Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
the monkeys in the bethesda study came in at different ages there was at least a hint i think that the the monkeys that came in at older ages started cr at older ages maybe got a somewhat of a benefit whereas the ones that started early didn't get any benefit
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.
whether it's as good as starting early i think the consensus is still that the answer is no you're never going to get the same magnitude of benefit from caloric restriction starting late as you do starting early but that could be wrong so i would say that's the consensus but i don't think we know we know for sure whether it's possible if you did it just right that you could get you know most or all of the benefits from starting late in life