18 ms·

Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys

153 points by efficientarch 13y ago

didgeoridoo 13y ago
So if you don't eat much you may live longer. It will certainly FEEL longer.
- dexen 13y ago
  While stated as sarcasm, this is a very reasonable concern. Suppose we can extend human life with Calore Restriction, but at the cost of having to slow person's activity to the point that the overall amout of actions (work, leisure etc.) remains the same as during shorter, more intense life. Would that still be worth it? What would a person gain through longer lifespan if she was limited to roughly the same amout of activity anyway? Wouldn't competing people gain advantage simply by being able to take advantage of opportunities quicker?
  - mmastrac 13y ago
    I've dabbled with caloric restriction before for brief periods of time. I found that my body adjusted pretty quickly to it in a metabolic sense and the only real issue (and the reason I dabbled but never became a real adherent) was appetite, which I suspect will eventually be solvable via pharmacological means. Intermittent caloric restriction is also showing promise. You don't have to starve yourself daily -- just a couple of times a week -- to show some of the same benefits. Perhaps not to the same degree, but far more comfortably.
  - jarin 13y ago
    Just thinking all futurism here, but it could be useful in the case where we don't need as much physical activity but rely more on thinking, or if we have things pretty automated and just need to wait for things that take a long time.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Why speculate when we already have some data on activity levels under CR? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Activity_level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Activity_le...
    - KVFinn 13y ago
      Very interesting! >Laboratory rodents placed on a CR diet tend to exhibit increased activity levels (particularly when provided with exercise equipment) at feeding time. Monkeys undergoing CR also appear more restless immediately before and after meals.[62] Despite this brief daily period of increased activity overall activity is no higher in CR than AL animals in youth after an initial period of adaptation to the diet.[63] On the other hand, CR has been found to retard the decline in activity that occurs during normal aging: in one study, animals on a conventional diet "showed little activity" by early middle age, while those on CR "were observed to run around the cage and climb onto and hang from the wire cage tops throughout their life spans. In fact, the longest surviving [CR] mouse was observed hanging from the top of his cage only 3 days before he became moribund."
- peter303 13y ago
  Scientist thought they could shortcut this process by discovering the underlying biochemical mechanism. One promising lead was the insulin subsystem which is ubiqitous in our tissues and in most animals for nearly 700 million years. This lead to the SIR family of genes and chemicals like red wine that seem to manipulate them. What works in yeast and worms doesnt seem to apply to mammals that well yet. Western mdicine: develop and take a PILL to solve your problems.
- Quaro 13y ago
  >So if you don't eat much you may live longer. >It will certainly FEEL longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fs33Jewsg&t=4m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fs33Jewsg&t=4m25s According to people that do it they feel great (possibly due to BDNF activation in the brain).
  - epaladin 13y ago
    BDNF will affect neuronal proliferation, but won't affect how you feel (mood) in the short term.
- ElongatedTowel 13y ago
  To add another perspective to this. If we assume that after a period of adaption eating less is just as much of a joy as eating a bit too much from time to time, there are still other factors. Most of them are a product of vanity, but they still shape our culture. How would I look if I reduce calories? I would lose a substantial amount of muscle mass. I would be weaker. I could not recover from endurance and strength work as fast as I'm used to. If we throw all reasonable studies into a bucket and have them guide our lives, what would happen? I wouldn't be tan. I wouldn't grow as large because small people supposedly live longer (though this is of course not something we can influence yet). I would have a very low muscle tonus as well as mass and only sufficient muscular endurance and size to do whatever I have to do (which is very little compared to a blacksmith in 1407). I would share a grey substance (heck, let's keep the name soylent) with my date that has everything I need to live. I have no car to reduce my carbon footprint. I will avoid the sun in general due to my skin color which is very prone to cancer (thankfully my children will be genetically altered). I will gladly try to avoid talking about any of this because saying "Don't you think beeing vegan is awesome?" will lead to an imaginary bullet flying in my general direction. Let's have a vote of how many women find this lifestyle that will carry me into my 100s so mind-boggling attractive while I'm still in my 20s.
  - judk 13y ago
    Everything you describe as attractive qualities you don't want to sacrifice are fashion fads that were once considered unattractive. The insightful notion that life at 20 is permanent adulthood and the future is irrelevant has been believed by 20somethings for millenia.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
The test is lab grade monkey chow vs. less lab grade monkey chow. I don't think one can extrapolate that eating less calories on a very high quality and low toxin source of calories is better. Monkeys do best on perfectly ripe and fresh tropical fruits. Is that what they were eating? I really doubt it.
- knodi123 13y ago
  Toxin is a buzzword that I use to tell when someone is easily deceived by woo-woo fake science. The idea that anything processed in a factory is full of "toxins" and anything from nature is "healthy" is an irritating and pervasive fallacy. Were you referring to a specific toxin that is in their foods, or were you using it in the more vague and hand-wavy "woo woo homeopathic" sense?
  - robododo 13y ago
    "High quality" in close proximity to "calories" is another sign of woo.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    Who said anything about "produced in a factory"? Monkeys eat mostly ripe tropical fruit. The monkey chow here probably includes palm oil and soy. Specific toxins that accumulate in tissues over time and are known to contribute to premature aging in mammals include certain fatty acids and excess iron intake, for examples. In excessive amounts they are "toxic." I don't see what is remotely "woo" about this. The whole calorie restriction idea has been pretty well debunked as far as I'm concerned. Whenever it's looked at more closely it's a matter of food quality. Animals with the highest metabolisms among their peers are actually healthiest and longest lived.
- dustin 13y ago
  To be fair, monkeys eating a bunch of processed lab grade crap is probably a better approximation for the modern human than an optimal diet.
cliveowen 13y ago
If I'm reading this correctly it says that the findings apply to 1) short lived species and 2) rhesus primates. It also says that the effects of CR may or may not be preserved on humans. So the only real finding here seems to be that we are now able to extend the lifespan of some monkeys.
