6 ms·

Eat less, live longer?

44 points by alexandros 16y ago

garply 16y ago
Nitpick: "Dreams of eternal youth feature in many cultures throughout history, but it was only in the 20th century that research into longevity really began." I seem to recall learning about ancient Chinese emperors entertaining Daoist 'priests' who offered them elixirs designed to extend their lifespans, sometimes indefinitely. If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their statement is a tautology. Update: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemy "Chinese alchemy is a part of the larger tradition of Taoism (although some argue it has longer history than Taoism), centers on the tradition of body-spirit cultivation that developed through the Chinese understandings of medicine and the body. These Chinese traditions were developed into a system of energy practices. Chinese alchemy focuses mainly on the purification of one's spirit and body in the hopes of gaining immortality through the practice of Qigong and/or consumption and use of various concoctions known as alchemical medicines or elixirs, each of which having different purposes." Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it wasn't research.
- hugh3 16y ago
  If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their statement is a tautology. How so? Scientific research on many subjects dates back to the ~17th century or so, so I'm not sure how it's a tautology to say that scientific research on a particular subject didn't begin until the 20th. Unless you mean that the "contemporary" bit is a tautology, but you just inserted that word yourself. Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it wasn't research But what if it didn't use the correct methods? I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up".
  - garply 16y ago
    My point was that "research" dates back well before the 17th century. If you insist upon research meaning "scientific research" the scientific method goes back to at least Aristotle. Scientific standards were different at different points in time - you appear to have drawn the line at the 17th century. But I believe the alchemists who were working on elixirs for eternal life both in the Western world and in ancient China (pre-Aristotle) were performing a type of research as well in that they presumably used some sort of trial and error to determine the efficacy of their elixirs and modified their behavior based on the results. That is, I do not believe that they would continue to repeatedly administer an elixir that caused immediate death in the unshaken belief that it was truly an elixir for immortality. Such a process of trial and error constitutes "research" in my opinion, although it would have been primitive research by our standards.
  - FlorinAndrei 16y ago
    > I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up". It depends on how strict you are with the meaning of the word "research". Stone Age people, by that token, were just "making shit up", but that didn't prevent them from discovering fire, etc. The alchemists were simply using the best tools available to them. Primitive, from our perspective? Yes. That doesn't mean there wasn't genuine effort involved.
RevRal 16y ago
Dan Buettner's TED talk touches on this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_t...
bradleyland 16y ago
It seems to me that it is a basic survival adaptation. When resources are scarce (no food), you can't support offspring. If you can't support offspring, your species doesn't survive. It would make sense that evolutionary branches where aging processes slow down during a time of scarcity would have an adaptive advantage. They live to breed another day.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Surely individuals who age slowly all the time would have an evolutionary advantage over those who only age slowly in times of starvation? The longer you live the more offspring you can have. This leads me to suspect that our bodies can't just turn off the aging process.
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    Yea, but if you live too long you're competing for resources with your offspring and lessening their chances of survival.
reasonattlm 16y ago
Here is a better overview with links to studies and some under the hood details on the mechanisms of calorie restriction known to date: http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm If I were the wagering type, I'd say the bulk of the effect has to do with autophagy cleaning out damaged mitochondria. See: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/calorie-restriction-and-autophagy.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/calorie-restricti... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-mitochondria-cause-your-cells-to-damage-you.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-m...
jnorthrop 16y ago
It just doesn't seem to be worth the cost to me. I don't have a problem with restricting foods or calories as I can cook up something tasty with almost anything, but as shown in the example at the end of the article, lifestyle seems to suffer. The "typical" calorie restricting individual presented at the end of the article is woman who is 5'6" tall and weighs 110lbs. She mentions that she gave up running so she didn't lose too much weight. That's not a lifestyle I find fulfilling nor does it seem healthy. She had to cut out physical activity to keep from wasting away. I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight. Edit: I'd also like to add that I get the same exact benefits of "improved mood, sleep, mental clarity and memory" by choosing the foods I eat carefully, but I do not control the calorie intake. I eat when I'm hungry until I'm full.
- executive 16y ago
  exactly. do you want to live an extra 10 years as a pathetic 130lb loser or be a jacked 200lb hero.
  - maukdaddy 16y ago
    I think a happy medium between those two is probably your best bet ;) Seriously though, nothing improves health more than cutting out processed foods, eating farm-fresh meats and veggies, and getting a decent amount of exercise.
  - jules 16y ago
    That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of. The average 130lb person is healthier than the average 200lb person.
    - FlorinAndrei 16y ago
      "That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of." Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat. BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP (body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.
MikeCapone 16y ago
I won't repeat it all here, but if you're interested by the fight against the diseases of aging/healthy life-extension, check out these videos and books: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368467 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368467
Evgeny 16y ago
The protein theory is bad news for people on low-carbohydrate weight-loss plans like the Atkins diet. "I'd be wary of diets that put a heavy emphasis on protein," says Piper. "It's hard to see how that could be healthy." Um, how come they forgot about fat? Low-carbohydrate does not equal high-protein. I personally feel best when I get 60-70% of my calorie intake from fats, 15-25% from proteins and the rest from carbs (fruits and veggies).

