Re: Benefits of 40% CR with 1 % restriction

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

"The data available so far suggest that the monkeys on 30% CR are living 30% longer than the adlib controls" "IMO, skeptics are gonna have to do handstands and cartwheels to comeup with plausible arguments as to why it is we should considermonkeys so different from humans that the monkey results will not betranslatable to us".Francesca sent a link (Support Group message 24358) which included the following: " For years, scientists financed by the National Institute on Aging have closely monitored rhesus monkeys on restricted and normal-calorie diets. At the University of Wisconsin, where 50 animals survive fromthe original group of 76, the differences are just now becomingapparent in the older animals.Those on normal diets, like Matthias, are beginning to show signs ofadvancing age similar to those seen in humans. Three of them, forinstance, have developed diabetes, and a fourth has died of thedisease. Five have died of cancer.But Rudy and his colleagues on low-calorie meal plans are faringbetter. None have diabetes, and only three have died of cancer. It istoo early to know if they will outlive their lab mates, but thedieters here and at the other labs also have lower blood pressure andlower blood levels of certain dangerous fats, glucose and insulin."The preliminary indicators are that we're looking at a robust lifeextension in the restricted animals," Dr. Weindruch said".

As I look thru the archives of the Support Group, I find it hard to get a grip on what conclusions to draw from the snipets I find from the monkey studies. Indications are that average life span is increased with CR/DR, but maximum life span, as that is defined, will only be known 25 years from now, from what I can glean. I can't find the 30% figures Rodney allude to, but of course I have only seen a minute part of the study results.

I suppose Weindruch is referring to average and not maximum life span in his assertion above.

// Ulf