nUSEweb.com

> On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, François Rose <fr.r...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Jay, for the copy of the full text
>
> MAX LIFESPAN (= mean of the final 20% mice !!!!!!!!!!)
> standard diet (regardless resveratrol):139 +/- 1 weeks
> every other day feeding (without RSV):144
> every other day feeding (with low dose RSV((100 mg/kg of
> food)(7.6 ± 0.2 mg/kg/day which equals 1.27mg/kg/day for a human (I
> have to divide by 6 because the animals were mice):147 weeks
> every other day feeding (with high dose RSV (400 mg/kg of
> food)(30.4 ± 0.6 mg/kg/day which equals 5mg/kg/day for a human):143
> weeks
> high caloric (without RSV):130
> high caloric (with low dose RSV((100 mg/kg of
> food)(7.6 ± 0.2 mg/kg/day which equals 1.27mg/kg/day for a human (I
> have to divide by 6 because the animals were mice):137 weeks
> high caloric (with high dose RSV (400 mg/kg of
> food)(30.4 ± 0.6 mg/kg/day which equals 5mg/kg/day for a human):135
>
> Regarding max lifespan:
> EOD with low RSV is significantly higher than standard diet
> High caloric is significantly lower than standard diet
> High caloric with low RSV is not significantly different to standard
> diet
>
> IOW:
> The high dose of resveratrol is not useful for max lifespan (this is
> quite questioning about the right dose of resveratrol in
> humans!!!!!!!!)
> A low dose of resveratrol enhance the max lifespan
> * of High caloric group to the one of the standard group
> * of every other day feeeding to a significantly higher than the one
> of standard group
>
> SURVIVAL RATE CURVES:
> EOD and EOD (with high RSV) are almost superposed and these two ones
> square a bit the curve of the standard diet survival
> EOD with low RSV squares a bit more the curve (and this is significant
> when it was compared to the standard diet)
>
> standard diet (with low RSV or no RSV) are almost superposed (low RSV
> survival is a bit lower at the beginning!!)
> standard diet (with high RSV) squares the curve a little but
> all these 3 standard diets survival do not differ significantly with
> regard to resveratrol use
>
> High caloric survival is significantly lower than the one of the
> standard diet
> High caloric with low or high dose of resveratrol do not differ
> significantly to the standard diet
>
> Conclusion: quite identical to those of the max lifespan
>
> NOTES FROM THE FULL TEXT:
> "At 1 year of age, C57BL/
> 6NIA mice were placed on a standard control diet (SD) or DR
> by every-other-day feeding (EOD) with or without resveratrol."
> Once again, this question has to be asked: how was the every other day
> procedure implemented? Would that change something?
>
> "Our results are consistent with
> the previous observation that the effect of EOD on longevity is
> diminished
> in older C57BL/6 mice (Goodrick et al., 1990), which is
> also true of DR by 40% restriction (Weindruch and Walford,
> 1982)."
>
> On Jul 9, 11:47 am, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> The point 2) above is wrong: C57BL/6 mice respond correctly to either
> EOD or 40% CR (you can check that in PubMed). If initiated in older
> mice, they respond less. (something very normal)
> Here they start the restriction or the resveratrol use at 52 weeks
> (which can be compared to the survival ratio median : 120 weeks +/-5
> weeks)
>
> "The effects of DR on longevity are diminished when the regimen
> is initiated at increasing ages (Goodrick et al., 1990; Weindruch
> and Walford, 1982), although many of the characteristic
> transcriptional changes can be induced rapidly regardless of
> age (Cao et al., 2001). Indeed, our EOD feeding regimen was
> initiated at 12 months of age, and while average life span was
> increased,
> the effect did not reach statistical significance, except
> in combination with resveratrol (EODLR versus SD). Thus, it is
> possible that the age of our animals at the start of the experiment
> might have diminished the potential effects of resveratrol on lifespan
> in nonobese mice. To address this question, we are following
> up with life-span studies in which resveratrol treatment is
> begun at weaning. It may also be that resveratrol slows the general
> age-related decline but does not impact the specific causes
> of death in these mice. Indeed, resveratrol did not suppress
> lymphoma, a major cause of mortality in C57BL/6 mice."
>
>
>
>
> I agree with the above;
> From the full text: "The major factor contributing to life span
> extension in the resveratrol-treated HC groups was a reduction
> in the number of deaths attributed to cardiopulmonary distress
> (specifically, fatty changes in the liver combined with severe
> congestion and edema in the lungs; Table S3)."
> So I don't know if it would be more (or less) benefical in humans in
> terms of survival rate and max lifespan.
>
> BENEFITS OF RESVERATROL
> Resveratrol use shows a significant effect on osteoporosis, cataracts,
> locomotor function and vascular function (in standard diet (we don't
> have the data for the other diets); so though it did not add lifespan
> or survival to the standard diet mice, it improved their lifetime
> conditions (I haven't been very deep into that point).
>
> François Rose