Live Longer With Fewer Calories?

HughMcB · #1 by **HughMcB** » Nov 01, 2011 5:16 pm

Live Longer With Fewer Calories? Key Enzyme Involved in Aging Process Found

ScienceDaily (Oct. 31, 2011) — By consuming fewer calories, aging can be slowed down and the development of age-related diseases such as cancer and type 2 diabetes can be delayed. The earlier calorie intake is reduced, the greater the effect. Researchers at the University of Gothenburg have now identified one of the enzymes that hold the key to the aging process.

"We are able to show that caloric restriction slows down aging by preventing an enzyme, peroxiredoxin, from being inactivated. This enzyme is also extremely important in counteracting damage to our genetic material," says Mikael Molin of the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology.

By gradually reducing the intake of sugar and proteins, without reducing vitamins and minerals, researchers have previously shown that monkeys can live several years longer than expected. The method has also been tested on everything from fishes and rats to fungi, flies and yeasts with favourable results. Caloric restriction also has favourable effects on our health and delays the development of age-related diseases. Despite this, researchers in the field have found it difficult to explain exactly how caloric restriction produces these favourable effects.

Using yeast cells as a model, the research team at the University of Gothenburg has successfully identified one of the enzymes required. They are able to show that active peroxiredoxin 1, Prx1, an enzyme that breaks down harmful hydrogen peroxide in the cells, is required for caloric restriction to work effectively.

...continues...

This isn't the first time I've heard of this calorie restriction stuff. I remember someone posting a video of it here before. It seems to have very interesting results thusfar but I'm still rather skeptical.

cavarka9 · #2 by **cavarka9** » Nov 01, 2011 6:16 pm

I thought that it has been known for long(dont know the cause).

In any case one could also make a physical reason for this, which is to provide only enough energy and vitamins,proteins and minerals to help an organism survive and function optimally and no more. There by ensuring the accumulation of very low entropy.
In other words, eat less and there will be very less wear and tear.

Regina · #3 by **Regina** » Nov 01, 2011 7:10 pm

Just to put things into perspective:
The studies cited here claim that a few kilos more than previously thought ideal increase your expectation of life.
http://www.letitshine.de/ratgeber/gesun ... rtung.html

Whereas the ones cited here claim the exact opposite:
http://www.dr-mueck.de/Wissenschaftsinf ... ewicht.htm

Sorry for the German links, but they refer to Canadian and American studies respectively.

cavarka9 · #4 by **cavarka9** » Nov 01, 2011 7:13 pm

Regina wrote:Just to put things into perspective:
The studies cited here claim that a few kilos more than previously thought ideal increase your expectation of life.
http://www.letitshine.de/ratgeber/gesun ... rtung.html

Whereas the ones cited here claim the exact opposite:
http://www.dr-mueck.de/Wissenschaftsinf ... ewicht.htm

Sorry for the German links, but they refer to Canadian and American studies respectively.

by how much each does each of them increase?.

Regina · #5 by **Regina** » Nov 01, 2011 7:21 pm

Ok, 11,000 participants, checked on over a period of 12 years. Those with a BMI between 25 and 29,9 had a 17% lower risk of dying, whereas those with a BMI below 18.5 had a 73% (!!) higher risk of dying in comparison with those of a BMI considered "normal". That's how it's phrased in the article. To sum it up: according to that study, a low BMI is positively dangerous. That's the Canadian one, btw.

HughMcB · #6 by **HughMcB** » Nov 01, 2011 7:31 pm

So I need to be fatter but intake less calories.... riiiiiight. :grin:

This is why I posted the article, I had a feeling this research was very inconclusive. Thanks Regina. :cheers:

Regina · #7 by **Regina** » Nov 01, 2011 7:36 pm

HughMcB wrote:So I need to be fatter but intake less calories.... riiiiiight.

This is why I posted the article, I had a feeling this research was very inconclusive. Thanks Regina.

You're welcome.
As far as I know, the BMI itself is not very helpful in the first place. No one doubts that obesity is dangerous, but the other studies claim that even a few kilos too many are a severe risk.

chairman bill · #8 by **chairman bill** » Nov 01, 2011 7:52 pm

Clearly we've been wrong to feed starving Africans. Bloody Bob Geldof. They'd have lived for centuries if it wasn't for his meddling! Or have I missed something?

cavarka9 · #9 by **cavarka9** » Nov 01, 2011 8:27 pm

Regina wrote:Ok, 11,000 participants, checked on over a period of 12 years. Those with a BMI between 25 and 29,9 had a 17% lower risk of dying, whereas those with a BMI below 18.5 had a 73% (!!) higher risk of dying in comparison with those of a BMI considered "normal". That's how it's phrased in the article. To sum it up: according to that study, a low BMI is positively dangerous. That's the Canadian one, btw.

we are considering many things at the same time.Physically it makes sense to have less energy as that shall mean less entropy while at the same time one also needs to provide the nutrients necessary for proper functioning of the body. But this is a theoretical bull shit, meant for lab animals who do not have to run or do any other work, but just survive, to see how long they stretch. In real world on the other hand those with less energy have to suffer daily stress. Those lab animals wouldnt do too well when chased in real world if they have less energy.

The article from hugh(I dont know abt that).

So we have to distinguish between lab rats and humans. among humans, we have to consider a lot of things further, how many of those of BMI who are thin come from poorer social backgrounds and how many from rich come from upper back ground. Also, death by what exactly?. How do they die?

When considering whether it works for all creatures or not, we need to fatten animals and keep animals starved and have a controlled mean group in between and see which group of animals in lab survives more. That should in m opinion go the the animals which are given only enough to go by.

They also need to artificially increase Peroxiredoxins among that particular species by required amount to check whether that alone is good enough or not(without starving).

cavarka9 · **#10** by **cavarka9** » Nov 01, 2011 8:40 pm

we also need to consider the amount of physical labor each person puts daily.

Sovereign · **#11** by **Sovereign** » Nov 01, 2011 10:43 pm

The thing I hate about these studies is that they don't take into account other lifestyle influences. Were they physically active and how so? What did they eat? People who floss their teeth live longer than people who don't so does that mean flossing your teeth makes you live longer or is it indicative of a certain lifestyle conducive to longer health?

Doubtdispelled · **#12** by **Doubtdispelled** » Nov 01, 2011 10:48 pm

Sovereign wrote:People who floss their teeth live longer than people who don't

cavarka9 · **#13** by **cavarka9** » Nov 08, 2011 4:19 pm