- collyw 13y ago
  Both are used as model organisms, because they are similar in many ways to humans. If both mice and animals show the same result, it is reasonable to expect that it may also occur in humans. Obviously this would need to be tested before any definite conclusions can be reached, and that is going to take a long time.
- crusso 13y ago
  While I don't disagree factually with what you're saying, the way you're saying it sounds like a slight misunderstanding of the results here. CR has been shown to have effects on short-lived species because that's all that's been testable so far. CR has actually been remarkably consistent in its effects across many different species. The rhesus monkey studies are the first ones to attempt to replicate the longevity results found in the previous tests that were performed on short-lived species. The NIA rhesus study results released a short while back seemed to be the first failure of replicating CR longevity results. This seemed to be a blow to the theory that CR would be efficacious with higher primates. However, this study is saying that the first rhesus study was conducted incorrectly and that the results were incorrectly interpreted. They're basically saying that scientifically, CR is still batting a thousand.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Doing lifespan studies on long-lived species simply takes that much longer times - to test a hypothesis on humans, it'd take some 70+ years. It can be done and we will do it, but that will be only a benefit for the future generations - all that you and me can do is to assume (or not assume) that the measured effects will generalize to us as well.
netcan 13y ago
Am I the only one who finds this caloric restriction stuff depressing? If starving for 50 years will increase my life I don't even want to know about it. Stupid science. Next they're going to tell us that a combination of caloric restriction & celibacy will do even more.
- raverbashing 13y ago
  I kind of agree, quality of live is important as well
  - Telomer 13y ago
    If you could live forever on the condition that you did not eat, would you say no?
    - morgante 13y ago
      > If you could live forever on the condition that you did not eat, would you say no? It entirely depends on how that condition materialized. Would I be hungry forever (but somehow live)? Then no. If I would never be hungry, then that sounds wonderful.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Well, orgasm results in a surge of prolactin which is known to have certain negative effects. There's arguably a case for keeping orgasm frequency low.
- crusso 13y ago
  Ageing has been such an insurmountable problem, any methods that indicate that there are ways to somewhat control it are promising and can lead to other discoveries. Perhaps CR only invokes the release of hormones that have a protective effect on cells. Replicate the hormone and perhaps actual caloric restriction may not be necessary.
  - netcan 13y ago
neves 13y ago
Isn't this an year old published research that was widely reported?
gregwebs 13y ago
This paper rehashes 2 studies. In the original Wisconsin one that showed a great benefit to CR ... were fed a semi-purified, nutritionally fortified, low-fat diet containing 15% protein and 10% fat. The monkeys without CR ended up getting diabetes and they were giving them insulin. This study made a big splash, but as others point out it probably really only helps prove that eating less crap is good for you. This paper appears to include some of the same authors of the Wisconsin study and tries to explain why the NIH performed a study that did not replicate their results. This paper claims that the control group in the NIH study actually underwent CR by comparing them to a database of captive primates. If that is true, then the title still seems strange, because it doesn't mean the NIH study provides meaningful supporting evidence, it means it was an invalid test of the CR hypothesis and instead it provides some extremely weak supporting evidence of the CR hypothesis. As a side note, there is evidence that the CR benefit is from protein restriction and possibly just avoiding protein imbalances. https://chriskresser.com/do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-disease-and-cancer https://chriskresser.com/do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-... (scroll to Is protein to blame—or is methionine?)
naterator 13y ago
It should be noted that a parallel study[1] at the National Institute for Aging (NIA) found that this was not the case. The authors of this study (UW) claim (as far as I understand) that the NIA study was flawed because both Control and Calorie Restricted (CR) monkeys were fed diets that were both restrictive, and not sufficiently different. There also seem to be some debate about the composition of the diets. The controls in the UW study were allowed to eat as they pleased (i.e. become fatties if they wanted). They claim that if both "modest" or "moderate" CR are equivalent, it would be a very important conclusion. The practical consequence, if true, would be that we wouldn't have to starve ourselves too much. Mouse models had suggested years ago that calorie restriction could lead to ~%50 increase in lifetime. However, the problem with mouse studies is that they are pretty different, and also the mice they use are really inbred and perhaps non-ideal examples. The conclusion from the primate studies is really stacking up to be a common sense "eat in moderation, healthy, and you'll live at least a little longer, maybe a lot". Not really groundbreaking stuff, to be honest. And still not conclusive when you consider the resources that went into these studies. This also teaches us nothing about mechanisms, which would be really useful. Just my cursory assessment so far. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-d...
- exratione 13y ago
  The publicity materials for this recent set of results do a good job of explaining why the researchers think that the NIA study is flawed. In essence the NIA control monkeys are probably on CR. http://www.newswise.com/articles/monkey-caloric-restriction-study-shows-big-benefit-contradicts-earlier-study http://www.newswise.com/articles/monkey-caloric-restriction-... “In Wisconsin, we started with adults. We knew how much food they wanted to eat, and we based our experimental diet on a 30 percent reduction in calories from that point.” In contrast, the NIA monkeys were fed according to a standardized food intake chart designed by the National Academy of Science. Through their own experience in monkey research, and by reference to an online database recording the weight of thousands of research monkeys, the Wisconsin researchers concluded that the NIA controls were actually on caloric restriction as well, says Colman. “At all the time points that have been published by NIA, their control monkeys weigh less than ours, and in most cases, significantly so.” Weindruch also points to some results from the NIA that seem to contradict the “no significant result” analysis. Twenty monkeys entered the NIA study as mature adults, 10 in the test group and 10 in the control group, and five of these (four test monkeys and one control monkey) lived at least 40 years. “Heretofore, there was never a monkey that we are aware of that was reported to live beyond 40 years,” Weindruch says. “Hence, the conclusion that caloric restriction is ineffective in their study does not make sense to me and my colleagues.”
