Live Longer: The One Anti-Aging Trick That Works
news.yahoo.comCaloric 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.
I think exercise has also been shown to work.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Eat less? You don't live longer; it just seems longer.
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.
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.
I misparsed the headline to say that the way to avoid looking older is just to live longer, to have a slower metabolism.
I even thought of they meant a tautology: Living longer makes you live longer.
Now if there was only a pill that took hunger away, so that you could eat the allotted amount and no more...
Those pills are out there, in varying shades of legality.
Dexatrim comes to mind. (As does any Pseudoephedrine carrying drug)
Which one is the most legal/safest?
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/ ).
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.
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.
Yeah, the phenylephrine is garbage. I just ended up stopping taking anything and got a prescription for one of those nose sprays.
Those are two very different questions.
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.
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?
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).
Live a happy life till 50 Or live a happy life till 100? Which one would you prefer now?
After reading that article, I'd prefer a hamburger.
I'd never be happy on a calorie restricted diet. And I need all the happiness I can get!
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.