44 points by alexandros 16y ago

Nitpick: "Dreams of eternal youth feature in many cultures throughout history, but it was only in the 20th century that research into longevity really began." I seem to recall learning about ancient Chinese emperors entertaining Daoist 'priests' who offered them elixirs designed to extend their lifespans, sometimes indefinitely. If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their statement is a tautology. Update: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemy "Chinese alchemy is a part of the larger tradition of Taoism (although some argue it has longer history than Taoism), centers on the tradition of body-spirit cultivation that developed through the Chinese understandings of medicine and the body. These Chinese traditions were developed into a system of energy practices. Chinese alchemy focuses mainly on the purification of one's spirit and body in the hopes of gaining immortality through the practice of Qigong and/or consumption and use of various concoctions known as alchemical medicines or elixirs, each of which having different purposes." Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it wasn't research.

hugh3 16y ago
If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their statement is a tautology. How so? Scientific research on many subjects dates back to the ~17th century or so, so I'm not sure how it's a tautology to say that scientific research on a particular subject didn't begin until the 20th. Unless you mean that the "contemporary" bit is a tautology, but you just inserted that word yourself. Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it wasn't research But what if it didn't use the correct methods? I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up".
- garply 16y ago
  My point was that "research" dates back well before the 17th century. If you insist upon research meaning "scientific research" the scientific method goes back to at least Aristotle. Scientific standards were different at different points in time - you appear to have drawn the line at the 17th century. But I believe the alchemists who were working on elixirs for eternal life both in the Western world and in ancient China (pre-Aristotle) were performing a type of research as well in that they presumably used some sort of trial and error to determine the efficacy of their elixirs and modified their behavior based on the results. That is, I do not believe that they would continue to repeatedly administer an elixir that caused immediate death in the unshaken belief that it was truly an elixir for immortality. Such a process of trial and error constitutes "research" in my opinion, although it would have been primitive research by our standards.
- FlorinAndrei 16y ago
  > I think it's fair to restrict the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up". It depends on how strict you are with the meaning of the word "research". Stone Age people, by that token, were just "making shit up", but that didn't prevent them from discovering fire, etc. The alchemists were simply using the best tools available to them. Primitive, from our perspective? Yes. That doesn't mean there wasn't genuine effort involved.

RevRal 16y ago

Dan Buettner's TED talk touches on this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_t...

bradleyland 16y ago

It seems to me that it is a basic survival adaptation. When resources are scarce (no food), you can't support offspring. If you can't support offspring, your species doesn't survive. It would make sense that evolutionary branches where aging processes slow down during a time of scarcity would have an adaptive advantage. They live to breed another day.

hugh3 16y ago
Surely individuals who age slowly all the time would have an evolutionary advantage over those who only age slowly in times of starvation? The longer you live the more offspring you can have. This leads me to suspect that our bodies can't just turn off the aging process.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  Yea, but if you live too long you're competing for resources with your offspring and lessening their chances of survival.

reasonattlm 16y ago

Here is a better overview with links to studies and some under the hood details on the mechanisms of calorie restriction known to date: http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm If I were the wagering type, I'd say the bulk of the effect has to do with autophagy cleaning out damaged mitochondria. See: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/calorie-restriction-and-autophagy.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/calorie-restricti... http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-mitochondria-cause-your-cells-to-damage-you.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-m...

jnorthrop 16y ago

It just doesn't seem to be worth the cost to me. I don't have a problem with restricting foods or calories as I can cook up something tasty with almost anything, but as shown in the example at the end of the article, lifestyle seems to suffer. The "typical" calorie restricting individual presented at the end of the article is woman who is 5'6" tall and weighs 110lbs. She mentions that she gave up running so she didn't lose too much weight. That's not a lifestyle I find fulfilling nor does it seem healthy. She had to cut out physical activity to keep from wasting away. I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight. Edit: I'd also like to add that I get the same exact benefits of "improved mood, sleep, mental clarity and memory" by choosing the foods I eat carefully, but I do not control the calorie intake. I eat when I'm hungry until I'm full.

executive 16y ago
exactly. do you want to live an extra 10 years as a pathetic 130lb loser or be a jacked 200lb hero.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  I think a happy medium between those two is probably your best bet ;) Seriously though, nothing improves health more than cutting out processed foods, eating farm-fresh meats and veggies, and getting a decent amount of exercise.
- jules 16y ago
  That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of. The average 130lb person is healthier than the average 200lb person.
  - FlorinAndrei 16y ago
    "That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of." Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat. BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP (body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.

MikeCapone 16y ago

I won't repeat it all here, but if you're interested by the fight against the diseases of aging/healthy life-extension, check out these videos and books: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368467 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368467

Evgeny 16y ago

The protein theory is bad news for people on low-carbohydrate weight-loss plans like the Atkins diet. "I'd be wary of diets that put a heavy emphasis on protein," says Piper. "It's hard to see how that could be healthy." Um, how come they forgot about fat? Low-carbohydrate does not equal high-protein. I personally feel best when I get 60-70% of my calorie intake from fats, 15-25% from proteins and the rest from carbs (fruits and veggies).