mrfusion 13y ago
People are mentioning caloric restriction not being worth it for humans because of quality of life vs length of life. However one thought that I find interesting, is that for our generation, living just two or three extra years could potentially make a huge difference. If you subscribe to the idea of a coming technological singularity, or even to the idea that we're a few decades away from SENS escape velocity, you'd hate to miss it by just a couple of years.
- unchocked 13y ago
  Or you'd hate to have been hungry for most of your adult life in order to live two years longer, and still miss the rapture.
  - huherto 13y ago
    Or not being able to pay for it. If it ever happens it will probably be available first for the very rich.
- crpatino 13y ago
  See comments above, the original research is flawed. New research shows that moderate caloric restriction has no statistically significant effect over eating a healthy diet within your caloric needs. It is overeating which decreases your life span.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Might be. I think the quality of life issues are overstated, but I'm an ectomorph so I can change my food intake on a whim. Being hungry isn't a distraction to me unless I'm very busy physically.
  - dfc 13y ago
    > I'm an ectomorph As in ecto|meso|endo-morph? I thought that the scientific community put that idea in the trashcan.
    - 13y ago
ca98am79 13y ago
I thought about doing CR for a while - I read the "120 Year Diet," and was considering giving it a try. Then I met up with a couple who was into hardcore CR. I had dinner with them. Two things made me decide not to do it: 1) they seemed frail and weak - the man seemed to have a constant runny nose. I felt that if he fell down he would break his hip. The risk of injury and death from physical weakness seemed like it would counter any benefits from CR for lifespan. 2) They put so much effort into measuring every ingredient, and running computer programs with recipes to get the optimal nutrients with as little calories as possible. It seemed to take so much time in preparation, and you could mostly only eat at home.
- mishkovski 13y ago
  Ketogenic diet combined with intermittent fasting can be simple solution for this. Ketogenic diet controls your appetite and having one meal a day helps you to control your calorie intake.
- Quaro 13y ago
  >Then I met up with a couple who was into hardcore CR. You probably met someone on the extreme hardcore edge of it. Certainly it's a spectrum and counting calories and nutrients with computer programs is extremely normal today -- there are about a million programs that do it on your phone for you including taking photos of bar codes, etc.
fatjokes 13y ago
A lot of people are jumping to extremes. I don't take this to mean I should starve myself. Instead this does encourage me to stop eating until I'm full, just until I'm no longer hungry.
- netcan 13y ago
  Well CR doesn't really refer to moderation. It refers to restrictions to the point that it is unpleasant to most people.
RighteousFervor 13y ago
I think these scientists should starve themselves instead of animals. It's called having skin in the game.
- gwern 13y ago
  Some of them do.
jasonkolb 13y ago
Caloric restriction is absolutely fascinating in all forms. I think intermittent fasting might be the best-known variant of this, but there are others. All of them cause dramatic changes in the way bodies function, from changing the hormones secreted to changing the form of fuel it uses to run itself (e.g. ketones in low-carb diets instead of glucose). Caloric restriction has a whole bunch of knock-on effects, any one of which could have a huge impact on health and aging. For example, restricting calories means that you're restricting protein. Most people think of protein as a good thing, but that's what stimulates the hormone IGF-1 to be secreted, which is necessary for growth of all kinds--muscle growth (which is why bodybuilders eat as much protein as possible), but also including cancer. I've seen research that suggests that cells don't go into "repair mode" in the presence of IGF-1. This is just one example of a possible mechanism that caloric restriction could have a hugely beneficial effect on aging and illness in general. I have a half-written blog post about this I should push out. I'd love to get some more conversation going around this.
- KVFinn 13y ago
  >For example, restricting calories means that you're restricting protein. Most people think of protein as a good thing, but that's what stimulates the hormone IGF-1 to be secreted, which is necessary for growth of all kinds--muscle growth (which is why bodybuilders eat as much protein as possible), but also including cancer. While people on CR do seem to try and keep IGF-1 on the lower side, there's no consensus on protein yet. Most seem to eat a normal proportion, (though still less than average person since their overall intake it lower.). I have seen some people doing CR specially avoid whey protein because it's known to particularly raise IGF-1 (which is why on the other hand people trying to maximize size of muscles like it)
  - X4 13y ago
    Ok, I think most of you who read PROTEIN, may misunderstand a bit here, I'll add a bit of info to clarify the protein debate a bit. There are almost indefinite combinations of proteins, many of which have vastly different effects on the body and it's cells. To shed a bit of light on proteins, you should know that most enzymes are proteins too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme Some forms of 'proteins' may increase cancerous growth, other may inhibit it and there are many of such activators/inhibitors, just so you know. Only take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin which there are proteins ("enzymes"), which may inhibit it, leading to a super-muscular body. It's a very small change, but the result is not what you would expect from just a protein. The contrary is true too, it could have damaging effect too. We are NOT talking about supplements here, but the form of proteins that occur in Nature. They are by far not researched enough to give any form of advice and there are still new breakthroughs, findings and surprises made in the area. Roughly saying that no calories means, more lifetime, is like saying that not fueling a motor will increase it's lifetime. Human Life is not about getting as old as possible anyway. My personal opinion is that it's there to bring healthy and smart kids to the world, which help in the betterment of the world with their creativity, skills, ideas, muscles, efforts and visions. Simple as that.
salimmadjd 13y ago
>Received 12 October 2013 Accepted 05 March 2014 Published 01 April 2014 Am I the only one who finds this crazy? It takes 6 months from submission date till publication! The peer review process should move faster and become modernized. I undrestand, you want to be published on prestigious journals, but Nature and others can modernize to publish more. You can argue, we lost 6 months or half a year of progress because of the pace of antiquated publication process.
- randlet 13y ago
  Done correctly, reviewing papers is a tedious, time consuming & utterly thankless job that takes time away from your own research. Papers also often go through 2 or three rounds of reviewing/revision. Each one of these cycles can take 1-2 months so it's not surprising it's a slow process.
