Live Longer: The One Anti-Aging Trick That Works

sungam 17 years ago |

Caloric restriction is the only non-genetic intervention proven to increase maximal lifespan in mammals. However it may well be that the magnitude of this effect in humans is considerably smaller than in lower mammals because the mechanisms that repair the damage that accumulates as a consequence of normal metabolism are already more optimal. I think the really interesting area is caloric restriction mimetics. These are alluded to in the article and are a class of small molecule compounds that aim to induce the life-extending effect of CR without the need for reducing calories. GSK recently made a 0.75 billion dollar investment in Sirtris pharmaceuticals http://www.sirtrispharma.com/pipeline-candidates.html who are developing a reversatrol derivative so this is far from science fiction.

pg 17 years ago |

I think exercise has also been shown to work.

Alex3917 17 years ago | |

From what I've heard, the amount of exercise needed to increase lifespan is so little that you're almost certainly already doing it. If you walk a few blocks once in a while then you're basically set. Vigorous workouts dramatically increase the quality of life in old age, but the actual life expectancy peaks out really fast.

baha_man 17 years ago | |

It's a nice distinction, but perhaps exercise only prevents diseases which kill you 'prematurely':

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514064921.ht...:

'...these findings indicate that exercise can prevent an early death from disease in some rats, but does not extend the maximal lifespan of any of the rats.'

gizmo 17 years ago | |

Not really, as your organs would still have to work to process the extra calories. The fewer calories you process the less wear and tear in your organs.

And if you eat a sandwich after running for an hour you're breaking even calorie-wise, so exercise isn't even so efficient.

gaius 17 years ago | | |

Not true because a) within reason, using any of the body's systems makes them stronger. That's the point of exercising. And b) effective exercise isn't about burning calories directly, it's about raising your resting metabolic rate.

Alex3917 17 years ago | | |

I've heard it suggested though that the extra calories cause your cells to divide more frequently, which means you run out of telomeres faster. Not sure if that's really true or not though.

stcredzero 17 years ago | | |

"using any of the body's systems makes them stronger"

Only partly true. This is true in the short term for younger people. It's not true in the long term for older people. Your metabolism results in different kinds of intracellular junk and intercellular junk accumulating. After a certain point, it reaches the level of pathology. But before that happens, using those metabolic pathways does tend to make them stronger.

gizmo 17 years ago | | |

Not eating: bad - organs deteriorate. Overeating: bad - organs die too quickly.

Your liver grows stronger when you drink lots of alcohol, but that doesn't mean you're not killing it in the long term.

Same for muscles and joints. Consider somebody who works at a farm his entire life. Healthy when young. All joints break down at 45 because of the hard labor.

edw519 17 years ago |

Eat less? You don't live longer; it just seems longer.

gizmo 17 years ago | |

Your stomach shrinks when you eat less. You can live comfortably and energetically from 1800-2000 kcal per day. Less if you sit on a chair all day.

Bonus: you save money.

drewp 17 years ago |

Where are we, on digg.com?! The subject line of this post should have said "eat less" in it. I shouldn't have to go to the article to get those two words.

Harkins 17 years ago |

I misparsed the headline to say that the way to avoid looking older is just to live longer, to have a slower metabolism.

eru 17 years ago | |

I even thought of they meant a tautology: Living longer makes you live longer.

ph0rque 17 years ago |

Now if there was only a pill that took hunger away, so that you could eat the allotted amount and no more...

icey 17 years ago | |

Those pills are out there, in varying shades of legality.

Dexatrim comes to mind. (As does any Pseudoephedrine carrying drug)

ph0rque 17 years ago | | |

Which one is the most legal/safest?

dgabriel 17 years ago | | |

Probably Sudafed, or any generic version of it. It's one of the few medications you can safely take while pregnant. That said, the long term effects of any metabolism boosting substance on the heart, etc., are probably not great.

The best thing for the less food-disciplined may be to follow the NoS plan ( http://www.nosdiet.com/ ).

icey 17 years ago | | |

Sudafed no longer uses pseudoephedrine in its products because it was being used to synthesize meth. It now uses phenylephrine, which does not have an appetite suppressing effect.

I only happen to know about pseudoephedrine's appetite suppressing side effect because of terrible allergies. For years I hated eating, until medications stopped including it as the active ingredient.

dgabriel 17 years ago | | |

You can get the "old formula," in most states, but they keep it behind the counter and you need to hand over your driver's license to be scanned. I only happen to know that because the phenylephrine doesn't work anywhere near as well for me when I have a cold.

fallentimes 17 years ago | | |

Those are two very different questions.

ajkirwin 17 years ago |

It's not how long you live that matters, it's whether you enjoy life.

I'd rather live to 50 and have a wonderful life, than life to 100 and be less happy.

JabavuAdams 17 years ago | |

How much less happy? And will you still agree when you're 49?

What if you change your habits sufficiently that after an initial period of (slight) unhappiness, eating less no longer makes you unhappy?

cstejerean 17 years ago | | |

If you want to increase your lifespan dramatically (like a change from 50 to 100) you need to eat a lot less. You end up eating so little that you literally don't have enough energy to do anything (think < 1000 calories per day).

nreece 17 years ago | |

Live a happy life till 50 Or live a happy life till 100? Which one would you prefer now?

steveplace 17 years ago | | |

After reading that article, I'd prefer a hamburger.

ajkirwin 17 years ago | | |

I'd never be happy on a calorie restricted diet. And I need all the happiness I can get!

Kilimanjaro 17 years ago |

Churchill lived for 90 years fat as a pig and smoking like a crack whore.

I call bullshit and a way to cut food production in half by persuading everybody to eat less.

Stress kills, food doesn't.