Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: minass on 15/06/2015 20:41:11
-
And now a simple, almost childish assumption:
I think we all agree that life is all about chemical reactions at the end. So lets make an effort forget everything for a moment and focus heartlessly only on the reactions part of the organism. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these reactions are not arbitrary.
Chemical reactions and Aging.
If the phenotype of an organism is the sum of its chemical reactions, one thing is obvious. That these reactions become different as we age. However, we don’t know whether the initial reactions are programmed to change and lead to the latter ones, or the transition is a result of other events. In other words, is it possible to maintain the same composition of reactions for a long time, thus preventing changes in phenotype, thus preventing further aging?
Answer: In the case our reactions are programmed to change, then things are more complicated. However, in the case that the reactions can be maintained as they are, then it can happen. And below is a possible way to achieve it.
The most important thing is to prevent changes. This can be achieved by providing a certain amount, composition and pace of initial substrates to the reacting system in the form of food. We are only interested in maintaining the system unchanged. We don’t care about the composition of this system, as long as it remains unchanged. This means that any diet that repeats itself every day,( that is providing everyday the same nutrients, in the same manner without any deviations in the routine) can cause the maximum of phenotype preserving in an organism, providing that the diet is viable and supplies all essential elements for life.
Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality?
Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging.
Additionaly, anyone that tries to lose weight with the help of a specific nutrition, knows that even if he is very compliant to the perfect diet, he must periodically eat something else so as to further make changes in his body, because the body gets used to the diet and resists to further loss. It seems that eating the same food both in quality and quantity tend to cause stabilization of our body’s composition.
-
It says here in "The Okinawan Centenarian Study" (1) that the 4 top countries for average life expectancy are Okinawa, Japan, Hong Kong, and, Sweden in that order.
Hmmmm. Swedish pancakes with lingonberry preserves, Gravlax, Potato Sausage, Swedish meatballs, Fiskpudding, pickled herring in sour cream - a steady diet of that will make you live longer? Hah! Go know.
(1.) http://www.okicent.org/
-
Then again. Is it really worth it, if you have to maintain a certain diet to live longer?
-
Calorie restriction, without malnutrition, can increase lifespan ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
-
The definitive observation about diet fads is the health food scene in Woody Allen's film "Sleeper"
You mean there was no deep fat? No steak? No cream pies, or hot fudge?
See it here
-
Pecos_Bill:
There is a theoretical rationale to believe that it is not the type of food that plays the most critical role, but the steadiness of the diet, as long as there is no malnutrition.
DuffMan:
Its not about what you eat. Its about what nutrients your body absorbs. Human creativity can think of ways to avoid suffering…
RD:
Calorie restriction can increase lifespan. This means that diet can affect aging, and this observation opened a door for further research. However, how can we find ways to go beyond calorie restriction?
-
Doctor: "If you don't smoke, drink alcohol, eat fried food, or sleep around, you could live for a hundred years".
Paddy: "And why would I want to?"
Two things can kill you: not enough of what you need, or too much of what you like. You choose.
-
There have only been two studies of Calorie Restriction. The Wisconsin study was not reproduced by the subsequent NIH study. Both studies were done on Rhesus Monkeys in cages. (1)
Even if you aren't a monkey, are you willing to subsist on 100% monkey chow doled out to you in a cage where you are safe from the temptations of Mary Berry and her cohorts?
I recall that a study was done on quaker conscientious objectors to study starvation. One side effect was that they stopped looking at girly pictures and put up pictures of food. Chocolate cake had displaced Betty Hutton's charms in their calorie restricted minds.
(1.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23924667
-
Since people's dietary needs vary with things like age and weather there is logically no single consistent diet that is always optimal.
-
Allegedly this is a 55 year old man who has been on a calorie-restricted diet for 20 years ...
[ Although it looks like he dyes his barnet , and maybe he's had his eyelids done (https://youtu.be/TElbEVlYZo4?t=1m49s) ].
-
The man in that video claims to have been living on 1/3 less than the recommended caloric intake for years.
So 2400 calories/day times 2/3 equals 1584 calories/day.
So he ought to look like an inmate of Changi POW camp like in the book "King Rat" by James Clavell.
Look at the video again. Do you not smell a big fuzzy rat, Tuan?
-
... he ought to look like an inmate of Changi POW camp like in the book "King Rat" by James Clavell.
If his existence was sedentary, rather than being worked-to-death in a POW camp, then he could be telling the truth . I've seen another interview of that guy where he does remark that he is readily tired and usually hungry.
