Breathe. Breathe! I hope you are alright. And thank you for the invitiation to a counter-rant.
In some fonts the capital letters look really HUGE. I don't like them being used for forums, as I think capital letters are good for emphasis.... my breathing is fine but thanks.
The information I've seen is short on details They are getting a typical lab diet. Apparently Teklad #85387, see this paper for composition: http://jn.nutrition....127/12/2293.pdf
The typical lab diet has processed foods in it... if getting liberal amounts of it the monkeys are bound to overeat just as humans do. You don't necessarily have to eat burgers and fries and soft drinks to be overweight, bread and biscuits are much better for it in my view. The type of food labs give usually are along those lines with some nutrients thrown in.
Does it matter? What does a normal human look like anyway? A hunter gatherer dying from a Staph infection at the age of 19? A caveman? An obese American? They are rhesus monkeys which is enough. They have the same genotype and phenotype like their WT counterparts and are ten times as long lived as rodents, which makes them a considerably better model to study aging. Whether they are completely "normal" rhesus monkeys by your definition, doesn't matter, because it does not change the validity of the experiments.
By normal weight I mean the usual/average/median weight rhesus monkeys are in the wild. The weight they are evolutionarily designed to be and will tend to if left in their natural habitat.
What this experiment is trying to say is that "CRed" would do BETTER than those living in the wild, BETTER than those living as they were evolved to live. That's where the whole longevity vs reproduction etc. comes in.... that's what the whole theory is supposed to be about.
Cardiovascular disease caused by "man made" products? Is this the reason why pathologists from the 19th and early 20th century regularly diagnosed cardiovascular disease? Is this the reason why intimal thickening, fatty streaks and plaques can appear during infancy? Smells like ... chicken... erm I mean naturalistic fallacy.
The first recorded heart attack ever was in Britain in 1878. In the early 1900s Dr Dudley White (referred to as the founder of cardiology) said that he wanted to find out more about the new disease reported in European medical literature, but he had to wait until 1921 before he met his first heart attack patient. Cardiology or "heart attack" etc. did not exist in substantial numbers before this time. Grains and bread and liquor have been cultivated and processed for thousands of years anyway so I don't know what argument you're trying to make there.
Now if you want, you can aspire to "pwning" everything that deals with how we were evolved to live by saying "naturalistic fallacy", like many seem to do. But it's not logical and it's not legitimate science. Legitimate science is when you consider the actual outcomes of phenomena, such as eating in a particular way (be it similar to how we evolved or not). There is no legitimate reason that your body would not decide the amount of calories you need for you if not exposed to processed foods. When exposed to processed foods, you either go too fat (99% of the time) or sometimes too thin (especially prevalent in older people), when eating raw foods, it just hits the mark.
AFAIK no one knows how long monkeys in the wild live and those in captivity might get even older. Apparently you are in the know. So how long do they live?
I don't know that but it's estimated 40+ (and I don't know how long), capuchins can live 50+ years in captivity. I guess nobody does.
Most people couldn't care less about reproducing and if you start after maturation (which is regulary done, BTW) there is no growth restriction.
Regularly done in what...? Animals with the "ad lib" being fed the equivalent of fortified bread and cakes and no knowledge of not to eat too much of them and nothing to do all day but eat them? For cows etc. the foods are often actually designed to fatten them up, although human and other food fattens the vast majority up as well... because of huge calorie density.
Did you consider the remote possibility that WT mice and inbred strains are not the same? BTW, you are greatly mistaken, WT mice never outlive lab strains in the wild, 99% of them are dead within 1 year (predation, etc). Only if you keep WT mice in captivity do they live longer than inbred strains (surprise, suprirse!) The experiments in WT mice support CR anyway. They lived slightly longer and cancer incidence was much lower, even though the study was messed up (I think they were over-restricted).
I think the whole thing is messed up, you can't tell anything from it about how it compares to primitive living. 99% of humans aren't dead within 10 years for example.
Oh, oh, okay SIRT genes. So you are basically "open" to an idea which was never proven in any meaningful long lived animal, while you dismiss the decades of solid science done on CR? That's quite a feat indeed.
If you can show me an experiment where a set of animals did WORSE by eating as much as they wanted of RAW FOODS, and it should also be one where the animals are *reasonably* similar to humans, then I'll support the idea of CR more. I still think one could just switch around their raw foods and would eat less that way anyway, but I'd accept the idea more. I can show you an experiment about how people do far worse off by eating processed foods and become obese because of it (the world, especially America).
CR is healthy going by the science.
For hundreds of years people have said no to that extra bit of food, especially girls. That's CR in the way you're describing it. It may make you healthier, it may even help you live longer, but you would be more healthy and living longer if you just ate raw.
Edited by becomingwiser, 19 July 2009 - 05:46 PM.
LongeCity
