Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 27 Mar '18 14:16
    Eat less, live longer. The evidence gets stronger every day. The mechanism involves increasing the overall efficiency of metabolism (they call it metabolic adaptation) long term. They found hormonal changes, lowered reactive oxygen species, and fewer biomarkers of aging.

    Being a part of this study must have been rough. For 2 years, you are forced to monitor and reduce your calories per day and you have to spend 3 24-hour periods in a confined "metabolic chamber". Yikes.

    Now, of course, everyone's looking for a work around. At the end of this study they ask: Can you mimic calorie restriction mechanisms while eating as much as you want?

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03431-x
  2. 27 Mar '18 20:28 / 3 edits
    I practice intermittent fasting in the hope it would prolong my life.
    At first I found it really tough doing it and had severe hunger pains whenever I did it especially the first time which felt terrible. But I find that after a few years doing it I find both my body and mind somehow seems to 'adapt' to it and now it hardly bothers me when I do it.
    I wonder, does anyone else here practice intermittent fasting and, if so, have you apparently felt that same 'adaptation' to it i.e. it gradually getting less and less painful the more times you do it?
  3. 27 Mar '18 22:17
    Originally posted by @humy
    I practice intermittent fasting in the hope it would prolong my life.
    At first I found it really tough doing it and had severe hunger pains whenever I did it especially the first time which felt terrible. But I find that after a few years doing it I find both my body and mind somehow seems to 'adapt' to it and now it hardly bothers me when I do it.
    I wonder, ...[text shortened]... ame 'adaptation' to it i.e. it gradually getting less and less painful the more times you do it?
    Yes, intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction. I practice this inadvertently sometimes when I'm really busy and forget to eat.

    Do you think the pharmaceutical "work-arounds" to the benefits of calorie restriction (for example, resveratrol) will ever work, or is the pain required to achieve the benefit?
  4. 28 Mar '18 09:40 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by @wildgrass

    Do you think the pharmaceutical "work-arounds" to the benefits of calorie restriction (for example, resveratrol) will ever work,
    well, it certainly couldn't work for resveratrol because I am afraid that is all just one big myth and I would say almost as bad as the 'cold fusion' nonsense.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/red_wine_study/
    "...Boffins debunk red wine miracle antioxidant myth
    Soz winos: no positive effects from resveratrol, scientists soberly conclude..."

    https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2014/05/resveratrol-benefits-in-red-wine-a-myth/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol
    "...
    there is no good evidence that consuming resveratrol affects life expectancy or human health
    ...
    There is no evidence of benefit from resveratrol in those who already have heart disease.
    ...
    There is no conclusive evidence for an effect of resveratrol on human metabolism
    ...
    There is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans
    ...
    Adverse effects
    In 2010, GlaxoSmithKline suspended a small clinical trial of SRT501, a proprietary form of resveratrol, due to safety concerns, and terminated the study later that year. SRT501 was composed of microparticles (< 5 µm) intended to enhance absorption and was delivered at a dose of 5 grams per day, causing gastrointestinal disorders and diarrhea in many subjects.[17] Although limited human studies have shown resveratrol is well-tolerated,[11][14] one clinical study of Alzheimer's disease patients showed there were side effects from daily intake of up to 2 grams, including nausea, diarrhea, and weight loss
    ..."

    But this health myth has been pounced on by advertisers who make it out to be fact conning god knows how many millions of people into buying what is at best a complete waste of money. Perhaps, in a way, that makes it actually worse than the 'cold fusion' nonsense.

    I would also make the educated guess that there is no 'simple' work-around in chemical form that would give the same benefits as of calorie restriction, at least not without significant harmful side effects, else, if there is such a 'simple' chemical work-around, that would beg the question of why didn't we evolve enzymes in our body to make that beneficial chemical to prolong our natural lives without any significant biological cost and thus, obviously, increase our chances of passing on our genes? That is, after all, what you should expect evolution to do.
  5. 28 Mar '18 14:26
    Originally posted by @humy
    ...
    There is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans
    .....
    I would also make the educated guess that there is no 'simple' work-around in chemical form that would give the same benefits as of calorie restriction, at least not without significant harmful side effects, else, if there is such a 'simple' chemical work-around, that would b ...[text shortened]... our chances of passing on our genes? That is, after all, what you should expect evolution to do.
    There is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans

    Yes of course, but the right experiment has not been done yet.
    that would beg the question of why didn't we evolve enzymes in our body to make that beneficial chemical to prolong our natural lives without any significant biological cost and thus, obviously, increase our chances of passing on our genes?

    1) Selective pressure in evolution is not relevant during post-reproductive ages.

    2) During the vast majority of our evolution, we were on calorie restricted diets (including intermittent fasting), at least as compared to contemporary diets. Human metabolism was not built to endure 3 daily meals at 2500 kcals/day.
  6. 28 Mar '18 15:15 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    There is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans

    Yes of course, but the right experiment has not been done yet.
    [quote]that would beg the question of why didn't we evolve enzymes in our body to make that beneficial chemical to prolong our natural lives without any significant biological cost and thus, obviously, i ...[text shortened]... to contemporary diets. Human metabolism was not built to endure 3 daily meals at 2500 kcals/day.
    but the right experiment has not been done yet.

    but we have many good indicators from the studies and experiments that have been done to give a pretty good educated guess of what the result would be and that result is likely to be no significant correlation.
    Note in particular the "There is no conclusive evidence for an effect of resveratrol on human metabolism " despite the studies trying to prove just such an effect. And if it doesn't measurably effect metabolism (which should be our default assumption using Occam's razor until if or when we have evidence to the contrary) then how would it slow down aging?
    1) Selective pressure in evolution is not relevant during post-reproductive ages.

    actually, if something slows down the aging process, it would be because that would presumably also delay how long it takes before one ceases to have the ability to reproduce.
    I should also point out that in the case of most men (but not woman), the post-reproductive ages don't come until almost the end of their lives thus anything that delays aging in men should have the potential to allow them more time (in years) and thus more opportunity to reproduce.
    2) During the vast majority of our evolution, we were on calorie restricted diets (including intermittent fasting)

    that helps at least partly explain why intermittent fasting may help us; intermittent fasting simulates the more natural conditions we evolved to survive in. Yes, you got a point there.
    But I have long speculated that just a few hundred generation of humans having a different diet from that from the stone age should be enough for a significant genetic adaptation to it via brutal Darwinian selection. I have tried several times to google exactly what was the average medieval diet but unfortunately all historical records are pretty vague about that so cannot really assess the credibility of that significant genetic adaptation.
    At least there is evidence of evolution of lactose tolerance in human adults which presumably didn't exist in the stone age so that at least proves there was a sufficient number of generations since the stone age to significantly genetically adapt to a different diet in that way so it doesn't seem to me too much of a stretch that we could have adapted in other ways short of adapting to the most modern changes to our diet that happened in just the last ~200 years (because that is obviously not enough time).
  7. Subscriber ogb
    28 Mar '18 15:49
    I drink Lite beer, so does count !! all day, every day drink beer , and play chess 24/7
  8. 29 Mar '18 14:17
    Originally posted by @ogb
    I drink Lite beer, so does count !! all day, every day drink beer , and play chess 24/7
    That might do the trick depending on how many light beers. You can still get to 2500 calories with light beer.

    I propose a national fasting day. One day per month, nobody eats. It'd save billions in consumer spending, but the food industry would go bonkers.