RE: Supplementation of Mice in Study

[Guest guest]

If the CR researchers retained the protein and fat for

the late-life CR lab mice, but took away the carbohydrate,

then that is significant to know.

The 42% life increase in those late-life CR mice is very

extraordinary. It is remarkable that even very old animals

can benefit as much (percentage wise) as young animals.

If the researchers did their life extension by taking away

the carbohydrate (but keeping protein and fats), then we

want to know if that is true, and we want to be sure.

Can you identify the paragraph where it appears in the

published article? Can you quote it for us?

If you can prove it here " in print " , then please give me

permission to post your message below in an alternate forum,

along with the proof that you provide.

This is good work. Thank you. -- Warren

=============================

On 15 Apr 2004, Rodney wrote:

Hi folks:

When I first read Dr. Spindler's most recently published mouse CR

study and didn't see supplementation mentioned in the text I drew the

conclusion that the CR mice simply ate 45% less of everything.

I should have taken a closer look at the fine print! In short, his

CR mice WERE supplemented. They consumed identical amounts of fat,

protein and micronutrients as the control (10% CR) group. The

difference seems to have been only in the caloric quantity of the

carbohydrates, more of some, less of others.

Sounds to me like they were on an Atkins diet ; ^ )))

I hope I didn't mislead anyone about this.

Rodney.

Does anyone here have a reference for a CR study in mammals that

shows that if the study animals are not supplemented they survive

less well or less long than the supplemented animals on the same

number of calories????? People talk about this a lot, but I have

never seen a study which demonstrated it. Presumably there is one.

[Guest guest]

Hi Warren:

Well it is not in the study itself.

The study specifies the exact IDs of the diets fed to the mice. So I

emailed the people who produce the mouse feeds in question and asked

for nutrient breakdowns for the two specified feeds.

They very kindly immediately responded. My earlier post is based on

my reading of the information in that response. A couple of issues

arise.

First, it took me quite a while to figure out from their data exactly

what the difference was!!! It may take others a while too!

Second, before reproducing that email in a public forum I feel I

ought to get the author's permission. But I have no qualms about

forwarding it to you, Warren, for your interest, pending permission

from the mouse-feed source to reproduce their information here, and

perhaps on some other CR site also (and of course giving them the

full credit and a bit of publicity!)

So, for the time being, this is all I will be saying about this

here. Much more information later assuming I get permission.

But Warren should expect an email, in a few minutes.

Rodney.

>

> Hi folks:

>

> When I first read Dr. Spindler's most recently published mouse CR

> study and didn't see supplementation mentioned in the text I drew

the

> conclusion that the CR mice simply ate 45% less of everything.

>

> I should have taken a closer look at the fine print! In short, his

> CR mice WERE supplemented. They consumed identical amounts of fat,

> protein and micronutrients as the control (10% CR) group. The

> difference seems to have been only in the caloric quantity of the

> carbohydrates, more of some, less of others.

>

> Sounds to me like they were on an Atkins diet ; ^ )))

>

> I hope I didn't mislead anyone about this.

>

> Rodney.

>

> Does anyone here have a reference for a CR study in mammals that

> shows that if the study animals are not supplemented they survive

> less well or less long than the supplemented animals on the same

> number of calories????? People talk about this a lot, but I have

> never seen a study which demonstrated it. Presumably there is one.

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

What did the researchers do regarding the CR diet's vitamins and

minerals in the study?

Cheers, Al Pater.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi Warren:

>

> Well it is not in the study itself.

>

> The study specifies the exact IDs of the diets fed to the mice. So

I

> emailed the people who produce the mouse feeds in question and

asked

> for nutrient breakdowns for the two specified feeds.

>

> They very kindly immediately responded. My earlier post is based

on

> my reading of the information in that response. A couple of issues

> arise.

>

> First, it took me quite a while to figure out from their data

exactly

> what the difference was!!! It may take others a while too!

>

> Second, before reproducing that email in a public forum I feel I

> ought to get the author's permission. But I have no qualms about

> forwarding it to you, Warren, for your interest, pending permission

> from the mouse-feed source to reproduce their information here, and

> perhaps on some other CR site also (and of course giving them the

> full credit and a bit of publicity!)

>

> So, for the time being, this is all I will be saying about this

> here. Much more information later assuming I get permission.

>

> But Warren should expect an email, in a few minutes.

[Guest guest]

Hi Al:

Unfortunately my post #11282 didn't format well at all. But the

bottom half of that post gives full details of the vitamin and

mineral content of the diet.

In the original, the bottom half was formatted in two columns. The

left column was labelled " Mineral Premix " and the right side " Vitamin

Premix " . Perhaps with this information you will be able to make out

the details a little easier.

In the top half of the data it shows the amounts of the pre-mixes

(that are shown at the bottom) that were added to each of the diets.

Up top the mineral pre-mix is called " salt pre-mix " as each of the

supplemented elements is in the form of a 'salt' (broadly defined, in

the way that sodium chloride is a " sodium salt " , similarly manganous

carbonate is a salt of manganese) of each element.

You will note that the amounts of the pre-mixes added to the CR diet

was 67% more than that added to the control diet, as with everything

else except the carbohydrates.

I hope this explanation helps. If not, perhaps another time I will

redo the data table, which I admit, the way the system formatted it,

is not very intelligible.

Rodney.

> > Hi Warren:

> >

> > Well it is not in the study itself.

> >

> > The study specifies the exact IDs of the diets fed to the mice.

So

> I

> > emailed the people who produce the mouse feeds in question and

> asked

> > for nutrient breakdowns for the two specified feeds.

> >

> > They very kindly immediately responded. My earlier post is based

> on

> > my reading of the information in that response. A couple of

issues

> > arise.

> >

> > First, it took me quite a while to figure out from their data

> exactly

> > what the difference was!!! It may take others a while too!

> >

> > Second, before reproducing that email in a public forum I feel I

> > ought to get the author's permission. But I have no qualms about

> > forwarding it to you, Warren, for your interest, pending

permission

> > from the mouse-feed source to reproduce their information here,

and

> > perhaps on some other CR site also (and of course giving them the

> > full credit and a bit of publicity!)

> >

> > So, for the time being, this is all I will be saying about this

> > here. Much more information later assuming I get permission.

> >

> > But Warren should expect an email, in a few minutes.