- lutusp 13y ago
  The counterargument should be obvious -- peer reviewers are often unpaid experts who review pending articles in whatever spare time they happen to have, between delivering lectures, research, and applying for grants. To speed up the process woulds be to increase its cost, possibly very much, or to degrade the peer review process. The defects of another alternative should also be obvious -- paid peer reviewers. If this change took place, people would line up for positions they aren't qualified for on the simple ground that they can get paid to appear to be what they aren't. Also, for many cutting-edge fields, there simply aren't more than a handful of qualified reviewers at any price.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- searine 13y ago
  Welcome to science. At best you have a 2-3 month wait. At worst, years.
- dfc 13y ago
  You misspelled "understand" in a comment criticizing the review process. If this was irony, I must say your trolling is sublime. However if this was an error I think you might want to rethink your position. I have no problem waiting 6 months or a year for peer reviewed publications.
tokenadult 13y ago
What's interesting about human all-cause mortality trends is that human beings in the developed countries have been gaining three months of lifespan for every year that they live (sometimes described as "six hours each day").[1] Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[2] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. A lot incremental improvements in both public health and in medical practice, as well as much better nutrition than in the old days, are steadily increasing life expectancy.[3] This is happening for people of all ages; life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising, and all-cause mortality and morbidity declining, throughout the developed countries of the world.[4] So the monkey research needs to be meshed in with human research that shows that mildly "overweight" (if fit) human beings have better mortality outcomes than human beings of normal weight[5] to tease out what the causation is for health outcomes of different patterns of nutrition. The example of Rimonabant[6] shows that sometimes an animal model doesn't adequately predict treatment effects in human subjects. [1] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... [2] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... [4] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227 [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578688 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578688
- beagle3 13y ago
  > Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long I'm sure this is backed up by studies and references, and at the same time I am amused at the hubris of making this statement. It's a cheap prediction to make, given that it will be around 2070 before you can verify it - and how right it is depends on lack-of-catastrohpies (e.g. in 20 years we'll have an idea how the meltdown in Fukushima affects lifespan), same-rate-and-same-kind-and-availability of advances, etc. And before you criticize me for being "anti-sciece" - I am not, and unlike a lot of other assertions, this might technically be science (I haven't reviewed the source material) - however, it is not useful science because it may take 70 years to falsify. Furthermore, a lot of -- perhaps most -- extrapolations of past trends had been wrong. At the time of Wallace & Darwin it was "scientifically" extrapolated that food will only grow linearly. And in 1980 climate studies had shown that if we don't do anything (and we didn't) by 2000 quite a few coastal cities will be underwater. If I wasn't anonymous, I'd place a long bet that the data crunching that led to this prediction will turn out to be complete rubish.
higherpurpose 13y ago
In related news: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331194030.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331194030.ht...
Beliavsky 13y ago
I prefer this conclusion: "Study Suggests Lower Mortality Risk for People Deemed to Be Overweight" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lowe... .
plg 13y ago
'cause who really likes _eating_, anyway. A no-brainer to just reduce food. Yeah that'll work. Lots of things might reduce mortality and prolong lifespan. It's quite another thing to ask whether these things are viable options for modern human beings.
- todd8 13y ago
  In the early 90's my girlfriend was into CR. She was also into supplements. No one that I've ever known took so many vitamins, minerals, herbs, and antioxidants. She ordered them in bulk in powdered form and made a mess in the kitchen mixing them up every day. Of course, now there's evidence that heavy doses of vitamins aren't beneficial and may actually be harmful. As to the calorie reduction, she was quite successful in controlling her diet. She ordered guar gum in 50 lb sacks (from Tic Gums), mixing it with water to have something in her stomach when she was hungry. She seemed to settle into a routine that I don't think I could have tolerated. She didn't ever look anorexic, but had very very low body fat. She was very afraid of getting old and this motivated her. I think that without some sort of pharmaceutical breakthrough that controls hunger, the rest of us will not find CR practical.
  - ciupicri 13y ago
    > Of course, now there's evidence that heavy doses of vitamins aren't beneficial and may actually be harmful. Could you be more specific, please?
    - manilafolder 13y ago
      This is an interesting meta-analysis of some of the studies done on the efficacy of vitamins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDrAQi1SwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDrAQi1SwU (Presentation by Dr. Jeffrey Tice of the University of California). He covers vitamins A, E, and C around 18 minutes into the presentation.
Harj 13y ago
There is lots of interesting research on the links between caloric restriction and the ageing process. It's the impact on the insulin and insulin like growth factor (IGF-1) pathways that seems to be important: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412000049 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412... http://kenyonlab.ucsf.edu/Kenyon_2010_Nature_rev.pdf http://kenyonlab.ucsf.edu/Kenyon_2010_Nature_rev.pdf
dfc 13y ago
According to the Nature Comms Open Access guidelines somebody paid $4,800 for this article to be published under a BY-NC-SA license. In general who ends up paying, the authors or the authors' respective institutions? Open Access fees:[^1] (CC BY) (CC BY-NC-SA) Region ------------------------------------------------- $5,200 $4,800 (The Americas) €3,700 €3,425 (Europe) ¥661,500 ¥612,150 (Japan) RMB33,100 RMB30,600 (China) £3,150 £2,915 (UK and Rest of World) [^1]: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html
- lsh 13y ago
  Typically the institutions, although I can't say specifically who paid in this instance. This is an interesting point and I'll raise it at work: should the sponsor of an article be formally noted, along with the particulars of it's peer review, license, etc? Also, a shameless plug: http://www.ubiquitypress.com/publish http://www.ubiquitypress.com/publish because OA isn't an expensive proposition, it just depends how it is handled and by whom.