-
Metabolic demands of a 70 Kg. man lying still in a hospital bed 24 hours a day are 1800 calories give or take a few percent. If he wants to get up and live a normal life it needs food or he will lose weight. 2400 is a good first guess for a couch potato.
Does this man look like that? Because he sure as heck doesn't look like that to anyone who wasn't born yesterday. I believe you .... thousands wouldn't.
-
The best recorded instances of a statistically significant reduction in mortality from heart disease were during the Nazi occupation of Norway and the siege of Stalingrad. So being attacked by Nazis is good for your health.
Where's the tongue-in-cheek smiley when you need it?
-
... I believe you .... thousands wouldn't.
... To maintain current body weights, women often require 1,600 to 2,400 calories daily, while many adult men need 2,000 to 3,000 calories a day, according to the publication "Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010."
http://www.livestrong.com/article/310517-minimum-amount-of-calories-needed-per-day-to-survive/
If the above is true, someone with the physique and lifestyle of an American female could just maintain a constant bodyweight on "1584 calories/day".
-
It's worth bearing in mind that recommmended calorific intake is for "average" males and females. The required intake to maintain constant weight depends on physique as well as gender, so it is observed that a small person can maintain his/her body weight on fewer calories than a large one, all other things being equal, and the ideal long-range astronaut would therefore be a small woman.
-
Working a bit hard to preserve this idea. aren't we. The man in the video is NOT a woman, nor is he a child nor is his build slight.
Let's assume you are correct by some wild circumstance and that he can survive on 2/3 rds of a normal 2400 calorie/day diet (for several years) i.e 1584 calories -- without showing obvious cachexia.
Now throw in that he has to earn a living --during winter cold - and that THEN he will look like this man with normal body habitus.
I believe you .... MILLIONS wouldn't
-
... Let's assume you are correct by some wild circumstance and that he can survive on 2/3 rds of a normal 2400 calorie/day diet (for several years) i.e 1584 calories ...
This article in "The Independent" does say Mr Fisher is on "around 1,600 calories" per day ... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/eat-less-live-longer-1744811.html
We'd have to lock him up somewhere without access to food, other than what he was given, to find out if he could actually maintain body-weight on 1,600 calories per day.
-
I just tippy toed over to the calorie counter at "calculator net" (1)
FYI a 25 year old man 5' 6 " tall weighing 160 pounds and who is sedentary requires 1984 calories every blessed day to maintain his weight.
So you load his parameters into the little web gismo and check his weight over the course of a month.
If his weight is stable, there is no reason to confine him. He's sneaking food or I'm a dutchman.
(1) http://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html?ctype=standard&cage=25&csex=m&cheightfeet=5&cheightinch=6&cpound=160&cheightmeter=180&ckg=60&cactivity=1.2&printit=0&x=28&y=10
-
First of all, there are ways to avoid lifelong fasting. A new interesting study has shown that periodic fasting can boost longevity and healthy lifespan, most propably by lowering the pressure and giving time to metabolism to compensate various errors.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150618134408.htm
Secondly, if you want to test if caloric restriction works on human, you don't have to wait 150 years.
Athough not definite, there are indirect ways (e.g. gene expression patterns) to estimate the aging related outcome of an intervention, without having to wait 120 years. An example is here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150610131728.htm
-
Male Jewish holocaust survivors lived about 18 months longer than male jews of the same cohort who emigrated to Israel before the war (1.)
3-4 years of starvation bought them an extra 18 months of life.
And isn't it just as possible that Nazi's just culled out the ones who would have died earlier?
Oh yeah, sign me right up for that, Hoss.
(1.) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/male-holocaust-survivors-lived-longer-than-those-who-escaped-europe/279462/
-
The healthy survivor is a big problem in any epidemiological study. There's a possibility that a little radiation does you good, but there's equally a possibility that it just kills off the weak ones in utero. However the beneficial effect of Nazi occupation on heart disease does seem well documented. So the real question is "who cares?" If the choice is between a short, happy life and a long, miserable one, most normal people would I think vote for option A.
I have a friend who swears that she lives entirely on meditation, fresh air, and lettuce. Apparently "chocolate doesn't count, because it's good for you."
-
Not all people age at the same pace:
1)During a 20th high school reunion what you notice is quite interesting. They are all 38 years old, but they appear to be aging at different rates. Signs of aging are already evident in this relatively young age group. Researchers have recently published in PNAS a long term study, in which they used a panel of 18 biological measures to address whether an individual is aging faster or slower than the average. The panel included parameters of specific organ function, length of telomeres, cardiovascular fitness, etc. What they found was those that physically appear to age faster, scored worse in this panel and were biologically older. It is also apparent that the aging rate of twins is genetically determined only in 20%, suggesting a greater role of environmental factors, and thus interventions can be possible.
