11 replies to this topic

[luv2increase]

Has calorie restriction been proven in humans yet?

[Shepard]

Proven to do what?

[luv2increase]

Proven to do what?

To extend one's natural life of course.

[Shepard]

To extend one's natural life of course.

Due to the amount of time required, certainly not. There is plenty of evidence of CR improving various parameters related to longevity, though. Whether it's related to maximal longevity in humans is still under debate.

[luv2increase]

To extend one's natural life of course.

Due to the amount of time required, certainly not. There is plenty of evidence of CR improving various parameters related to longevity, though. Whether it's related to maximal longevity in humans is still under debate.

Are there studies currently underway? What all parameters related to longevity has CR been demonstrated to have a positive affect in humans?

[Shepard]

Insulin signaling, blood pressure, lipid panels, glucose levels, healthier weights, etc.

[s123]

Caloric restriction in humans; Experimental Gerontology; Volume 42, Issue 8, August 2007, Pages 709-712

This is a review of all the human data on CR.
The human studies are:
- Okinawan observations
- Calerie phase 1
- Biosphere 2
- Data from members of CRS

There are no studies that proves that humans live longer when they practice CR but in the shorter term studies we see the same changes in humans as we see in animals that do live longer.

[Matt]

Add:

- Baltimore longitudinal study (Non CR'd men with low insulin, low body temperature and higher DHEA_S lived longer)
- Primate CR study - Ad lib 25 years CR 32 years (Not amazing but it was an obesity avoidance study, and CR monkeys lived to human equiv of 96 years and lived 30% longer on a 30% CR diet)
- Hawaii study on men aged 50 and risk factors (9 of them). Have none of them (like CRers) and have a high very high chance of reaching your mid 85's to 90's

You could argue that the results from the Seventh Day adventist study which shows men can almonst 10 years longer (86 years?) than other californian men

Simple, CR will give more than 2 years that some researchers say

Edited by Matt, 02 September 2008 - 10:57 AM.

[Matt]

A few things that have been noted in humans so far

- Human CRers have better (younger) Diastolic function of the heart by 15-20 years younger than their chronological age.
- CALERIE Study showed Less DNA damage (0.50), increased Mitochondrial biogenesis and all the same stuff as in the Fontana study (better disease risk factors)
- Fontana studies showed (according to 10y risk factor assess) that CRers have almost zero risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. Blood pressure same as children, cholesterol profiles that are in the best ranges.
- CRers show characteristics associated with longer life, even the less talked about ones like less systemic inflamation (Low WBC and Low CRP (both shown to correlate with less cancer, less autoimmune disease, less general overall mortality rates)

And of course there are a few CRers that seriously looking good for their age in my opinion... by that I mean looking much younger than people their age. This doesn't ensure longevity but again it is a characteristic seen among those that reach centenarian status, and animals that are put on CR... See my ad lib vs CR page on this section of the forum.

Edited by Matt, 02 September 2008 - 10:58 AM.

[kismet]

I think the studies in primates which are under way are the most important proof, taken together with all the animal data and the short studies on humans this should be enoughto convince most sceptics, no?

[luv2increase]

I think the studies in primates which are under way are the most important proof, taken together with all the animal data and the short studies on humans this should be enoughto convince most sceptics, no?

The macaque genome is the second non-human primate, after the chimp, to have its genome sequenced and the first Old World monkey to have its DNA deciphered. The macaque genome is important because it is more distant to the human than the chimp or the orangutan genomes. This means that important genome features that are conserved through evolution can be more easily seen by comparing the macaque to human.

Make note that the macasque is the rhesus monkey. It has a 93% similarity to the human DNA. The other 7% could be a very large factor in whether or not CR can or cannot be applied 100% to Homo sapiens.


More of the article is here. It is very interesting. It is titled Rhesus monkey genome reveals DNA similarities with chimps and humans

http://mednews.wustl...ormal/9252.html

[Mind]

Another study showing possible benefits of CR (in vitro study)