The Less You Eat, the Longer You Live

[Hudson Boy]

New Clue To Why Eating Fewer Calories Can Help You Live Longer

21 Sep 2007

US scientists appear to have discovered a cellular mechanism that explains why eating fewer calories can help humans and other mammals live longer.

The study is published in the 21st September issue of the journal Cell and is the work of researchers at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, National Institute on Aging, Institutes of Health, Baltimore, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

For the best part of the last 100 years scientists have known that restricting calories prolongs life. This is true for all living creatures, from yeasts to primates, including humans. Lifespan can be prolonged by as much as one third through restricting calorie consumption.

But the underpinning biological mechanisms have to date eluded us.

Not any more, it would seem, for the researchers in this latest study have discovered two mammalian genes called SIRT3 and SIRT4 that are directly involved in prolonging cell life.

They showed that when cells are put under stress, such as when calories are restricted, the two genes go into action and protect cells from the diseases of aging.

Dr David Sinclair, senior author of the study, and associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School, said:

"We've reason to believe now that these two genes may be potential drug targets for diseases associated with aging."

Mitochondria are the "battery packs" inside cells, thay provide energy for the various functions that cells perform. Previous research has suggested they play a role in keeping cells healthy and alive, which in turn prolongs the life of the organism.

When the mitochondria "run down", the cell begins to deteriorate and is more vulnerable to DNA stress, and eventually apoptosis, or cell death, is triggered.

The mechanism that triggers cell death is depletion in NAD+, an important enzyme involved in cell signalling that is found inside mitochondria, and also in the cell's nucleus and cytoplasm (the thick liquid that fills the cell).

By observing laboratory rodents that had fasted for 48 hours, Sinclair and colleagues showed that when calories are restricted, a protein called Nampt is activated, which in turn catalyzes the production of mitochondrial NAD+ which in turn revs up the pathway that produces enzymes coded by SIRT3 and SIRT4 genes.

These enzymes restore mitonchondrial health and help to restore the delivery of energy to the cell, thereby delaying apoptosis and slowing the aging process.

Apparently the mechanism is similar to that produced by exercise.

Sinclair said they were not sure exactly what mechanism is activated when levels of NAD+ and SIRT3 and SIRT4 go up, but they could see that:

"Normal cell-suicide programs are noticeably attenuated."

"This is the first time ever that SIRT3 and SIRT4 have been linked to cell survival," he added.

Another surprising discovery was that even when the NAD+ in the cytoplasm and nucleus of cells was depleted, the mitochondrial NAD+ levels stayed viable enough to keep cells alive.

"Mitochondria are the guardians of cell survival," said Sinclair.

Speculating on their discovery, he said that:

"If we can keep boosting levels of NAD in the mitochondria, which in turn stimulates buckets more of SIRT3 and SIRT4, then for a period of time the cell really needs nothing else."

The researchers have named this phenomenon the Mitochondrial Oasis Hypothesis.

They said in theory one might envisage a treatment where a small molecule was used to increase levels of mitochondrial NAD+, SIRT3 and SIRT4 directly, to treat many age related diseases.

"Nutrient-Sensitive Mitochondrial NAD+ Levels Dictate Cell Survival."
Hongying Yang, Tianle Yang, Joseph A Baur, Evelyn Perez, Takashi Matsui, Juan J Carmona, Dudley W Lamming, Nadja C Souza-Pinto, Vilhelm A Bohr, Anthony Rosenzweig, Rafael de Cabo, Anthony A Sauve, and David A Sinclair.
Cell, Vol 130, 1095-1107, 21 September 2007.



Written by: Catharine Paddock
Copyright: Medical News Today

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83268.php

[Jimmy Cantiello]

From what I've read that is true. But...........why would anyone want to live a longer life that includes depriving yourself of pleasure? I admit I didn't bother to read the article you posted. I was too busy finishing up my pint of Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice cream.

[Hudson Boy]

I used to eat Ben & Jerry's, and other things like that. I can't now, because I'm on a special diet which means no gluten (in cereal grains) or casein (in dairy). I never feel deprived or miss anything that I used to eat, because I've regained my health to a large extent.

For most people, though, I think that moderation is the key when it comes to less-than-healthy things that we like. Or, sticking to healthier alternatives that taste good. There's lots of delicious things that are good for you.

[GoodSpeak]

The doctor's prescription for a long life:

No fat
No salt
No booze
No sugar
No high acidic food stuffs
No caffeine
No stress
No MSGs
No Bosses stabbing you in the back
No divorce
No smoking
No sun tanning
No knee bends
No HMOs
No time payments
No whining about exorbitant medical costs
No food additives
No tuna
No red meat
No fast food
No aging without permission
No allergy meds
No breathing polluted air
No having fun
No Blue Cross
No second opinions
No life

[GoodSpeak]

I say: Fuck the bastards.