Althought faster, cheaper and more efficient ways to determine aging rates are needed, this study points that you don’t have to wait 110 years to test the efficacy of an anti-aging strategy.
2)There is a new project that is called Longevity Cookbook that is mainly a scientific initiative by a group of researchers, to study the effects of nutrition in aging and longevity.
I particularly liked the moto that one of its scientists posted on the groups site. It goes something like: We all have a big problem. Aging that slowly kills us. If we don’t do something about it, we will die….
-
In the free online biostatistics courses which I am currently taking from Johns Hopkins University (See some current courses here https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#inbox/14e66743c030bc11) we learn about the evils of "confounding" of your data and how it often leads to preposterous conclusions like your cockamammy diet plans. They may or may not be true, but your method of analysis is incredibly incompetent and naive.
That is why people who have trained minds roll their eyes at your proclamations. You really ought to take the time and effort to learn how to think scientifically, you know. The Johns Hopkins courses would go a long way for you.
In your high school reunion example you <<haven't>> controlled for the effects of genetics, alcohol. smoking, drugs, environmental factors, and just plain luck. That's why your claims don't amount to a hill of beans.
-
So you mean that some online biostatistic courses helped you to debunk a large multi institutional study that had undergone rigorous peer review and managed to get published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals, such as PNAS (IF=9,674)???
Well, in any case, here is the link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/01/1506264112
-
The article you cited does not address peoples' diets.
I was once a student in a couple of graduate seminars in Pharmacology. Part of your grade in them depended on how well you could demonstrate that one of the other students was making a puerile presentation of their assigned topic.
I mention this because, had you pulled a stunt like that PNAS citation in there, the students would have torn it to shreds, made a bonfire out of it, and then danced naked around it.
I say again the example you cited of your high school reunion betrays a woeful ignorance of rigorous scientific methodology. In your first post you called your thesis an "almost childish assumption."
Unless you have a real peer reviewed article in a real journal that actually addresses the evidence of your "almost childish assumption"... I would strike out the "almost".
-
The summary of the PNAS article runs fairly close to Mein Kampf as an example of medical ethics.
-
I didn't say that this study proves what i am saying in the OP.
I used it as an example to show that aging is a continuum, highly influenced by environmental factors, such as aging).
Only direct testing can prove or disprove a hypothesis.
-
Listen up Sanpaku.
The <<scientific>> definition of a hypothesis is, "In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation."(1.) This is the naked <<scientists>> forum where you should speak <<science>> and not the popular, imprecise argot of the streets.
Your "almost" childish assumption has no right to sail in here under false colors as a hypothesis when it is no more than a conjecture at best. If your "hypothesis" could have been tested it would have, but it can't. In other words as we say here in the land of round door knobs, " Shoulda, woulda, coulda."
I think you should pour yourself a cup of Labsang and go sit and think about this until you have a real hypothesis to discuss.
Allsame: " Ensure the mind is running before the mouth is engaged."
(1.) http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis
-
Why do you claim that it can’t be tested? What is the problem to test it in rodents for example? Different diet patterns can be easily provided. Additionally, checking for signs of aging (e.g. expression of age-related molecular pathways), not only is feasible, but it is a daily routine in longevity research. What else do you need? Compare the groups and perform the statistical analysis.
On the other hand, if truly untestable theories such as the selfish gene or superstrings are considered formal respectable hypotheses, I don’t see why my simple, logical assumptions that can be easily tested don’t have the right to even be called “hypothesis” according to you!!
-
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. If wishes were horses, I don't doubt you would ride this right onto the stage in Stockholm and graciously accept the Noble prize and the world's acclaim for your perspicacity and hard work.
By you, you know what science is, Bubby.
Tell me this. By the scientists do you understand it?
Once again I am asking you to stop with the pipe dreams and show me any concrete example of this "feasible" test you are sure exists.
Maybe you would be better off explaining this to the good folk in the Tir Nan Og. They don't age at all there, you know.
Sounds right up your alley, don't it?
-
You don't seem to be answering the question that was asked.
" can a strictly steady diet delay ageing?"
It didn't ask about some bloke who assertedly doesn't eat enough to explain his weight.
For whatever it's worth, pop in to your local doctor's surgery. They can show you a stack of people who swear blind that they are "sticking to the diet" but putting on weight.
People change; their "best" diet changes.
-
And FURTHERMORE..
