Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beginner's guide to longevity research

ldeming.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#71

Post by semi-extrinsic »

alexlikeits1999 wrote: post #54
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #35

I'll offer a contrarian view: longevity research, as in the current scope, is about as accurate and useful as Ray Kurzweil's predictions from the 90s. Let's take caloric restriction, for instance, which is all the rage. Trouble is, all of the evidence we have is in mice or lesser animals, and the comparison is animals on caloric restriction against animals being force fed to the point of obesity . Let me repeat that:…

While I agree with the general sentiment that CR is probably not very useful for humans, I think you are either misinformed or exaggerating for the sake of generating a response. Ad-libitum feeding is not force feeding. Noone goes and shoves the food into mice. The food is just available. Also, CR has extended lives in many species, including dogs (see https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2002.220... )…

Ok, I'll concede that calling it force feeding is a bit tabloid, but the end result I described is undisputed - ad libitum feeding results in obesity in the control animals. Which indisputably muddies the waters for the results, since you don't know whether CR extends lifespans or AL feeding shortens lifespans in these animals.

The dog study you link also highlights another issue with this kind of research: they focus on osteoarthritis, i.e. cartilege in joints being worn out over time, since that was the most common chronic disease. This occurred equally often in both groups, but time until first treatment for this condition was 25% longer in the CR group. That's exactly what you expect just from the 25% reduced body mass of CR fed dogs which they report, since reduced body mass puts less stress on the joints. No attempt is made to account for this, it is not even mentioned as a confounding variable.

Taken together with the fact that they don't observe any significant increase in maximum lifespan of the CR fed dogs, it's again very unclear whether this is anything more than confirming the well-established result that when you inevitably get a chronic disease, higher body mass means you get sick faster.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#72

Post by raarts »

jcmoscon wrote: post #36

You guys should look at the "steak and eggs" diet. This is the best diet I did. You loose a lot of weight, feel amazing, no brain fog, you do not get crazy hungry. It's amazing!

That's because of the ketogenic aspect of it. Though I would get bored if I only ate Steak & eggs.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#74

Post by joe_the_user »

sliverstorm wrote: post #47
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #35

I'll offer a contrarian view: longevity research, as in the current scope, is about as accurate and useful as Ray Kurzweil's predictions from the 90s. Let's take caloric restriction, for instance, which is all the rage. Trouble is, all of the evidence we have is in mice or lesser animals, and the comparison is animals on caloric restriction against animals being force fed to the point of obesity . Let me repeat that:…

I still haven't really figured out how CR is supposed to be sustainable. I am around BMI of 19, and have been as low as 17 (6'2", 133lb). I become extremely unhealthy when I don't eat enough. As far as I know, I can't eat less and maintain the same weight. CR would, for me, send me to the hospital. Is CR just another name for "lose weight"? Is it working towards a goal rather than a lifelong steady state of living?

I have the same body type. I've read about people doing CR who go from average body type to something like your or my body type (I was once 6' 135lb but I've gotten up to 150lbs lately).

As the OP say, there's very little basis to CR given you're talking mostly animals that are overeating and under exercising by default.

And mice are genetically uniform. CR has been partly tested on monkeys and other animals but it's a lot harder and results less conclusive.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#75

Post by nate_meurer »

QAPereo wrote: post #38
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lost about half my bodyweight, so I feel like my experience qualifies to me to offer my opinion that Keto's supposed anti-hunger effects are broscience crap. Ephedrine or amphetamines, those work.

I’ve never actually talked about this online before, but now I’m going to. I used to weigh over 560lbs, and I’ve lost 190 of that, with more going every week. I spent a lot of time on this, tried a lot of diets, tried medication, and ultimately considered surgery. In the end a ferocious commitment to eating less, eating better, and moving around more was what worked, and continues to work. Years ago I went to a medic…

Good fuckin work, seriously.

> "I tend not to have cravings until after I’ve had my first real meal

Very much the case for me too, to the point that I can "forget" to eat all day so long as I really don't actually eat even a bit.

