Guest guest Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 But rats are not humans - their physiology is SO different. I guess it would take a study of global magnitude and several decades to produce any really reliable answers for humans, but I think keeping calories relatively low, (ie being balanced but not indulgent), is a good idea. What do others think?? Elisabeth=) I went to a anti-aging symposium at the Smithsonian last year and the team from Harvard (one of the largest anti-aging labs) spoke about how long-term testing on yeast, worms, small mammals and primates (which they are in the middle of--they're 20-year studies) are proving that caloric restriction does indeed promote longevity--and--significantly reduce disease. They're putting money on the human tests working out as well. They talked about Ray Walford (UCLA) who has long advocated caloric restriction, with the stipulation that every bite needs to be nutritionally dense. Harvard, believing that most people cannot maintain that type of diet long-term, is working on a pill to mimic the effects of caloric restriction. The basic theory is that with less food, you have less free-radical damage; therefore your cells are not assaulted. Currently, they are working with nicotinic acid (B3) although there are companies out there (according to Harvard and I've seen the products) that are quoting their studies but using niacinamide. According to Harvard, niacinamide is toxic at high dosages, actually shortening life. Personally, I'd rather handle my needs with food. Neither group listed above is raw, but if anyone has any interest, more info can be found at www.walford.com and at http://www.hms.harvard.edu/pathol/sinclair/. Nina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.