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.
NEW[.JPG)
