[thebrain13 (OP)]

Energy

That's the answer.

Telomeres are the endcaps of chromosomes, coiled DNA in the non coding section. They generally shrink with age and a whole bunch of different things can change their relative size up and down. It's a very hot topic of research at the moment as telomere shrinkage is widely correlated with pretty much the majority of things that kill you a lot like cancer, heart disease etc.

The way I think it works is that the structure of a chromosome as a whole, not just the individual letters has a relationship with the energy in the area and uses this energy to accomplish tasks, whatever they may be. Ion pumps through caloric intake are the biggest energy source, which is why I think Eukaryotes bond the nucleus to the cell membrane/wall whereas prokaryotes allow the genetic material to float around wherever it's needed because the cell membrane is where the electric gradient is strongest. This is also why I think the body uses such a shockingly large amount of it's energy running these pumps as they play a critical role in so many things. (25% of BMR is used for the sodium potassium ion pump, and I think approximately 50% if you count all the pumps, but don't quote me on that) It's also why the DNA is coiled into more helices as helices are an electromagnetic shape and also why the entire chromosome is in every cell not just the relevant DNA to each part. All of these things are clues to function we could examine more and more.

The bigger the chromosome, the more efficiently it can make use of the energy in the area. This causes a relationship between energy and the size of the chromosome/telomeres.

The relationship is an inverse relationship. The greater the "anticipated" energy usage the smaller the telomeres will be rebuilt when the cell divides and vis a vis. Energy up, telomeres down. Energy down, telomeres up.

I've read a meta study before and found that I was able to predict every change with this idea on the first read (except the one time I missed up my own rule ) even though there were 40+ items on the list.

In order to make it easier to understand why they all boil down to energy, we must segregate things that impact telomeres into 3 different sub-categories. They all are about energy but two of these categories might not seem like it. 

The first is simple. If you eat more calories, your telomeres shrink. If you go on a diet they grow. Very straightforward. The category is governed by energy consumption and energy usage directly.

The next category is mental. Things like Racism, and "do you perceive your environment as dangerous" affect telomeres and are in this category. This may not seem like it has anything to do with energy but it actually does.

Consider the financial choice between buying a Toyota Prius or a Toyota Corolla. The Prius cost more money at first because of the extra battery packs leading to a higher buying price, but may make that up over time with gas savings.  For this reason, we might expect that the age of the buyer may make a difference on what they buy. It may not make as much sense to shell out 10k extra if you were 95 years old as it would if you were 25 years old since you probably wont live long enough to make the gas savings worth it. Telomeres work this way. The most energy efficient chromosome may be the size of the universe but if the body did that then you are wasting all the energy building the chromosome! Somewhere in the middle is the answer and that answer changes based on anticipated lifespan.

For this reason, how dangerous you perceive your environment will actually change how your telomeres will form. Even though "your feelings" don't seem like they should have a causal link with how the cell copies it's genetics, we know it does experimentally and according to this hypothesis, it's actually the optimal strategy to build a smaller chromosome the closer you are to your anticipated death because it saves energy.

The last category is very much like the second only it has to do with the perception of your anticipated death based on your perceived health versus mental things. Oxidizing agents, anti-oxidants and your age are examples from this category. Biologist's today believe telomeres plays a huge role in causing all of this, but this hypothesis suggests it has more to do with correlation. The body judges its own health and adjusts telomeres accordingly. That is, forgetting telomeres is not a whoopsie daisies as it is thought of today, it's an adjustment to seeing the writing on the wall with your health.

And that pretty much covers it, that's how you can figure out telomeres with one idea.

Energy

[thebrain13 (OP)]

This concept was theorized from the Universal Evolution theory if you'd like to read it.

[Bored chemist]

helices are an electromagnetic shape

Did you think that phrase meant anything?

For this reason, how dangerous you perceive your environment will actually change how your telomeres will form.

Plenty of things have no perception, but have telomeres- notably plants.
So we know your idea is wrong.
You can stop now.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

helices are an electromagnetic shape

Did you think that phrase meant anything?

For this reason, how dangerous you perceive your environment will actually change how your telomeres will form.

Plenty of things have no perception, but have telomeres- notably plants.
So we know your idea is wrong.
You can stop now.

Schadenfreude

I mean, these "problems" are super simple child's play for me, but I don't respond to people who ask questions like children. You can re-ask like a big boy if you'd like, or somebody else can for you if you are too scared to do it yourself.