153 points by efficientarch 13y ago

didgeoridoo 13y ago

So if you don't eat much you may live longer. It will certainly FEEL longer.

dexen 13y ago
While stated as sarcasm, this is a very reasonable concern. Suppose we can extend human life with Calore Restriction, but at the cost of having to slow person's activity to the point that the overall amout of actions (work, leisure etc.) remains the same as during shorter, more intense life. Would that still be worth it? What would a person gain through longer lifespan if she was limited to roughly the same amout of activity anyway? Wouldn't competing people gain advantage simply by being able to take advantage of opportunities quicker?
- mmastrac 13y ago
  I've dabbled with caloric restriction before for brief periods of time. I found that my body adjusted pretty quickly to it in a metabolic sense and the only real issue (and the reason I dabbled but never became a real adherent) was appetite, which I suspect will eventually be solvable via pharmacological means. Intermittent caloric restriction is also showing promise. You don't have to starve yourself daily -- just a couple of times a week -- to show some of the same benefits. Perhaps not to the same degree, but far more comfortably.
- jarin 13y ago
  Just thinking all futurism here, but it could be useful in the case where we don't need as much physical activity but rely more on thinking, or if we have things pretty automated and just need to wait for things that take a long time.
- crusso 13y ago
  Why speculate when we already have some data on activity levels under CR? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Activity_level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Activity_le...
  - KVFinn 13y ago
    Very interesting! >Laboratory rodents placed on a CR diet tend to exhibit increased activity levels (particularly when provided with exercise equipment) at feeding time. Monkeys undergoing CR also appear more restless immediately before and after meals.[62] Despite this brief daily period of increased activity overall activity is no higher in CR than AL animals in youth after an initial period of adaptation to the diet.[63] On the other hand, CR has been found to retard the decline in activity that occurs during normal aging: in one study, animals on a conventional diet "showed little activity" by early middle age, while those on CR "were observed to run around the cage and climb onto and hang from the wire cage tops throughout their life spans. In fact, the longest surviving [CR] mouse was observed hanging from the top of his cage only 3 days before he became moribund."
peter303 13y ago
Scientist thought they could shortcut this process by discovering the underlying biochemical mechanism. One promising lead was the insulin subsystem which is ubiqitous in our tissues and in most animals for nearly 700 million years. This lead to the SIR family of genes and chemicals like red wine that seem to manipulate them. What works in yeast and worms doesnt seem to apply to mammals that well yet. Western mdicine: develop and take a PILL to solve your problems.
Quaro 13y ago
>So if you don't eat much you may live longer. >It will certainly FEEL longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fs33Jewsg&t=4m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fs33Jewsg&t=4m25s According to people that do it they feel great (possibly due to BDNF activation in the brain).
- epaladin 13y ago
  BDNF will affect neuronal proliferation, but won't affect how you feel (mood) in the short term.
ElongatedTowel 13y ago
To add another perspective to this. If we assume that after a period of adaption eating less is just as much of a joy as eating a bit too much from time to time, there are still other factors. Most of them are a product of vanity, but they still shape our culture. How would I look if I reduce calories? I would lose a substantial amount of muscle mass. I would be weaker. I could not recover from endurance and strength work as fast as I'm used to. If we throw all reasonable studies into a bucket and have them guide our lives, what would happen? I wouldn't be tan. I wouldn't grow as large because small people supposedly live longer (though this is of course not something we can influence yet). I would have a very low muscle tonus as well as mass and only sufficient muscular endurance and size to do whatever I have to do (which is very little compared to a blacksmith in 1407). I would share a grey substance (heck, let's keep the name soylent) with my date that has everything I need to live. I have no car to reduce my carbon footprint. I will avoid the sun in general due to my skin color which is very prone to cancer (thankfully my children will be genetically altered). I will gladly try to avoid talking about any of this because saying "Don't you think beeing vegan is awesome?" will lead to an imaginary bullet flying in my general direction. Let's have a vote of how many women find this lifestyle that will carry me into my 100s so mind-boggling attractive while I'm still in my 20s.
- judk 13y ago
  Everything you describe as attractive qualities you don't want to sacrifice are fashion fads that were once considered unattractive. The insightful notion that life at 20 is permanent adulthood and the future is irrelevant has been believed by 20somethings for millenia.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

The test is lab grade monkey chow vs. less lab grade monkey chow. I don't think one can extrapolate that eating less calories on a very high quality and low toxin source of calories is better. Monkeys do best on perfectly ripe and fresh tropical fruits. Is that what they were eating? I really doubt it.

knodi123 13y ago
Toxin is a buzzword that I use to tell when someone is easily deceived by woo-woo fake science. The idea that anything processed in a factory is full of "toxins" and anything from nature is "healthy" is an irritating and pervasive fallacy. Were you referring to a specific toxin that is in their foods, or were you using it in the more vague and hand-wavy "woo woo homeopathic" sense?
- robododo 13y ago
  "High quality" in close proximity to "calories" is another sign of woo.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Who said anything about "produced in a factory"? Monkeys eat mostly ripe tropical fruit. The monkey chow here probably includes palm oil and soy. Specific toxins that accumulate in tissues over time and are known to contribute to premature aging in mammals include certain fatty acids and excess iron intake, for examples. In excessive amounts they are "toxic." I don't see what is remotely "woo" about this. The whole calorie restriction idea has been pretty well debunked as far as I'm concerned. Whenever it's looked at more closely it's a matter of food quality. Animals with the highest metabolisms among their peers are actually healthiest and longest lived.
dustin 13y ago
To be fair, monkeys eating a bunch of processed lab grade crap is probably a better approximation for the modern human than an optimal diet.

