>> In article <360395E8.5FB7 at epix.net>, nelsonn at epix.net says...
> >>James wrote:
>> >> > 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.
> >Nelson Navarro
>> Let's see, for CR to be beneficial we only have discover the underlying
> mechanism, find some way to make it work on people already past their prime,
> and and find a way to mimic its effects since the diet itself would have to
> be close to starvation levels.
I don't think anyone expressed or implied any notion that CR research
would directly lead to the holy grail.
The genesis of this discussion, I believe, was your solicitation for
ideas and input regarding prioritization of anti-aging research, given
the fact that resources are limited.
> Boy that sure sounds like low-hanging fruit to me!!!
I'll guess that you're at least at least 45 years old. Do you really
think, given the time and money spent on cancer research, for example,
that the fundamental cause of aging and an effective means to
stop/reverse it will be discovered during the remainder of your natural
lifetime, so that you can take advantage of it?
Why not first attempt to slow down the rate of aging by understanding
how CR works?
This would not only give everyone extra healthy years, and generate
perhaps billions of dollars for research, but it would also most likely
provide information helpful in solving the general problem.
>> To find out if the Telomeric Theory of aging can actually alter the human
> life span we have to insert hTRT, the catalytic protein subunit of
> telomerase, into a few key cellular systems of the body. Of course we do
> have to try it on animals first so there is going to be a delay.
>> But since research into CR is so much more advanced and so simple we should
> just forget about telomeres.
No need to be sarcastic. No one said forget about telomeres.