Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys

http://www.newswise.com/articles/monkey-caloric-restriction-...

“In Wisconsin, we started with adults. We knew how much food they wanted to eat, and we based our experimental diet on a 30 percent reduction in calories from that point.” In contrast, the NIA monkeys were fed according to a standardized food intake chart designed by the National Academy of Science.

Through their own experience in monkey research, and by reference to an online database recording the weight of thousands of research monkeys, the Wisconsin researchers concluded that the NIA controls were actually on caloric restriction as well, says Colman. “At all the time points that have been published by NIA, their control monkeys weigh less than ours, and in most cases, significantly so.”

Weindruch also points to some results from the NIA that seem to contradict the “no significant result” analysis. Twenty monkeys entered the NIA study as mature adults, 10 in the test group and 10 in the control group, and five of these (four test monkeys and one control monkey) lived at least 40 years. “Heretofore, there was never a monkey that we are aware of that was reported to live beyond 40 years,” Weindruch says. “Hence, the conclusion that caloric restriction is ineffective in their study does not make sense to me and my colleagues.”

While people on CR do seem to try and keep IGF-1 on the lower side, there's no consensus on protein yet. Most seem to eat a normal proportion, (though still less than average person since their overall intake it lower.).

I have seen some people doing CR specially avoid whey protein because it's known to particularly raise IGF-1 (which is why on the other hand people trying to maximize size of muscles like it)

When you say "that's" are you referring protein and specifically its presence or absence? It would be interesting indeed to see more research on this as well if possible dimensionalize by not only retsricted/normal kCal but at variations in % kCal by proteing etc. It would also perhaps be very interesting to understand if the variations align as mean values above and below "normal" caloric restricion. Ie, imagine a polar explorer who is operating in caloric deficit yet at high exertion thresholds for days on end. And/or contrast this with caloric restriction in the sense of < normal 2200 per day (or whatevs).

I'm sure this is backed up by studies and references, and at the same time I am amused at the hubris of making this statement. It's a cheap prediction to make, given that it will be around 2070 before you can verify it - and how right it is depends on lack-of-catastrohpies (e.g. in 20 years we'll have an idea how the meltdown in Fukushima affects lifespan), same-rate-and-same-kind-and-availability of advances, etc.

And before you criticize me for being "anti-sciece" - I am not, and unlike a lot of other assertions, this might technically be science (I haven't reviewed the source material) - however, it is not useful science because it may take 70 years to falsify.

Furthermore, a lot of -- perhaps most -- extrapolations of past trends had been wrong. At the time of Wallace & Darwin it was "scientifically" extrapolated that food will only grow linearly. And in 1980 climate studies had shown that if we don't do anything (and we didn't) by 2000 quite a few coastal cities will be underwater. If I wasn't anonymous, I'd place a long bet that the data crunching that led to this prediction will turn out to be complete rubish.

You or someone else presented this highly speculative claim as fact a long time ago on HN. I've tried to find the comment link, but I can't.

In any case, the support for this supposed fact is very dubious. You link to one article by Vaupel in Nature who, in making this claim, cites only this paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810516/

by Christensen et al. The paper says, in the abstract,

> If the pace of increase in life expectancy in developed countries over the past two centuries continues through the 21st century, most babies born since 2000 in France, Germany, Italy, the UK, the USA, Canada, Japan, and other countries with long life expectancies will celebrate their 100th birthdays.

Very few medical researchers are likely to find that "if" statement at all plausible, so this claim about most newborn girls living to 100 is bogus. If you have a better source for this claim, please present it. Otherwise, stop posting it.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/04/uncovering-tru...

You probably met someone on the extreme hardcore edge of it. Certainly it's a spectrum and counting calories and nutrients with computer programs is extremely normal today -- there are about a million programs that do it on your phone for you including taking photos of bar codes, etc.

This is an interesting point and I'll raise it at work: should the sponsor of an article be formally noted, along with the particulars of it's peer review, license, etc?

Also, a shameless plug: http://www.ubiquitypress.com/publish because OA isn't an expensive proposition, it just depends how it is handled and by whom.

Suppose we can extend human life with Calore Restriction, but at the cost of having to slow person's activity to the point that the overall amout of actions (work, leisure etc.) remains the same as during shorter, more intense life.

Would that still be worth it? What would a person gain through longer lifespan if she was limited to roughly the same amout of activity anyway? Wouldn't competing people gain advantage simply by being able to take advantage of opportunities quicker?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fs33Jewsg&t=4m25s

According to people that do it they feel great (possibly due to BDNF activation in the brain).

Most of them are a product of vanity, but they still shape our culture.

How would I look if I reduce calories? I would lose a substantial amount of muscle mass. I would be weaker. I could not recover from endurance and strength work as fast as I'm used to.

If we throw all reasonable studies into a bucket and have them guide our lives, what would happen?

I wouldn't be tan. I wouldn't grow as large because small people supposedly live longer (though this is of course not something we can influence yet). I would have a very low muscle tonus as well as mass and only sufficient muscular endurance and size to do whatever I have to do (which is very little compared to a blacksmith in 1407). I would share a grey substance (heck, let's keep the name soylent) with my date that has everything I need to live. I have no car to reduce my carbon footprint. I will avoid the sun in general due to my skin color which is very prone to cancer (thankfully my children will be genetically altered). I will gladly try to avoid talking about any of this because saying "Don't you think beeing vegan is awesome?" will lead to an imaginary bullet flying in my general direction.

Let's have a vote of how many women find this lifestyle that will carry me into my 100s so mind-boggling attractive while I'm still in my 20s.

Perhaps CR only invokes the release of hormones that have a protective effect on cells. Replicate the hormone and perhaps actual caloric restriction may not be necessary.

The defects of another alternative should also be obvious -- paid peer reviewers. If this change took place, people would line up for positions they aren't qualified for on the simple ground that they can get paid to appear to be what they aren't. Also, for many cutting-edge fields, there simply aren't more than a handful of qualified reviewers at any price.

At best you have a 2-3 month wait. At worst, years.

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.

It can be done and we will do it, but that will be only a benefit for the future generations - all that you and me can do is to assume (or not assume) that the measured effects will generalize to us as well.

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?

As to the calorie reduction, she was quite successful in controlling her diet. She ordered guar gum in 50 lb sacks (from Tic Gums), mixing it with water to have something in her stomach when she was hungry. She seemed to settle into a routine that I don't think I could have tolerated. She didn't ever look anorexic, but had very very low body fat.

She was very afraid of getting old and this motivated her. I think that without some sort of pharmaceutical breakthrough that controls hunger, the rest of us will not find CR practical.