No, really. You’d think by now that researchers would understand that.
There was an article out in the Science Daily recently about how calorie restriction may not, in fact, extend people’s lives, even though it does for mice. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924151018.htm)
One of the comments by the researchers was that it was “puzzling because it was the first time we hadn’t seen agreement between mice and rats on calorie restriction and humans on calorie restriction.”
I am not a scientist, and have never claimed to be a scientist, but even I know that rats and mice aren’t humans. No matter how good they are for laboratory testing, there is going to be differences between mice and rats, and humans. The only way to understand humans, and how human bodies respond to things like diet, is to actually study humans on diets. Google “Minnesota Starvation Experiment”. That was a real study, done on real humans, with real results.
Actually, here, this is a good idea of what happens, physically and mentally: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/6/1347 Just remember when you read this: This was on a “low-calorie” diet of 1800 calories per day. That’s not even as low as what’s considered “medically safe” now — 1200 calories per day.
So, yeah, humans aren’t mice. Surprising, isn’t it?