>> > What you're actually saying, then, is that anyone alive today at 120
> > yrs. of age, must have got there strictly by way of a lifetime of severe
> > calorie restriction; is that correct?
>> Maybe, maybe not. Since we don't know how it works we don't know that there are
> not a variety of ways to cause the same metabolic changes. Maybe they ate a lot of
> something that caused an effect similar to CR. Maybe they were genetically
> blessed. Who knows... In a complex system (such as the human body) there are
> often multiple paths to the same outcome, as a result of intertwined pathways,
> redundancy, etc.
Understood, but what you and he seem to be implying, is that there is a
direct correlation between age at death and "rate of aging".
Also, you seem to be making an apriori assumption that, whatever
mechanisms are ultimately found to be involved, (in CR or some unknown
analogous method), they cannot be significantly improved upon, even
after they are well understood.
This all seems very speculative to me.
> > In aging research, just like any other scientific endeavor, doesn't it
> > makes perfect sense to go after the low hanging fruit first? Especially
> > since it appears that, in this case, discovering the mechanism
> > underlying CR might shed light on the more fundamental processes at
> > work, and might generate lots of money for further research.
>> If you consider CR research low-hanging fruit. I do, but I don't think Tom does.
It seems to me that he must be part of a small minority.