The NIA rhesus study reports no significant survival benefit

Assembled from 17 blocks · 2 evidence · 13 related

1. Story
2. The National Institute on Aging's parallel rhesus macaque study reports in Nature that caloric restriction did not significantly improve survival, contradicting the Wisconsin result. A 2017 joint analysis attributes the divergence to differences in diet composition, age at onset and the feeding of the control animals, which at Wisconsin may have been effectively overfed. The disagreement is the most instructive episode in the field.
3. Knowledge
4. Caloric restriction
5. The NIA rhesus study reports no significant survival benefit
6. Connections
7. Caloric restriction
8. Model organism lifespan research
9. CALERIE (Comprehensive Assessment of Long-Term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy)
10. Rapamycin
11. Caloric restriction extends rodent lifespan
12. Wisconsin reports that caloric restriction reduces age-related mortality in rhesus monkeys
13. The NIA rhesus study reports no significant survival benefit
14. CALERIE reports two-year results in humans
15. Evidence
16. Supports the NIA finding of no significant survival benefit from caloric restriction in rhesus macaques, contradicting the Wisconsin cohort. V55 verification basis: not retrieved; the 2017 joint reanalysis attributing the divergence to diet and control feeding is described but not separately cited.
17. Supports the Wisconsin finding of reduced age-related mortality under caloric restriction in rhesus macaques. V55 verification basis: not retrieved; cited here as one side of a documented disagreement rather than as a settled result.