In article <188.8.131.52.19980917132504.006dde00 at ac.ucr.edu>,
browley at GALAXY.UCR.EDU says...
>>Thomas Mahoney/ Excelife wrote:
>>> While CR mice do live longer than mice whose diet is not restricted they
>>> no longer than than other mice on CR. Their life span has not been
>>> by CR only their life expectancy has been increased.
>>>I really have no idea what this is supposed to
>>mean. I assume that it has something to do with an average versus maximum
>>argument that you are trying to make.
>>>>Regardless, I do not believe that you are correct. Caloric restriction
>>shown to increase both average and maximal lifespan (see Yu et al. 1990,
>>al. 1982, Sohal R et al. 1996, Weindruch R, 1996, etc.)
>>I think Tom Mahoney was making the point that CR is an environmental, not
>genetic treatment for aging.
>>I agree that CR extends both average and maximal life span/expectation.
Quite correct. Mice in the wild undoubtedly encounter periods where food is
scarce and the effects seen in CR are likely an adaptive response to these
conditions. Thus the actual life span of the mice is that seen in CR. It
might make it clearer if we looked at those mice who are fed regularly as
being overfed and dying earlier than their "normal" life span.
Whether this adaptive response has been conserved through the various species
up to man is a legitimate line of research and may have some benefit as
stated above for "both average and maximal life span/expectation."
Thomas Mahoney, Pres.
Lifeline Laboratories, Inc.