cliveowen 13y ago

If I'm reading this correctly it says that the findings apply to 1) short lived species and 2) rhesus primates. It also says that the effects of CR may or may not be preserved on humans. So the only real finding here seems to be that we are now able to extend the lifespan of some monkeys.

collyw 13y ago
Both are used as model organisms, because they are similar in many ways to humans. If both mice and animals show the same result, it is reasonable to expect that it may also occur in humans. Obviously this would need to be tested before any definite conclusions can be reached, and that is going to take a long time.
crusso 13y ago
While I don't disagree factually with what you're saying, the way you're saying it sounds like a slight misunderstanding of the results here. CR has been shown to have effects on short-lived species because that's all that's been testable so far. CR has actually been remarkably consistent in its effects across many different species. The rhesus monkey studies are the first ones to attempt to replicate the longevity results found in the previous tests that were performed on short-lived species. The NIA rhesus study results released a short while back seemed to be the first failure of replicating CR longevity results. This seemed to be a blow to the theory that CR would be efficacious with higher primates. However, this study is saying that the first rhesus study was conducted incorrectly and that the results were incorrectly interpreted. They're basically saying that scientifically, CR is still batting a thousand.
PeterisP 13y ago
Doing lifespan studies on long-lived species simply takes that much longer times - to test a hypothesis on humans, it'd take some 70+ years. It can be done and we will do it, but that will be only a benefit for the future generations - all that you and me can do is to assume (or not assume) that the measured effects will generalize to us as well.

netcan 13y ago

Am I the only one who finds this caloric restriction stuff depressing? If starving for 50 years will increase my life I don't even want to know about it. Stupid science. Next they're going to tell us that a combination of caloric restriction & celibacy will do even more.

raverbashing 13y ago
I kind of agree, quality of live is important as well
- Telomer 13y ago
  If you could live forever on the condition that you did not eat, would you say no?
  - morgante 13y ago
    > If you could live forever on the condition that you did not eat, would you say no? It entirely depends on how that condition materialized. Would I be hungry forever (but somehow live)? Then no. If I would never be hungry, then that sounds wonderful.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Well, orgasm results in a surge of prolactin which is known to have certain negative effects. There's arguably a case for keeping orgasm frequency low.
crusso 13y ago
Ageing has been such an insurmountable problem, any methods that indicate that there are ways to somewhat control it are promising and can lead to other discoveries. Perhaps CR only invokes the release of hormones that have a protective effect on cells. Replicate the hormone and perhaps actual caloric restriction may not be necessary.
- netcan 13y ago

neves 13y ago

Isn't this an year old published research that was widely reported?

gregwebs 13y ago

This paper rehashes 2 studies. In the original Wisconsin one that showed a great benefit to CR ... were fed a semi-purified, nutritionally fortified, low-fat diet containing 15% protein and 10% fat. The monkeys without CR ended up getting diabetes and they were giving them insulin. This study made a big splash, but as others point out it probably really only helps prove that eating less crap is good for you. This paper appears to include some of the same authors of the Wisconsin study and tries to explain why the NIH performed a study that did not replicate their results. This paper claims that the control group in the NIH study actually underwent CR by comparing them to a database of captive primates. If that is true, then the title still seems strange, because it doesn't mean the NIH study provides meaningful supporting evidence, it means it was an invalid test of the CR hypothesis and instead it provides some extremely weak supporting evidence of the CR hypothesis. As a side note, there is evidence that the CR benefit is from protein restriction and possibly just avoiding protein imbalances. https://chriskresser.com/do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-disease-and-cancer https://chriskresser.com/do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-... (scroll to Is protein to blame—or is methionine?)

naterator 13y ago

It should be noted that a parallel study[1] at the National Institute for Aging (NIA) found that this was not the case. The authors of this study (UW) claim (as far as I understand) that the NIA study was flawed because both Control and Calorie Restricted (CR) monkeys were fed diets that were both restrictive, and not sufficiently different. There also seem to be some debate about the composition of the diets. The controls in the UW study were allowed to eat as they pleased (i.e. become fatties if they wanted). They claim that if both "modest" or "moderate" CR are equivalent, it would be a very important conclusion. The practical consequence, if true, would be that we wouldn't have to starve ourselves too much. Mouse models had suggested years ago that calorie restriction could lead to ~%50 increase in lifetime. However, the problem with mouse studies is that they are pretty different, and also the mice they use are really inbred and perhaps non-ideal examples. The conclusion from the primate studies is really stacking up to be a common sense "eat in moderation, healthy, and you'll live at least a little longer, maybe a lot". Not really groundbreaking stuff, to be honest. And still not conclusive when you consider the resources that went into these studies. This also teaches us nothing about mechanisms, which would be really useful. Just my cursory assessment so far. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-d...

exratione 13y ago
The publicity materials for this recent set of results do a good job of explaining why the researchers think that the NIA study is flawed. In essence the NIA control monkeys are probably on CR. http://www.newswise.com/articles/monkey-caloric-restriction-study-shows-big-benefit-contradicts-earlier-study http://www.newswise.com/articles/monkey-caloric-restriction-... “In Wisconsin, we started with adults. We knew how much food they wanted to eat, and we based our experimental diet on a 30 percent reduction in calories from that point.” In contrast, the NIA monkeys were fed according to a standardized food intake chart designed by the National Academy of Science. Through their own experience in monkey research, and by reference to an online database recording the weight of thousands of research monkeys, the Wisconsin researchers concluded that the NIA controls were actually on caloric restriction as well, says Colman. “At all the time points that have been published by NIA, their control monkeys weigh less than ours, and in most cases, significantly so.” Weindruch also points to some results from the NIA that seem to contradict the “no significant result” analysis. Twenty monkeys entered the NIA study as mature adults, 10 in the test group and 10 in the control group, and five of these (four test monkeys and one control monkey) lived at least 40 years. “Heretofore, there was never a monkey that we are aware of that was reported to live beyond 40 years,” Weindruch says. “Hence, the conclusion that caloric restriction is ineffective in their study does not make sense to me and my colleagues.”

