4 ms·
Diet/longevity studies in mice aren't good sources of information for the general population. They are (at best) pilots/guides for further (more expensive) huma
by dundarious 5y ago
Diet/longevity studies in mice aren't good sources of information for the general population. They are (at best) pilots/guides for further (more expensive) human testing.
Unless it's a treatment for an acute condition that you suffer from, and there's some logical basis for trusting the effect will equally apply to humans, there's no point in basing personal dietary behavior in any way off of such studies. And a lesser point is that there is likely enough agreed upon research in this area that you are not adhering to already! (Myself included, though I do try)
Of course, the people who might work on such trials might frequent HN, and research is just intrinsically interesting, so I'm not saying "this is a bad post".
- the__alchemist 5y agoMice, by virtue of being vertebrates, and more specifically mammals, share much biology with us - from biochemistry, to cellular functions, to macro structures. There's a reasonable chance things that affect their bodies will affect ours as well.
- dundarious 5y agoThat is a justification for doing such studies, but it says nothing about whether they provide good enough evidence for dietary/behavioral changes in the general population. Why base our daily behavior on such thin evidence? Human trials should be the minimum requirement in the vast majority of cases.
- knuthsat 5y agoReasonable as in highly unlikely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/ More than 95% of successful animal studies fail to progress further from human trials. There's obviously a great need for doing these tests in a different fashion.