CR vs Ad lib pics
Matt 23 Mar 2007
Both the same age, guess whos CR'd! lol
Heres another two roughly the same age. No prizes for guessing whos the CR'd one
marqueemoon 24 Mar 2007
Matt 24 Mar 2007
Is it true that one of the CR monkeys was the human equivalent of 121 or so when he died?
He was 41 when he died (123 human years). He wasn't CR'd until the latter part of his life either... equiv to around 50-60 year old human.
The oldest documented rhesus monkey on record was 30% CR'd for half of his adult life. In this picture he may have been at an age equivalent to 114 human years according to this article http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p108.htm
Edited by Matt, 24 March 2007 - 02:58 PM.
Matt 29 Mar 2007
Matt 12 May 2007
Matt 30 Jul 2007
A small sign on the cage of Ludwig, an older but fit-looking rhesus monkey, warns "caution, grabby." Understandably, Ludwig reaches out of his cage a lot. He's been on an extremely low-calorie, experimental diet for years and he probably would eat anything he could get his hands on. At the same time, Ludwig's handlers are hoping to get a better grasp of a quickly evolving concept that could prove to be a mini fountain of youth...
spins 19 Aug 2007
Very impressed.
Matt 19 Aug 2007
spins 27 Aug 2007
I wish there were pictures of all the monkeys involved in the experiment, my skeptical mind keeps kicking in and saying that they are simply showing the worst looking Ad Lib and the best looking CR monkeys. If only you could go back in time and redo the experiment but switch the diet around, would the monkey that was previously on the CR diet look older at this age and have any age related complications such as Type II diabetes etc, and would the other now get the health benefits associated with the CR diet? What would also be interesting is if you had a third group who ate the normal recommended calorie intake, not Ad Lib per say, but very high in nutrients, would they get similar benefits as the CR group or would it be somewhere in between? If only we had all the answers and data already available in primates.
As I said though, it's still incredibly persuasive evidence that CR, if done correctly, can (or could) significantly retard the aging process.
Shannon Vyff 27 Aug 2007
Live Forever 27 Aug 2007
Thanks, I expect it by lunch tomorrow. )
Matt 27 Aug 2007
I wish there were pictures of all the monkeys involved in the experiment, my skeptical mind keeps kicking in and saying that they are simply showing the worst looking Ad Lib and the best looking CR monkeys.
Yes of course, I have also wondered this. But what do we see in other animals that are on Calorie Restriction? A big difference in appearance, so it shouldn't be all that unexpected. However we take the word of the people who are looking after these rhesus monkeys and the reporters that go in there and look around. And general consensus is that the CR monkeys look a lot healthier, and it's obvious from the photos (unless you don't know what to look for). The other way you would have a good idea is obviously by having genetically identical rhesus monkeys, and see how they diverge in their appearance. However we do have a early picture of two monkeys Johann and Eeyore. What is very obvious is the hair changed color on the ad lib, and this tends to happen as any animal gets older. With eeyore, just looking at the hair and facial features it looks much younger, the color consistency and tidiness is obvious too. So if you were to say which one of these pictures of ad lib vs cr is best example, it would be that one because they compared them at a young age, then again 13 years later.
What would also be interesting is if you had a third group who ate the normal recommended calorie intake, not Ad Lib per say, but very high in nutrients, would they get similar benefits as the CR group or would it be somewhere in between? If only we had all the answers and data already available in primates.
Well I don't think the diets are all that adequate, even for the CR monkeys. So the study could have been done better IMO. The extension in life is what we're all interested in though, and if the theory holds up, we should see around a 30% extension in life.
As I said though, it's still incredibly persuasive evidence that CR, if done correctly, can (or could) significantly retard the aging process.
It does look promising, but obviously people would be more impressed if it were humans as people can identify difference in age better. Most of us here probably don't know exactly what to look for in animals compared to the carers. This is why I feel there was very little response to the thread initially.
We may actually find out some more details soon on mortality from Group 1 at Wisconsin because I believe this group is aged between 28-32 years. They were the first lot of monkeys to be put on CR, then later more monkeys were added.
Edited by Matt, 27 August 2007 - 03:04 PM.
Matt 12 Sep 2007
The CR monkey on the left and the ad lib money is on the right. They are both closely age matched.
Matt 01 Mar 2008
Attached Files
Edited by Matt, 01 March 2008 - 12:37 AM.
Grail 13 Mar 2008
-1 for CR? :D
Matt 13 Mar 2008
But yes, apparently the Monkeys from the NIA studies have been depressed. Wouldn't you be if you lived in a small cage all your life?
Edited by Matt, 13 March 2008 - 02:52 AM.
Grail 13 Mar 2008
On another note, check out the pupils on this fellow (probably to do with lighting?):
Matt 13 Mar 2008
Matt 03 Jun 2008
CR monkey is 32 years old, ad lib monkey is 30 years old. The CR one still looks like hes in his youth but is actually the equivalent to a 96 year old human.
Edited by Matt, 03 June 2008 - 09:04 PM.
VictorBjoerk 04 Jun 2008
forever freedom 04 Jun 2008
Matt 04 Jun 2008
The latest pictures are just amazing! Are they newly taken? How long do this type of monkey live naturally?
In captivity they live 25 - 27 years on average. This would be equivalent to a 75 - 81 year old human, which fairly represents the lifespan of human populations in developed countries...
It's amazing that just feeding 30% less of the same diet can have dramatic impact.
VictorBjoerk 04 Jun 2008
kismet 06 Jun 2008
However, I disagree, as I find it very unlikely for someone born prior to 1900 to fullfill all those criteria by chance: a. the necessary documents to prove their age b. having had a healthy and balanced diet through most of life c. having been on CR -or- IF for most part of their life d. not dying from war, crime, accident, disease or poverty & starvation (that's my major objection) e. no dangerous congenital disorders (genes that are neutral or favourable for achieving a life span of 100+)
Didn't some people say that the Okinawans have not been on CR for a really long time? What about their Diet, was it healthy and balanced all the time?
The problem I see is that noone despite all billions of people have lived to more than 122. Someone somewhere should by chance have been on such a diet and even managed to live to 130-140 and have the documents to prove it. Could Roy Walford have been overestimating the effect it will have on humans?. When looking at these monkey studies it seems very possible that some people should be able to live to 120-130 by doing this.Apparently many people on Okinawa have been on this type of diet and benefitted from it but still they don't live much longer than 100.
Edited by kismet, 06 June 2008 - 07:54 PM.
forever freedom 06 Jun 2008
VictorBjoerk 06 Jun 2008
Matt 06 Jun 2008
Remember that Calorie restriction is not just about obesity avoidance either, rodent type CR you would be looking at someone who was quite underweight all through their life... CR might not have worked in the past before as well because of infectious disease, of which we have some control over now with antibiotics.
Have any of you yet read Michaels Paper of WHY CR has a high chance of working in humans? It was in response to Aubrey De Greys paper why CR wouldn't work.
Johan 06 Jun 2008
I haven't read it, but I would like to. Is it available somewhere?Have any of you yet read Michaels Paper of WHY CR has a high chance of working in humans? It was in response to Aubrey De Greys paper why CR wouldn't work.