The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Of course the Wisconsin study had a controlled diet that was much worse than the NIA-controlled diet. So the NIA had somewhat of an ideal diet, at least ideal monkey diet, and the Wisconsin didn't. The Wisconsin was a reasonably good model for the western diet.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
No, no, no. The Wisconsin increased lifespan. Richard Weindruch was also a student of Roy Walford. So, yeah, that increased lifespan. But if you look at the lifespan that is based on the disease-dependent lifespan, so the mortality caused by major age-related diseases, that was...there was a huge effect. If you look at the overall survival due to where all causes of mortality were taken into consideration, then the survival curves are very close to each other.
But the monkeys either live a little bit longer, or don't live longer at all.