[ellyagg]

I don't see how prudent it is. What can I do with that information, given the rest of the results of the study?

I don't have anything against diabetes, cancer or heart/brain disease per se. It's not as if, when I die from an infection or pneumonia, I'll congratulate myself that it wasn't cancer!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you consider it "prudent to note the reduced rate of diabetes, cancer, and heart/brain disease", then my response is it's just precisely as prudent to note the increase in non-diabetes, cancer, and heart/brain disease related deaths.

[Periodic]

It's that all-cause mortality factor.

Sure, it may be reducing the causes of some diseases, but if it isn't improving the overall life span of the monkeys or their quality of life it has very limited application.

Perhaps it will turn out that those with a restricted diet who make it through the first 30 years make it through the next 40 as long as they don't fall and break their osteoperotic bones or get exposed to a disease.

As it currently stands, the study is showing no difference. Sitting around for another 25 years on the hope that the trend might change sounds a bit like unfounded faith to me.