If you are wondering what a helix looks like, type in circularly polarized electromagnetic wave on a google image search and tell me what shape you see.

If you just want to just sling mud. It's Schadenfreude from here on out, whether I can answer the question or not.

[Bored chemist]

Schadenfreude

I'm delighted to see that you have learned to spell that word.
Now you just need to learn what it means.
Nobody here is expressing joy at the misfortune of another.
Also, you need to address the fact that your idea is bollocks.

[Colin2B]

This might be of interest in the discussions https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/486586

[Bored chemist]

TLDR version
"The available evidence suggests that there is no effect of diet on telomere length, but the strong heterogeneity in the type and duration of dietary interventions does not allow any final statement on the absence of an effect of diet on telomere length."

[thebrain13 (OP)]

TLDR version
"The available evidence suggests that there is no effect of diet on telomere length, but the strong heterogeneity in the type and duration of dietary interventions does not allow any final statement on the absence of an effect of diet on telomere length."

I'd like to credit you bored chemist for your first non insulting post that actually seems like you are actually trying to follow the logic of my theory. Maybe it's confirmer bias, but it seems that this is the way people argue when they think they have facts to back their claims......Food for thought.

But anyways, I've read many many times that there is a well founded link between caloric intake and telomere length. Google it yourself without leading, and you can confirm that very easily. Just do it for real. It's very easy to do, it's all over the place and you don't even have to tell me about it afterwards.

Of course, if we are too in a hurry to do it, we can deduce that the overall message being portrayed that caloric intake does not correlate inversely with telomere must be wrong by considering this idea.

Caloric restriction correlates with longer lifespan. Longer telomeres correlate with longer lifespan, therefore caloric restriction correlates with longer telomeres. This is not a trick sentence.

So why does this meta-study seem to say its inconclusive when all the rest say it's conclusive? That's a good question, I think U.E. can offer some hints about this.

Also the sentence before Bored's  TLDR "Only one study included patients under 65."

I will concede however. If you use meta studies containing only or mostly old people it is perhaps inconclusive.

One last thing to point out that many people don't realize especially if you are not old.

When you say the statement, people live longer with less caloric intake. This is only true through MOST of your life. The statement is actually age dependent.  There is actually an inflection point in this concept right around 65 IIRC (just like in this study). What this means is that if you are twenty and you eat an extra cheesecake per day, that lowers your lifespan, but if you are 80 and you eat an extra cheesecake per day it will INCREASE your lifespan. You may not of realized this but when you are in your very old age eating a cheesecake can actually be healthier than going on a diet is. 

We could explain this concept with the Genetic theory of U.E. but I haven't posted it on this thread yet and tbh I'd rather not as it is not easy to get somebody to understand the basics. I'll do it if someone is actually genuinely curious though.

But lets not get this twisted, it is definitely not accurate to suggest that there is no correlation between caloric intake and telomeres. There definitely is.

[Bored chemist]

I'd like to credit you bored chemist for your first non insulting post that actually seems like you are actually trying to follow the logic of my theory.

Pointing out that you are wrong is not insulting you.
It would help if you learned the difference.

Maybe it's confirmer bias, but it seems that this is the way people argue when they think they have facts to back their claims

Which of my claims do you think is not backed by facts?

You may not of realized this but when you are in your very old age eating a cheesecake can actually be healthier than going on a diet is.

I'm well aware of the importance of getting my dad to eat plenty.
I'm also aware of the difference between "of" and "have".

But lets not get this twisted, it is definitely not accurate to suggest that there is no correlation between caloric intake and telomeres. There definitely is.

Yes there is.
Children are small, so they have more surface area per unit mass and a high metabolism.
They are also growing.
This means that they have a high calorie intake (on a Cal/ Kg bodyweight basis).

And telomere length varies with age.
So there is a correlation between telomere length and age.

And your argument is much the same as the hypothesis that children keep their brains in their feet.
If that hypothesis is true then there will be a correlation between foot size and brain function.
So, for example, we can get a large group of children,and set them an arithmetic test (and measure their feet).

If we did that there would be a strong positive correlation between shoe size and mental arithmetic ability.

But there's a massive effect of a confounding variable- age- older kids have bigger feet and have had more time to learn maths.

What you are failing to take account of is that the paper actually says you are wrong.
While your point about age of those involve is valid, it does not mean that the conclusion of the paper is wrong.

Essentially, you might possibly be right-for-the-wrong-reasons, but there's no evidence supporting that idea.
All the actual evidence says that you are wrong.