For anyone wondering about what's wrong with mouse testing, here is a funny but informative video on the subject[1]. One highlight:
>After a drug is confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies, it is tested in healthy human volunteers for first in man trials. In 2006, a phase I clinical study was conducted for a CD28 superagonist antibody TGN1412 in six human volunteers. After very first infusion of a dose 500 times smaller than that found safe in animal studies, all six human volunteers faced life-threatening conditions involving multiorgan failure for which they were moved to intensive care unit
I believe it concludes that while 500x lower, 0.1mg would bind 85-98% of all possible CD28 receptors -meaning that "small" dose would have shown the maximum effect of the drug.
You're suggesting that mouse studies are not useful because they do not apply to humans are overly cynical. You're not giving enough credit to the similarities between mice and humans in physiology.
These time restricted feeding studies have been done in humans with effects in the same direction.
For studies that are easy and safe to conduct in humans testing in mice seems largely pointless. Sure it might cost far less, but the data is also far less useful.
It’s the reverse that’s then useful. If you can find an animal model that replicates a known human result then you can investigate the mechanics more easily. Ex: Scurvy
A witty quip, and I totally agree with the sentiment, but I'm wondering what other way we have to test hypotheses in vivo. Animal models are pretty key, but my knowledge of the field is incomplete.
"I guess doing strange things to rodents and measuring the outcomes is useful, but going so far as to turn it into health advice for humans is absurd." 16 days ago I said that.
This one seems a little more legitimate and a target for further research.
Animal models are a start, but you shouldn't use them to give definitive advice or conclusions. The headline is " Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects" and it is a deception. You are not a mouse, health advice for mice and health advice for humans surely overlaps but there are certainly very many differences.
You solve this by doing a human study. It is a lot harder.
Interestingly, though, this correlates with the common idea of not eating in the evening. Say you have breakfast at 8, you don't eat after 6pm, when you have your dinner. 10 hours of eating right there with snacks and all. I'm guessing that's why the study was tried, though what do I know.
And yet some of the population that live more than everybody else of the planet, e.g. the population of Icaria, eat whenever they like, and its very common to eat at late hours (after 10pm).
Then again they have a few other tricks up in their sleeves: they eat lots of quality plants grown in their island, they have minimal work related stress (or, for that matter, minimal work in general), leave close to calming nature (including sea), have good community ties, and are legendary for not giving a fuck...
If including even human testing in animals the furthest out theoretical way would be complete physical modeling. There would be so many issues involved there it isn't funny including building it from faulty assumptions. Even with sufficient processing power to completely model a human accurately from their DNA and wonder why the functions don't match up or show health problems - say because the communal bacteria weren't included or the physics model didn't include this one obscure molecular physics interaction we didn't even know existed before now.
