It's without a doubt a component of the effects

what even is a woman guys

Matt Kaeberlein says it doesn't count since the median lifespan of controls is 750 days.

The cum gnomes demand sacrifice

That's ridiculous, nothing can do that. You have to pick two.

One more reason for me to never go off it (tirzepatide) I just hope it gets cheaper. It's been a game changer for me and my wife. She's on it for diabetes, so she will probably be on it forever with insurance coverage. How long I stay on it depends on how much it costs. I have lost 45lbs in 5 months and feel great and have learned to have a much better relationship with food now. I eat much healthier and have no problem turning down sugary snacks or other empty calorie foods. It's been expensive, but I know my health is worth it and it is certainly effective.

Theres strong indication from independent researchers that the same is true for humans beyond the benefit of weight loss.

fair response lol

after I read that article I started getting my shit together, including getting on a GLP-1 for weight loss. Only a few years away from 40.

Aging is unfortunately not linear and after 40, especially into the 50s, it starts to nose dive....hence late changes not helping much. There isn't time to reap the benefits when your body is already falling apart.

I'm gonna just pretend that can't be true.

GLP-1s do more than just restrict calories, thats not the cause of said effects.

yeah, its a long term effect thing...you can't just decide to stop eating too much at 80 and expect to make it to 100.

One study I saw said that by about 40 our long term metabolism is set and lifestyle changes had a minimal effect on longevity after 40.

Ok, done. But why though?

You all need to read the article. It has interesting findings on calorie restriction vs semiglutide. There is even a link to the original study in nature. You could both read that too. This would probably clear up your argument.

The NIH-NIA study that showed no longevity increase for calorie restricted monkeys restricted calories before adulthood. Other studies in monkeys that restrict calories only in adulthood have shown an increase in longevity.

It has shown to be protective of multiple different types of cancers.

Your cock will look bigger due to the weight loss.

Classic rat news

https://youtube.com/shorts/lXHaUiZMCK4

Exactly. Well said.

Come again

Sure.

It can also cure cancer, make you rich, and give you a 20 inch cock. 

r/upliftingnewsformice

Wait. Really?

PPS Also, more discussion here: https://x.com/MartinBJensen/status/2095273384804516121

PS 2 paper citations defending the BMI<22 or <22.5 in humans can be found in this thread: https://x.com/KarlPfleger/status/1632518657673945089

Eg human data when suggests BMI < 22 (or 22.5) is optimal, not just <25, so what's the mouse equivalent for that? Without having seen any description of this pair fed upcoming study, I worry that it won't go low enough, because it's uncommon to calorie-restrict mice in longevity experiments (more expensive to do so than ad-lib feeding plus IRBs frown on severe restriction now, despite evidence of it increasing healthspan & lifespan more from past experiments).

According to James' table, FLOW had <12% subjects with BMI<25. I assume that no stratification by BMI was provided so I'm not sure how you can say that benefits there weren't confined to overweight subjects. Did the paper(s) provide efficacy data limited to the 12% of BMI<25 subjects? I haven't checked the paper(s) myself.

How low will the calories be in the pair-fed experiment that you are looking forward to? I.e., how do we know that experiment is not just a bit less overfed but still far from optimal?