mrfusion 13y ago

People are mentioning caloric restriction not being worth it for humans because of quality of life vs length of life. However one thought that I find interesting, is that for our generation, living just two or three extra years could potentially make a huge difference. If you subscribe to the idea of a coming technological singularity, or even to the idea that we're a few decades away from SENS escape velocity, you'd hate to miss it by just a couple of years.

unchocked 13y ago
Or you'd hate to have been hungry for most of your adult life in order to live two years longer, and still miss the rapture.
- huherto 13y ago
  Or not being able to pay for it. If it ever happens it will probably be available first for the very rich.
crpatino 13y ago
See comments above, the original research is flawed. New research shows that moderate caloric restriction has no statistically significant effect over eating a healthy diet within your caloric needs. It is overeating which decreases your life span.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Might be. I think the quality of life issues are overstated, but I'm an ectomorph so I can change my food intake on a whim. Being hungry isn't a distraction to me unless I'm very busy physically.
- dfc 13y ago
  > I'm an ectomorph As in ecto|meso|endo-morph? I thought that the scientific community put that idea in the trashcan.
  - 13y ago

ca98am79 13y ago

I thought about doing CR for a while - I read the "120 Year Diet," and was considering giving it a try. Then I met up with a couple who was into hardcore CR. I had dinner with them. Two things made me decide not to do it: 1) they seemed frail and weak - the man seemed to have a constant runny nose. I felt that if he fell down he would break his hip. The risk of injury and death from physical weakness seemed like it would counter any benefits from CR for lifespan. 2) They put so much effort into measuring every ingredient, and running computer programs with recipes to get the optimal nutrients with as little calories as possible. It seemed to take so much time in preparation, and you could mostly only eat at home.

mishkovski 13y ago
Ketogenic diet combined with intermittent fasting can be simple solution for this. Ketogenic diet controls your appetite and having one meal a day helps you to control your calorie intake.
Quaro 13y ago
>Then I met up with a couple who was into hardcore CR. You probably met someone on the extreme hardcore edge of it. Certainly it's a spectrum and counting calories and nutrients with computer programs is extremely normal today -- there are about a million programs that do it on your phone for you including taking photos of bar codes, etc.

fatjokes 13y ago

A lot of people are jumping to extremes. I don't take this to mean I should starve myself. Instead this does encourage me to stop eating until I'm full, just until I'm no longer hungry.

netcan 13y ago
Well CR doesn't really refer to moderation. It refers to restrictions to the point that it is unpleasant to most people.

RighteousFervor 13y ago

I think these scientists should starve themselves instead of animals. It's called having skin in the game.

gwern 13y ago
Some of them do.

jasonkolb 13y ago

Caloric restriction is absolutely fascinating in all forms. I think intermittent fasting might be the best-known variant of this, but there are others. All of them cause dramatic changes in the way bodies function, from changing the hormones secreted to changing the form of fuel it uses to run itself (e.g. ketones in low-carb diets instead of glucose). Caloric restriction has a whole bunch of knock-on effects, any one of which could have a huge impact on health and aging. For example, restricting calories means that you're restricting protein. Most people think of protein as a good thing, but that's what stimulates the hormone IGF-1 to be secreted, which is necessary for growth of all kinds--muscle growth (which is why bodybuilders eat as much protein as possible), but also including cancer. I've seen research that suggests that cells don't go into "repair mode" in the presence of IGF-1. This is just one example of a possible mechanism that caloric restriction could have a hugely beneficial effect on aging and illness in general. I have a half-written blog post about this I should push out. I'd love to get some more conversation going around this.

KVFinn 13y ago
>For example, restricting calories means that you're restricting protein. Most people think of protein as a good thing, but that's what stimulates the hormone IGF-1 to be secreted, which is necessary for growth of all kinds--muscle growth (which is why bodybuilders eat as much protein as possible), but also including cancer. While people on CR do seem to try and keep IGF-1 on the lower side, there's no consensus on protein yet. Most seem to eat a normal proportion, (though still less than average person since their overall intake it lower.). I have seen some people doing CR specially avoid whey protein because it's known to particularly raise IGF-1 (which is why on the other hand people trying to maximize size of muscles like it)
- X4 13y ago
  Ok, I think most of you who read PROTEIN, may misunderstand a bit here, I'll add a bit of info to clarify the protein debate a bit. There are almost indefinite combinations of proteins, many of which have vastly different effects on the body and it's cells. To shed a bit of light on proteins, you should know that most enzymes are proteins too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme Some forms of 'proteins' may increase cancerous growth, other may inhibit it and there are many of such activators/inhibitors, just so you know. Only take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin which there are proteins ("enzymes"), which may inhibit it, leading to a super-muscular body. It's a very small change, but the result is not what you would expect from just a protein. The contrary is true too, it could have damaging effect too. We are NOT talking about supplements here, but the form of proteins that occur in Nature. They are by far not researched enough to give any form of advice and there are still new breakthroughs, findings and surprises made in the area. Roughly saying that no calories means, more lifetime, is like saying that not fueling a motor will increase it's lifetime. Human Life is not about getting as old as possible anyway. My personal opinion is that it's there to bring healthy and smart kids to the world, which help in the betterment of the world with their creativity, skills, ideas, muscles, efforts and visions. Simple as that.

salimmadjd 13y ago

>Received 12 October 2013 Accepted 05 March 2014 Published 01 April 2014 Am I the only one who finds this crazy? It takes 6 months from submission date till publication! The peer review process should move faster and become modernized. I undrestand, you want to be published on prestigious journals, but Nature and others can modernize to publish more. You can argue, we lost 6 months or half a year of progress because of the pace of antiquated publication process.