Kindly enumerate those "expressions of age related molecular pathways" which you so blithely claim to be feasible so that I can tell whether or not you are just parroting jargon which you have concatenated to try to sound like you aren't talking through your hat.
The "selfish gene" is NOT a theory and "sociobiology" is not science. Don't take my word for it. (1.) Only a credulous, ignorant Babbitt would claim that it was, Mister.
Moreover "strings" are only called a "theory" because physicists got tired of explaining the difference between a conjecture and a theory to college dropouts, theosophists, and art history majors.
Now I am going to wait and see what inane twaddle you will produce after this THIRD time that I have asked you to put up a real scientific article in a real peer reviewed journal. Come on, Hoss it's past time for you to show us your stuff.
(1.)http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/12/09/debate-over-selfish-gene-theory-heats-up/
-
You don't seem to be answering the question that was asked.
" can a strictly steady diet delay ageing?"
It didn't ask about some bloke who assertedly doesn't eat enough to explain his weight.
For whatever it's worth, pop in to your local doctor's surgery. They can show you a stack of people who swear blind that they are "sticking to the diet" but putting on weight.
People change; their "best" diet changes.
Under a certain constant diet, nobody gains weight indefinitely. At some point they stop and maintain a constant weight, irrespective on whether they are satisfied with that...
And FURTHERMORE..
Kindly enumerate those "expressions of age related molecular pathways" which you so blithely claim to be feasible so that I can tell whether or not you are just parroting jargon which you have concatenated to try to sound like you aren't talking through your hat.
There are many ways you can easily do it. A quick example are the ways to measure aging processes in this study..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115002247
Want more examples or is it ok?
-
I seriously doubt that you would know a serious scientific research article if it were to walk up and commit a public nuisance on your trouser leg.
Your citation is a review article. It is a secondary reference to a number of articles. Some them discuss yeast metabolism and some of them discuss periodic fasting diets. NONE of the articles mention your "almost" childish assumption of the benefits of a "strictly steady diet". Therefore I am moved to wonder if you are, in fact, old enough to shave.
I am attaching an image of the current issue which contains your "evidence" for the benefit of readers to evaluate whether or not it looks like something Elsevier publishing, cooked up to rake in the moola from credulous wannabee "scientists".
I think the presence of a "shopping cart" icon in the upper right corner of the web site speaks eloquently of the bona fide nature of this "peer reviewed journal".
-
1)You asked for ways to indirectly estimate aging with the help of molecular biology. In the methods section you can find some examples.
2)I am using the term "childish assumption" to underscore the fact that even a child can see how obviously logical my arguments are. Additionally, they are supported by evidence (e.g. caloric restriction diet only seems to offer increased longevity in animals that while on ad libitum diet they become overweight and thus, maintaining a stable weight is an indicator of longevity).
3)Cell Journal is one of the top-ranked journals with an IF of 17,56...
-
The "scientific journal" that you cited, I repeat, has a shopping cart icon in the website top line. Enough said.
It is not that "even a child" would understand your idea. Rather it is that ONLY a child would be taken in by your puerile and naive attempt to support it by adult standards.
FOR INSTANCE you obviously can't tell the difference between the 2nd hand review article that you are blabbering on about and an actual bona fide peer reviewed article reporting actual research. Research, I might add, that has any evidence to support your "childish assumption" young feller me lad.
Why don't you ask your teacher to explain that to you before you come back here and embarrass yourself again?
-
to be fair, there's nothing unusual about serious scientific journals having a "checkout"
http://iopscience.iop.org/cart/add?articleId=0049-1748/6/4/A24
However the idea that one diet can sustain someone throughout life is plain silly.
Minass
Try living on milk.
You used to- so by this thread's stupid suggestion you should still be able to.
As I have pointed out, the body has different dietary needs depending on the weather and on whether or not you are fighting an infection etc.
Until you address that there's nothing more to say.
Oh, this "Under a certain constant diet, nobody gains weight indefinitely. At some point they stop and maintain a constant weight, irrespective on whether they are satisfied with that..."
just isn't true.
It is particularly obviously false in some cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prader%E2%80%93Willi_syndrome
-
For the benefit of the readers, NONE of the following scientific periodicals have a "checkout" icon on their web page header..
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
The Lancet
New England Journal of Medicine
Circulation
The Cancer Journal
The Journal of Microbiology
The Journal of Molecular Biology
Journal of Applied Physiology
Journal of Virology
Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacological Therapeutics
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Enough said? Because I can go on ....and on...and on.
Anybody who wants a career in Science MUST be prepared to spend hours every week keeping up on the literature in their field. That demands recognizing and avoiding the "journals" that let any nit-wit publish ridiculous piffle to keep his tenure.