[Gary Sisco]

Maybe if I stop eating I'll live forever.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Maybe if I stop eating I'll live forever.

Gary, I can guarantee if you stop eating you will definitely live until you die.

[GoodSpeak]

You know....I've heard that.

[clinthopson]

It's not how long you live, but how you live.

[GoodSpeak]

Exactly.


The healthiest corpse in the graveyard is not the winner.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

It's not how long you live, but how you live.

I'm with you, there, Clint.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Exactly.


The healthiest corpse in the graveyard is not the winner.

Might be better to lose that race.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

It's not how long you live, but how you live.

Yep, in this case it's not the destination that's important. It's the journey.

[GoodSpeak]

All work and no play makes Jack, uh....nevermind.

[Gary Sisco]

I did enough playing my first fifty years to keep me in good stead for x more to come.

[Gary Sisco]

Who was it? Sinatra? Said he felt sorry for sober people because when they wake up in the morning that's the best their going to feel all day.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Who was it? Sinatra? Said he felt sorry for sober people because when they wake up in the morning that's the best their going to feel all day.

People that are addicted to alcohol, drugs (including nicotine) or foods usually try to rationalize their behavior. Fact is, they're hooked and too weak to beat it.

[Gary Sisco]

Thanks for the advice, but since every known culture going back into prehistory had some form of intoxicant and drug use, I consider it an aspect of behavior on a species level. Clearly, it's a natural human behavior.

Could be that sobriety is for those who can't handle drugs and alcohol. ;-)

Outside an individual level, I consider the party line these days to be just another example of American puritanism (always hypocrisy, puritanism). My take on people's habits are that they are only problems if they cause problems in one's life. If they don't, they're not a problem. If they do, they are.

I've kicked hard drugs, nicotine, and alcohol in my past. Alcohol today I can take or leave as I wish. Nicotine I dropped 15 years ago this past summer. Drugs a long time ago. I smoke the herb daily, have been since '68, and will gladly continue til they scatter my ashes.

[Hudson Boy]

I do not consider MJ or any of the psychedelic drugs to be addictive substances.

I stopped cigarettes myself around 1991, but never had much use for alcohol except for an occasional beer. I have a screwdriver with one lonely shot of vodka in OJ, just to increase my HDL cholesterol.

Many people have casein or gluten sensitivities, or outright intolerance (myself included). Components of these proteins go to the brain's opioid receptors. There are actual "withdrawal" symptoms that are very similar to what narcotic addicts experience when they miss their dosage. This is well documented. When somebody sits down and eats a pint of ice cream, or half a loaf of wheat or rye bread, it isn't just for the "taste". They get pleasurable effects from it, and often will become agitated, or worse, if they stop consuming. This isn't the whole story, though; Many other diseases and conditions are now being attributed to gluten and casein in the diet.

[bobetterblues]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

I do not consider MJ or any of the psychedelic drugs to be addictive substances.

I stopped cigarettes myself around 1991, but never had much use for alcohol except for an occasional beer. I have a screwdriver with one lonely shot of vodka in OJ, just to increase my HDL cholesterol.

Many people have casein or gluten sensitivities, or outright intolerance (myself included). Components of these proteins go to the brain's opioid receptors. There are actual "withdrawal" symptoms that are very similar to what narcotic addicts experience when they miss their dosage. This is well documented. When somebody sits down and eats a pint of ice cream, or half a loaf of wheat or rye bread, it isn't just for the "taste". They get pleasurable effects from it, and often will become agitated, or worse, if they stop consuming. This isn't the whole story, though; Many other diseases and conditions are now being attributed to gluten and casein in the diet.

How do you know for certain that you're addicted to gluten. Is there a test?

[Jesse]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Could be that sobriety is for those who can't handle drugs and alcohol. ;-)

As of September 27th, I will be 18 years sans alcohol/weed/coke/etc, garden variety lush that I was.

To the astonishment of some who have in that time engaged me in "arguments" about the merits of their drugs of choice, I have zero opinion or interest in the drug use of others. Knock yourselves out, I certainly did.

That hasn't precluded me from being available to offer assistance/support to a few along the way who have approached me with a concern about their chemical usage.

The Middle Way, baby!

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by bobetterblues

How do you know for certain that you're addicted to gluten. Is there a test?

There are a number of tests for Celiac Disease and/or gluten sensitivity. These include upper endoscopy, blood tests, and genetic testing. I've had them all, and all were positive. Some people test negative for some, or all, of the tests, but have various improvements after going gluten free.

Casein and gluten are similar, and many people with gluten intolerance (celiac), should avoid casein as well. I tested positive for the casein intolerance.


