Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys

Scientist thought they could shortcut this process by discovering the underlying biochemical mechanism. One promising lead was the insulin subsystem which is ubiqitous in our tissues and in most animals for nearly 700 million years. This lead to the SIR family of genes and chemicals like red wine that seem to manipulate them. What works in yeast and worms doesnt seem to apply to mammals that well yet. Western mdicine: develop and take a PILL to solve your problems.

>Then I met up with a couple who was into hardcore CR.

You probably met someone on the extreme hardcore edge of it. Certainly it's a spectrum and counting calories and nutrients with computer programs is extremely normal today -- there are about a million programs that do it on your phone for you including taking photos of bar codes, etc.

In the early 90's my girlfriend was into CR. She was also into supplements. No one that I've ever known took so many vitamins, minerals, herbs, and antioxidants. She ordered them in bulk in powdered form and made a mess in the kitchen mixing them up every day. Of course, now there's evidence that heavy doses of vitamins aren't beneficial and may actually be harmful.

As to the calorie reduction, she was quite successful in controlling her diet. She ordered guar gum in 50 lb sacks (from Tic Gums), mixing it with water to have something in her stomach when she was hungry. She seemed to settle into a routine that I don't think I could have tolerated. She didn't ever look anorexic, but had very very low body fat.

She was very afraid of getting old and this motivated her. I think that without some sort of pharmaceutical breakthrough that controls hunger, the rest of us will not find CR practical.

> Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long

I'm sure this is backed up by studies and references, and at the same time I am amused at the hubris of making this statement. It's a cheap prediction to make, given that it will be around 2070 before you can verify it - and how right it is depends on lack-of-catastrohpies (e.g. in 20 years we'll have an idea how the meltdown in Fukushima affects lifespan), same-rate-and-same-kind-and-availability of advances, etc.

And before you criticize me for being "anti-sciece" - I am not, and unlike a lot of other assertions, this might technically be science (I haven't reviewed the source material) - however, it is not useful science because it may take 70 years to falsify.

Furthermore, a lot of -- perhaps most -- extrapolations of past trends had been wrong. At the time of Wallace & Darwin it was "scientifically" extrapolated that food will only grow linearly. And in 1980 climate studies had shown that if we don't do anything (and we didn't) by 2000 quite a few coastal cities will be underwater. If I wasn't anonymous, I'd place a long bet that the data crunching that led to this prediction will turn out to be complete rubish.

BDNF will affect neuronal proliferation, but won't affect how you feel (mood) in the short term.