Throwing the ones with a checkout icon into the round file is an obligatory first step.
-
Here is an example of the Lancet's checkout page.
https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/journals/lancet/subscribe?redirectUri=%2Fjournals%2Flancet%2Farticle%2FPIIS0140-6736%2814%2960577-8%2Ffulltext&checkOut=Proceed+to+Checkout&code=lancet-site
Granted they don't put it on the front cover, but it's still there if you actually want to read most of their stuff.
Would you like me to check the others for you so you can avoid wasting time on them?
-
Reputable journals may offer reprints of articles for sale upon request. That is true.
Peddling them on the cover, however, is inexcusably common. It reeks of the dog track and Rupert Murdoch.
This is the Physiology and Medicine forum. Admmisable Standards of conduct should reflect that.
-
i don't see any problem with that as long as the content is of high quality!!
-
i don't see any problem with that as long as the content is of high quality!!
Actually, the point is one made earlier
"NONE of the articles mention your "almost" childish assumption of the benefits of a "strictly steady diet". "
So whether it's a good journal or not; it doesn't actually talk about your idea.
-
And more to the point, Mr. Minass, it is difficult to tell the difference between you and a common street huckster when you repeatedly claim to have evidence but feed us a load of phony baloney nonsense in lieu of that "evidence".
It is now four(4) times that I have asked you for a peer-reviewed article that supports your preposterous assertion. It is now four(4) times that you have responded with some variation of your pathetic song and dance.
Please,please, please give us some iota of REAL evidence to show that you are not (a.) a prankster. (b.) a bunko artist, and/or (c.) not an actual and bona fide mooncalf.
-
i don't see any problem with that as long as the content is of high quality!!
Actually, the point is one made earlier
"NONE of the articles mention your "almost" childish assumption of the benefits of a "strictly steady diet". "
So whether it's a good journal or not; it doesn't actually talk about your idea.
I never said something like that. I just usde a reference to underscore that there is high-level evidence that environmental and lifestyle factors can influence the pace we are aging and pecos-bill said that the reference was not of high-quality and an indicator of that was check-out icons. So i said that check-out icons is not a problem as long as the content of the journal is of high quality.
It is now four(4) times that I have asked you for a peer-reviewed article that supports your preposterous assertion. It is now four(4) times that you have responded with some variation of your pathetic song and dance.
I never claimed about direct evidence supporting that what i say is the case. Only experimental testing can validate or rule out a hypothesis. I only provided high-level evidence to support that this hypothesis is justifiable, based on simple logical assumptions that even a child can agree they are based on logic. Additionally, you challenged me and i showed that whatever i said is testable and falsifiable.
-
While Pecos Bill may be making some valid points it seems to me his way of making them would be verbally torn to shreds by anyone versed in civilized methods of debating/discussing. I wonder if he would use such inflammatory language and take such an arrogant position if he were actually talking face to face with minass, who is laudably containing himself in terms of civility.
Where does the moderator come into this??
-
I am removing my initial comments.
The nature of this person's argument has been adequately clarified. It would be ungentlemanly of me to persist in pointing it out. If such "research" becomes common in England, perhaps it would be well to start studying Mandarin.
Anybody who has been persuaded to attempt to prolong their life by exclusively eating monkey chow (or whatever) is welcome to do so.
-
Anybody who has been persuaded to attempt to prolong their life by exclusively eating monkey chow (or whatever) is welcome to do so.
This is a total misinterpretation of what i said!
The nature of this person's argument has been adequately clarified. It would be ungentlemanly of me to persist in pointing it out. If such "research" becomes common in England, perhaps it would be well to start studying Mandarin.
I never said that i proved something scientifically here. Besides, here is not the place to do so...Learn to recognize the difference.
PS Have you ever heard of pubmed?
-
Quod erat demonstrandum
-
For anyone interested, there is a man in India that claims to be 179 years old. He says that death has forgotten him.
Btw he says that his secret was good nutrition (not many meats) and his lack of stress...
-
There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.
-
For anyone interested, there is a man in India that claims to be 179 years old. He says that death has forgotten him.
Btw he says that his secret was good nutrition (not many meats) and his lack of stress...
Alas that Mrs. Thatcher had not the benefit of your wisdom, Sir! She might be alive to guide us today and England would not, today, suffer the wounds of all these "feminists" and their bearded socialists allies.
Why just recently one of these feminist lawyer cows spoke out against some poor,wee, lamb of an older man who had innocently told her that he liked the cut of her jib.