Read on Twitter
F/U re: twitter-logue ( @mkaeberlein @LammingLab): Long-term CR&PR outcomes in man needs >better data. For now, http://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12194 confirms rapa preserves muscle & indeed Nir today [ http://agingpharma.org/ ] argued Met ↓muscle hypertrophy gain w/o loss in muscle strength(1/N)
Some work suggests CR & PR work the same; less muscle hypertrophy but better preservation of fxn. For CR: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31982367/ is the tip of the iceberg whereby preservation is seen relative to healthy controls (not only overfed Wisconsin control monkeys!)
(2/N)
(2/N)
Protein=trickier w/(+)&(-) models & circumstances. RDA is much safer esp. in geriatric population w/ absorption/frailty/sarcopenia issues. For the gen. population >RDA has some notable questions: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0008 (multitude of RCTs like it cited at http://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0274-7
This thread is not to conclusively advocate a position on this, only to shed light on the debate. I expect situational factors are at play which need to be better defined. There is some trade-off b/n anabolic support vs. preservation, & keeping scientifically open minded is vital
As for myself, I have no skin in the game- I am neither a carnivore nor vegan& have nothing to sell. Nutritional cultism is rampant, & researchers can be just as ideologically biased even w/ the best of intentions. Let us strive for Truth, w/ science as our candle in the darkness
