Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by 001sky » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:03 AM UTC

jasonkolb wrote: post #33

Caloric restriction is absolutely fascinating in all forms. I think intermittent fasting might be the best-known variant of this, but there are others. All of them cause dramatic changes in the way bodies function, from changing the hormones secreted to changing the form of fuel it uses to run itself (e.g. ketones in low-carb diets instead of glucose). Caloric restriction has a whole bunch of knock-on effects, any on…

Most people think of protein as a good thing, but what stimulates the hormone IGF-1 to be secreted, which is necessary for growth of all kinds

When you say "that's" are you referring protein and specifically its presence or absence? It would be interesting indeed to see more research on this as well if possible dimensionalize by not only retsricted/normal kCal but at variations in % kCal by proteing etc. It would also perhaps be very interesting to understand if the variations align as mean values above and below "normal" caloric restricion. Ie, imagine a polar explorer who is operating in caloric deficit yet at high exertion thresholds for days on end. And/or contrast this with caloric restriction in the sense of < normal 2200 per day (or whatevs).

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

#82

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 5:34 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #65

jessriedel wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[2] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. You or someone else presented this highly speculative claim as fact a long time ago on HN. I've tried to fi…

(Thank you for your concern.) How would one prove this claim wrong? There is signal in current mortality and morbidity statistics about how long the individuals now alive will last before they die off. Is anyone interpreting this signal from official medical reports any differently from Vaupel and Christensen? Both Vaupel and Christensen are very well respected demographers (as Vaupel's publication in Nature should a…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by PeterisP » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:59 AM UTC

cliveowen wrote: post #5

If I'm reading this correctly it says that the findings apply to 1) short lived species and 2) rhesus primates. It also says that the effects of CR may or may not be preserved on humans. So the only real finding here seems to be that we are now able to extend the lifespan of some monkeys.

Doing lifespan studies on long-lived species simply takes that much longer times - to test a hypothesis on humans, it'd take some 70+ years.

It can be done and we will do it, but that will be only a benefit for the future generations - all that you and me can do is to assume (or not assume) that the measured effects will generalize to us as well.

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

#84

Post by X4 » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 1:05 PM UTC

KVFinn wrote: post #49

jasonkolb wrote: post #33

Caloric restriction is absolutely fascinating in all forms. I think intermittent fasting might be the best-known variant of this, but there are others. All of them cause dramatic changes in the way bodies function, from changing the hormones secreted to changing the form of fuel it uses to run itself (e.g. ketones in low-carb diets instead of glucose). Caloric restriction has a whole bunch of knock-on effects, any on…

>For example, restricting calories means that you're restricting protein. Most people think of protein as a good thing, but that's what stimulates the hormone IGF-1 to be secreted, which is necessary for growth of all kinds--muscle growth (which is why bodybuilders eat as much protein as possible), but also including cancer. While people on CR do seem to try and keep IGF-1 on the lower side, there's no consensus on p…

Ok, I think most of you who read PROTEIN, may misunderstand a bit here, I'll add a bit of info to clarify the protein debate a bit.

There are almost indefinite combinations of proteins, many of which have vastly different effects on the body and it's cells. To shed a bit of light on proteins, you should know that most enzymes are proteins too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme

Some forms of 'proteins' may increase cancerous growth, other may inhibit it and there are many of such activators/inhibitors, just so you know. Only take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin which there are proteins ("enzymes"), which may inhibit it, leading to a super-muscular body. It's a very small change, but the result is not what you would expect from just a protein. The contrary is true too, it could have damaging effect too. We are NOT talking about supplements here, but the form of proteins that occur in Nature. They are by far not researched enough to give any form of advice and there are still new breakthroughs, findings and surprises made in the area.

Roughly saying that no calories means, more lifetime, is like saying that not fueling a motor will increase it's lifetime.

Human Life is not about getting as old as possible anyway. My personal opinion is that it's there to bring healthy and smart kids to the world, which help in the betterment of the world with their creativity, skills, ideas, muscles, efforts and visions. Simple as that.

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

#85

Post by judk » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 3:32 PM UTC

ElongatedTowel wrote: post #78

didgeoridoo wrote: post #2

So if you don't eat much you may live longer. It will certainly FEEL longer.

To add another perspective to this. If we assume that after a period of adaption eating less is just as much of a joy as eating a bit too much from time to time, there are still other factors. Most of them are a product of vanity, but they still shape our culture. How would I look if I reduce calories? I would lose a substantial amount of muscle mass. I would be weaker. I could not recover from endurance and strength…

Everything you describe as attractive qualities you don't want to sacrifice are fashion fads that were once considered unattractive.

The insightful notion that life at 20 is permanent adulthood and the future is irrelevant has been believed by 20somethings for millenia.

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

#86

Post by scarmig » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 7:40 PM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #57

tokenadult wrote: post #43

What's interesting about human all-cause mortality trends is that human beings in the developed countries have been gaining three months of lifespan for every year that they live (sometimes described as "six hours each day").[1] 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. The article "The Biodemography of Human Agei…

> 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-catastrohpie…

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

Cite?

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

#87

Post by beagle3 » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #86

beagle3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-catastrohpie…

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 Cite?

Well, last time I looked for it, I couldn't find any older studies on the IPCC website that have been shown to be wrong.

However, having lived and read newspapers at the time, I remember the scare mongering, and specifically the mention of the "Marker Tree" in the Maldives, which were projected to to have significant areas under water by 2010, then 2020, now 2100 (spolier: it didn't happen https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201107180902...)

A quick googling cannot find the original predictions (days before the web ... go figure), but this interesting discussion http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/the-1990-ipcc... will give you an idea about the difference between 25 year old predictions and what actually happened. The guy who runs this blog is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez

Other readings: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-... (yes, it is fox news - so use your debiaser, but do look at the content). Also the responses and links over at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-assessment...

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

#88

Post by manilafolder » Sun, Apr 06, 2014, 2:17 AM UTC

ciupicri wrote: post #68

todd8 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 successf…

> Of course, now there's evidence that heavy doses of vitamins aren't beneficial and may actually be harmful. Could you be more specific, please?

This is an interesting meta-analysis of some of the studies done on the efficacy of vitamins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDrAQi1SwU (Presentation by Dr. Jeffrey Tice of the University of California).

He covers vitamins A, E, and C around 18 minutes into the presentation.