3 ms·
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 tox
by 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 agoToxin 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 agoWho 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 agoTo be fair, monkeys eating a bunch of processed lab grade crap is probably a better approximation for the modern human than an optimal diet.