= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open Thread: March 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (658)
It may be wrong but I don't think the flaw is that of privileging the hypothesis. If CR actually does work in, say, rats then thinking it may work in humans is at least a worthwhile hypothesis. The essay you found suggests that the evidence for the hypothesis is looking kinda shaky.
Noteworthy: CR is not a particular interest of mine, and I haven't researched it.
If there are good, solid studies of CR in rats, why doesn't that site seem to have, or link to, information about them? If that's the site for CR, and given that it has a publicly editable (yes, I checked) wiki, I'd expect that someone would have added that information, and it's not there: I searched for both "study" and "studies" in the wiki; nothing about rat studies - or any other animal studies, except a mention of monkey studies - showed up.
A google site search does turn up this, though.
Don't bother with the site's wiki.
They have a reference to a mouse study on the front page of the site:
Weindruch R, et al. (1986). "The retardation of aging in mice by dietary restriction: longevity, cancer, immunity and lifetime energy intake." Journal of Nutrition, April, 116(4), pages 641-54.
For the evidence from the rat studies, perhaps start with this review article:
Overview of caloric restriction and ageing.
http://www.crsociety.org/archive/read.php?2,172427,172427