Dangerous Grains, by Braly and Hoggin, has a lot of fascinating, and sometimes frightening, information about the subject. There is a questionnaire, starting on page 48 of the following book preview, to help one determine the possibility of gluten sensitivity or intolerace: http://books.google.com/books?id=PSW...=title#PPR7,M1

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

I do not consider MJ or any of the psychedelic drugs to be addictive substances.

Yeah, but pot makes you eat more, and that might mean you'll die earlier.

I've certainly known people with pot dependencies. It may not be a physical addiction, but what's the difference if someone can't do without it? Still, it's probably a minimal problem compared to alcohol.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Yeah, but pot makes you eat more, and that might mean you'll die earlier.

I've certainly known people with pot dependencies. It may not be a physical addiction, but what's the difference if someone can't do without it? Still, it's probably a minimal problem compared to alcohol.

It often stimuates hunger, the sex drive, some types promote sleep, and has other benefits, some medical, as well. It varies with type, and the individual who uses it. There is not a single verified death from MJ in medical history.

The main problem with it is that it's illegal. It's semi-legal in Holland, and use isn't nearly as high as some countries where it is outlawed completely. Go figure.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

People that are addicted to alcohol, drugs (including nicotine) or foods usually try to rationalize their behavior. Fact is, they're hooked and too weak to beat it.

I see.

So there is hooked and then there is sober.




Interesting.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I see.

So there is hooked and then there is sober.


Interesting.

My response was mainly about Sinatra, and people like him, who certainly drank enough to be considered hooked, to one degree or another, even if they could hold it and appear "sober".

Frank meant it as a joke, but it's probably not so far from reality to imagine him not being in the best of moods, at the very least, before a drink or three.

[GoodSpeak]

Hm.


I don't know that to be true any more than an arbitrarily set number of drinks equals being hooked.



I liken it to these Nutri-whosiwhatsits diet drinks: Everybody gets the same number of cans no matter your size, height, weight or metabolism rate. A one size fits all philosphy of dieting is no more legit than saying anybody who comsumes more alcohol than I do has to be hooked.


I think we need to dig for deeper meaning than that.

[Gary Sisco]

Jesse -- I'm the same way. Like I said, to me, these things are problems if they cause you problems. If they don't, they're not problems. Everyone is different.

Pete -- I don't understand the difference between a dependency and an addiction. I've been smoking almost daily for close to 40 years now -- next year will be 40 years -- but I've only known one guy my whole life who was really addicted to marijuana. He'd skip paying for anything -- rent, heat, electricity, food, phone bill, whatever -- if it meant not having a bag of weed, and he did, often. He was very much a weed addict. The only one I've ever known, though, who was really strung out. I don't like it if I run out of weed because I love to smoke it and I don't get its effects any other way (not the obvious effects -- I'm talking the meditational, reflective effect that's my primary way to really relax, not to mention the music enhancement part). But I wouldn't choose the herb over food, or over having a place to live that's warm in winter, and so forth. He will and has, many times.

If the situation calls for it, though, I can leave the herb behind with no ill effects. When I was in Nicaragua and El Salvador, I didn't smoke. Did in Costa Rica a couple of times. I didn't suffer any ill effects over it. I just didn't smoke any. The Sandinistas really frowned on it, for one thing, and it was a good idea in those places in those years to have your wits about you, regardless. You'd have to be pretty damned dumb not to.

But I never felt any withdrawal or any of that from the herb, during the times when I didn't or couldn't smoke for whatever reasons.

Alcohol, I have a love-hate relationship with that drug. But I can take it or leave it. I drink when I choose to and most of the time in my advancing years I don't choose to, if only because I have to suffer for it enough so that the fun isn't balanced by the rest. I went for just shy of ten years, once, without a drink of anything at all, but when they started making good beer in the US, I had to sample some of it. (The "had to" part is a joke -- I wanted to, obviously.) These days, I'm kind of bored with that business, though, and I don't drink liquor in the same way. If I'm doing that, I'll have a drink after work and leave it that.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

For most people, though, I think that moderation is the key when it comes to less-than-healthy things that we like. Or, sticking to healthier alternatives that taste good. There's lots of delicious things that are good for you.

That's definitely true, imho. We just need to be open to trying new things.

As for the excessive sugar that so many Americans consider essential, try a few days without any added sugar at all, including bread and fruit, and you'll be surprised how sweet a piece of fresh fruit tastes.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by hornplayer

That's definitely true, imho. We just need to be open to trying new things.

As for the excessive sugar that so many Americans consider essential, try a few days without any added sugar at all, including bread and fruit, and you'll be surprised how sweet a piece of fresh fruit tastes.

That's a fact, too.


I have not been able to consume milk products for some 20 years [Lactose intolerant] but when I do take the risk, ice cream tastes so overly sweet to me now.