Isn't this an year old published research that was widely reported?
Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
11–20 of 88 posts
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#12If I'm reading this correctly it says that the findings apply to 1) short lived species and 2) rhesus primates. It also says that the effects of CR may or may not be preserved on humans. So the only real finding here seems to be that we are now able to extend the lifespan of some monkeys.
While I don't disagree factually with what you're saying, the way you're saying it sounds like a slight misunderstanding of the results here.
CR has been shown to have effects on short-lived species because that's all that's been testable so far. CR has actually been remarkably consistent in its effects across many different species.
The rhesus monkey studies are the first ones to attempt to replicate the longevity results found in the previous tests that were performed on short-lived species. The NIA rhesus study results released a short while back seemed to be the first failure of replicating CR longevity results. This seemed to be a blow to the theory that CR would be efficacious with higher primates.
However, this study is saying that the first rhesus study was conducted incorrectly and that the results were incorrectly interpreted. They're basically saying that scientifically, CR is still batting a thousand.
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#13This paper rehashes 2 studies. In the original Wisconsin one that showed a great benefit to CR
... were fed a semi-purified, nutritionally fortified, low-fat diet containing 15% protein and 10% fat.
This paper appears to include some of the same authors of the Wisconsin study and tries to explain why the NIH performed a study that did not replicate their results. This paper claims that the control group in the NIH study actually underwent CR by comparing them to a database of captive primates. If that is true, then the title still seems strange, because it doesn't mean the NIH study provides meaningful supporting evidence, it means it was an invalid test of the CR hypothesis and instead it provides some extremely weak supporting evidence of the CR hypothesis.
As a side note, there is evidence that the CR benefit is from protein restriction and possibly just avoiding protein imbalances. https://chriskresser.com/do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-... (scroll to Is protein to blame—or is methionine?)
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#14Am I the only one who finds this caloric restriction stuff depressing? If starving for 50 years will increase my life I don't even want to know about it. Stupid science. Next they're going to tell us that a combination of caloric restriction & celibacy will do even more.
I kind of agree, quality of live is important as well
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#15The test is lab grade monkey chow vs. less lab grade monkey chow. I don't think one can extrapolate that eating less calories on a very high quality and low toxin source of calories is better. Monkeys do best on perfectly ripe and fresh tropical fruits. Is that what they were eating? I really doubt it.
Toxin is a buzzword that I use to tell when someone is easily deceived by woo-woo fake science. The idea that anything processed in a factory is full of "toxins" and anything from nature is "healthy" is an irritating and pervasive fallacy. Were you referring to a specific toxin that is in their foods, or were you using it in the more vague and hand-wavy "woo woo homeopathic" sense?
"High quality" in close proximity to "calories" is another sign of woo.
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#16It should be noted that a parallel study[1] at the National Institute for Aging (NIA) found that this was not the case. The authors of this study (UW) claim (as far as I understand) that the NIA study was flawed because both Control and Calorie Restricted (CR) monkeys were fed diets that were both restrictive, and not sufficiently different. There also seem to be some debate about the composition of the diets. The controls in the UW study were allowed to eat as they pleased (i.e. become fatties if they wanted). They claim that if both "modest" or "moderate" CR are equivalent, it would be a very important conclusion. The practical consequence, if true, would be that we wouldn't have to starve ourselves too much.
Mouse models had suggested years ago that calorie restriction could lead to ~%50 increase in lifetime. However, the problem with mouse studies is that they are pretty different, and also the mice they use are really inbred and perhaps non-ideal examples. The conclusion from the primate studies is really stacking up to be a common sense "eat in moderation, healthy, and you'll live at least a little longer, maybe a lot". Not really groundbreaking stuff, to be honest. And still not conclusive when you consider the resources that went into these studies. This also teaches us nothing about mechanisms, which would be really useful. Just my cursory assessment so far.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-d...
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#17Am I the only one who finds this caloric restriction stuff depressing? If starving for 50 years will increase my life I don't even want to know about it. Stupid science. Next they're going to tell us that a combination of caloric restriction & celibacy will do even more.
I kind of agree, quality of live is important as well
If you could live forever on the condition that you did not eat, would you say no?
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#18The test is lab grade monkey chow vs. less lab grade monkey chow. I don't think one can extrapolate that eating less calories on a very high quality and low toxin source of calories is better. Monkeys do best on perfectly ripe and fresh tropical fruits. Is that what they were eating? I really doubt it.
Toxin is a buzzword that I use to tell when someone is easily deceived by woo-woo fake science. The idea that anything processed in a factory is full of "toxins" and anything from nature is "healthy" is an irritating and pervasive fallacy. Were you referring to a specific toxin that is in their foods, or were you using it in the more vague and hand-wavy "woo woo homeopathic" sense?
Who said anything about "produced in a factory"? Monkeys eat mostly ripe tropical fruit. The monkey chow here probably includes palm oil and soy.
Specific toxins that accumulate in tissues over time and are known to contribute to premature aging in mammals include certain fatty acids and excess iron intake, for examples. In excessive amounts they are "toxic."
I don't see what is remotely "woo" about this. The whole calorie restriction idea has been pretty well debunked as far as I'm concerned. Whenever it's looked at more closely it's a matter of food quality. Animals with the highest metabolisms among their peers are actually healthiest and longest lived.
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#19People are mentioning caloric restriction not being worth it for humans because of quality of life vs length of life.
However one thought that I find interesting, is that for our generation, living just two or three extra years could potentially make a huge difference.
If you subscribe to the idea of a coming technological singularity, or even to the idea that we're a few decades away from SENS escape velocity, you'd hate to miss it by just a couple of years.
Re: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys
#20I thought about doing CR for a while - I read the "120 Year Diet," and was considering giving it a try. Then I met up with a couple who was into hardcore CR. I had dinner with them. Two things made me decide not to do it:
1) they seemed frail and weak - the man seemed to have a constant runny nose. I felt that if he fell down he would break his hip. The risk of injury and death from physical weakness seemed like it would counter any benefits from CR for lifespan.
2) They put so much effort into measuring every ingredient, and running computer programs with recipes to get the optimal nutrients with as little calories as possible. It seemed to take so much time in preparation, and you could mostly only eat at home.