More importantly, though, I've found I can duplicate this effect to a great extent by strictly eliminating carbs from my first meal, and then a eating a proper square old-fashioned "dinner" in the afternoon. This has other benefits for me as well, the most noticeable being that I don't suffer grinding foggy sleepiness at midmorning or late afternoon. It also lets me be satisfied with a light supper later on, which is critical for my sleep. Big meals before bed leave me tossing and turning until early morning.

A sugary breakfast, on the other hand, will fuck up my whole day.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#76

Post by roystonvassey »

onuralp wrote: post #21

I recommend Peter Attia's highly engaging and informative talk [0] on the same topic, which I think does a better job at articulating the motivation behind possible approaches to attacking the issue of health- and life-span. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDFxdkck354

I second this. I think Attia is one of the clearest thinkers on health, longevity and nutrition currently. Moreover, he is a trained doctor AND an ex-McKinsey consultant, a combination that marries a strongly analytical and numerical lens to a field (medicine) that notoriously isn't.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#77

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

taneq wrote: post #60
QAPereo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never actually talked about this online before, but now I’m going to. I used to weigh over 560lbs, and I’ve lost 190 of that, with more going every week. I spent a lot of time on this, tried a lot of diets, tried medication, and ultimately considered surgery. In the end a ferocious commitment to eating less, eating better, and moving around more was what worked, and continues to work. Years ago I went to a medic…

> The active ingredient is not the plan, it is the desire to commit to the plan with all of your being... for years, forever. All of your post is good but this is the most important bit (IMO). The biggest scam the weight loss industry ever pulled on Western civilisation was the redefinition of "diet" from "what you eat" to "a temporary change in what you eat". To maintain a healthy weight you have to monitor your wei…

> To maintain a healthy weight you have to monitor your weight, and what you're eating, and adjust the latter in response to the former, forever.

Yeah, this is the part that people don't get when they talk about weight loss. They make it out like losing weight is the greatest thing, you'll feel better, have more energy, get more attention from the opposite sex, etc.

Truth is those benefits aren't guaranteed and are mostly exaggerated, but worse is the part they never talk about: what you're giving up to get there. Personally, I have to avoid (or leave early) social functions where free food will be available (you wouldn't believe how pushy people get, insisting that you eat), or that takes place at a restaurant (order a salad and everyone acts like you shot their dog). I have to suppress the urge to hit people who bring donuts to work. I spend three nights a week exercising and I eat a single meal a day of steamed vegetables and fake meat. I weigh myself every single morning and I make n effort to count every single calorie. And I have to do this for the rest of my life if I want to maintain where I am.

Weight loss is not a panacea, the tradeoffs aren't going to be worth it for everyone, and I really wish people would stop being such dicks about the whole thing.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#79

Post by naasking »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #35

I'll offer a contrarian view: longevity research, as in the current scope, is about as accurate and useful as Ray Kurzweil's predictions from the 90s. Let's take caloric restriction, for instance, which is all the rage. Trouble is, all of the evidence we have is in mice or lesser animals, and the comparison is animals on caloric restriction against animals being force fed to the point of obesity . Let me repeat that:…

> So it's entirely plausible all this caloric restriction research findings is just confirmation of the fact that obesity shortens lifespans.

Not entirely. It's accepted now that caloric restriction helps fighting cancer, so that effect alone means people following caloric restriction will live longer on average. Those feeding the cancers will simply die younger.

Re: Beginner's guide to longevity research

#80

Post by Jonovono »

projektir wrote: post #57
Jonovono wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm like you pretty skinny. I started IF and also going to the gym to try and put on weight. I never liked eating breakfast but did it because I thought it was something I had to do. It took me maybe a week or two of not eating breakfast until it felt normal - but now I could never go back. I feel much more in control. Before if I missed breakfast i'd be a mess and my stomach would be making all kinds of noises in me…

I might try this, not because I believe in IF, but just because breakfast is annoying. Does coffee count as breakfast here, though?

Ya, black coffee is fine. I can't remember the number but if it's under like 50kcal I think you'll stay in the fasting state, so you can even have like a small fruit. Definitely double check this though :p
Post reply on HN