randlet 13y ago
Done correctly, reviewing papers is a tedious, time consuming & utterly thankless job that takes time away from your own research. Papers also often go through 2 or three rounds of reviewing/revision. Each one of these cycles can take 1-2 months so it's not surprising it's a slow process.
lutusp 13y ago
The counterargument should be obvious -- peer reviewers are often unpaid experts who review pending articles in whatever spare time they happen to have, between delivering lectures, research, and applying for grants. To speed up the process woulds be to increase its cost, possibly very much, or to degrade the peer review process. The defects of another alternative should also be obvious -- paid peer reviewers. If this change took place, people would line up for positions they aren't qualified for on the simple ground that they can get paid to appear to be what they aren't. Also, for many cutting-edge fields, there simply aren't more than a handful of qualified reviewers at any price.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
searine 13y ago
Welcome to science. At best you have a 2-3 month wait. At worst, years.
dfc 13y ago
You misspelled "understand" in a comment criticizing the review process. If this was irony, I must say your trolling is sublime. However if this was an error I think you might want to rethink your position. I have no problem waiting 6 months or a year for peer reviewed publications.

tokenadult 13y ago

What's interesting about human all-cause mortality trends is that human beings in the developed countries have been gaining three months of lifespan for every year that they live (sometimes described as "six hours each day").[1] Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[2] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. A lot incremental improvements in both public health and in medical practice, as well as much better nutrition than in the old days, are steadily increasing life expectancy.[3] This is happening for people of all ages; life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising, and all-cause mortality and morbidity declining, throughout the developed countries of the world.[4] So the monkey research needs to be meshed in with human research that shows that mildly "overweight" (if fit) human beings have better mortality outcomes than human beings of normal weight[5] to tease out what the causation is for health outcomes of different patterns of nutrition. The example of Rimonabant[6] shows that sometimes an animal model doesn't adequately predict treatment effects in human subjects. [1] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... [2] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... [4] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227 [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578688 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578688

beagle3 13y ago
> Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long I'm sure this is backed up by studies and references, and at the same time I am amused at the hubris of making this statement. It's a cheap prediction to make, given that it will be around 2070 before you can verify it - and how right it is depends on lack-of-catastrohpies (e.g. in 20 years we'll have an idea how the meltdown in Fukushima affects lifespan), same-rate-and-same-kind-and-availability of advances, etc. And before you criticize me for being "anti-sciece" - I am not, and unlike a lot of other assertions, this might technically be science (I haven't reviewed the source material) - however, it is not useful science because it may take 70 years to falsify. Furthermore, a lot of -- perhaps most -- extrapolations of past trends had been wrong. At the time of Wallace & Darwin it was "scientifically" extrapolated that food will only grow linearly. And in 1980 climate studies had shown that if we don't do anything (and we didn't) by 2000 quite a few coastal cities will be underwater. If I wasn't anonymous, I'd place a long bet that the data crunching that led to this prediction will turn out to be complete rubish.

higherpurpose 13y ago

In related news: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331194030.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331194030.ht...

Beliavsky 13y ago

I prefer this conclusion: "Study Suggests Lower Mortality Risk for People Deemed to Be Overweight" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lowe... .

plg 13y ago

'cause who really likes _eating_, anyway. A no-brainer to just reduce food. Yeah that'll work. Lots of things might reduce mortality and prolong lifespan. It's quite another thing to ask whether these things are viable options for modern human beings.

todd8 13y ago
In the early 90's my girlfriend was into CR. She was also into supplements. No one that I've ever known took so many vitamins, minerals, herbs, and antioxidants. She ordered them in bulk in powdered form and made a mess in the kitchen mixing them up every day. Of course, now there's evidence that heavy doses of vitamins aren't beneficial and may actually be harmful. As to the calorie reduction, she was quite successful in controlling her diet. She ordered guar gum in 50 lb sacks (from Tic Gums), mixing it with water to have something in her stomach when she was hungry. She seemed to settle into a routine that I don't think I could have tolerated. She didn't ever look anorexic, but had very very low body fat. She was very afraid of getting old and this motivated her. I think that without some sort of pharmaceutical breakthrough that controls hunger, the rest of us will not find CR practical.
- ciupicri 13y ago
  > Of course, now there's evidence that heavy doses of vitamins aren't beneficial and may actually be harmful. Could you be more specific, please?
  - manilafolder 13y ago
    This is an interesting meta-analysis of some of the studies done on the efficacy of vitamins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDrAQi1SwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDrAQi1SwU (Presentation by Dr. Jeffrey Tice of the University of California). He covers vitamins A, E, and C around 18 minutes into the presentation.

Harj 13y ago

There is lots of interesting research on the links between caloric restriction and the ageing process. It's the impact on the insulin and insulin like growth factor (IGF-1) pathways that seems to be important: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412000049 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412... http://kenyonlab.ucsf.edu/Kenyon_2010_Nature_rev.pdf http://kenyonlab.ucsf.edu/Kenyon_2010_Nature_rev.pdf

dfc 13y ago

According to the Nature Comms Open Access guidelines somebody paid $4,800 for this article to be published under a BY-NC-SA license. In general who ends up paying, the authors or the authors' respective institutions? Open Access fees:[^1] (CC BY) (CC BY-NC-SA) Region ------------------------------------------------- $5,200 $4,800 (The Americas) €3,700 €3,425 (Europe) ¥661,500 ¥612,150 (Japan) RMB33,100 RMB30,600 (China) £3,150 £2,915 (UK and Rest of World) [^1]: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html

lsh 13y ago
Typically the institutions, although I can't say specifically who paid in this instance. This is an interesting point and I'll raise it at work: should the sponsor of an article be formally noted, along with the particulars of it's peer review, license, etc? Also, a shameless plug: http://www.ubiquitypress.com/publish http://www.ubiquitypress.com/publish because OA isn't an expensive proposition, it just depends how it is handled and by whom.