6 ms·

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 n

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.

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.