who are slim because of intestinal absorption problems, which presumably is not likely to benefit longevity, especially if particular important nutrients are selectively not absorbed; or who are slim because there is underlying, but not yet symptomatic, disease which may not show symptoms until much later in life. In addition the slim group will include people who for some reason feel a need to be thin, so eat less, but pay insufficient attention to nutrient RDAs. Yet in animal studies, because of the random selection procedures, both the subjects and the controls will have equal representation of such 'aberrant' individuals. And in these animal studies some members of both groups die early, and among them, in equal quantities in both groups, the aberrant individuals mentioned above. So I believe that if studies were to be done in humans where participants were randomly selected and the subjects caused to be much slimmer by being involuntarily 40% restricted then we would see results in humans very similar to those seen in animals. If the above rationale is on the ball, then the people most likely to derive the longevity benefits of CRON are those with very healthy appetites who somehow manage to comply with the appropriate level of restriction. This may mean, ironically, that obese people, because they evidently are not members of the 'aberrant' involuntarily slim group, are likely to benefit in spades, if only they could control their intake. However I have an alternative, and rather different, slant on this, which I may elucidate in a later post. Rodney. > > Anyone else notice this? > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515231417.htm > > a~z > 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.