Eat Less - Live Longer

Bates writes "In the New York Times (free reg required) there is an article telling about a gene in fruitflies that when disabled doubles the lifespan of the fruitfly. The gene has been affectionately nicknamed "I'm Not Dead Yet." The gene actually manipulates your metabolism by makeing it so the LESS of your food is converted into calories. The article speculates about the possibility of a pill for humans that will partialy disable the same gene in humans. Maybe someone will beat Methuselah sometime in the future."

Comments

The obvious solution...

[Shoeboy]

Would be to ensure that the body converts none of its food intake to calories. That way, you'd live even longer.
And don't give me any crap about starving to death. If I learned one thing from The Matrix it's that the human body gives off more energy than it takes in.
--Shoeboy

If it was that simple...

[Muggins the Mad]

If it was as simple as turning a single gene on
or off, I'm sure evolution would already have done
it for us...

Presumably there's some penalty (other than living many years past senility :) )

This doesn't solve the underlying problems

[Dan Hayes]

Whilst this is a great advance for both people with weight problems and in general for extending lifespans it doesn't really solve the underlying social problems that make us as Americans quite so unhealthy. After all, all this pill does is simulate something we can do quite well on our own with a bit of willpower - eat less.

Why do most Americans feel that unless they eat enough to feed a dozen starving African refugees they've somehow been cheated of what is their right? There's no real need for a steak the size of a toilet seat, and yet restaurants make this their proud boast. Quite frankly its disgusting that people are this selfish and greedy, but then again, it's the American Dream to consume as much as possible.

Maybe if we as a nation were less greedy we wouldn't need this pill. Simply having the willpower to live a healthy lifestyle would do wonders for the average lifespan in the US.

Re:This doesn't solve the underlying problems

[Cannonball]

I hate this argument...it really pisses me off. It's almost like saying "Exercise some willpower and STOP BEING GAY" or similar. Some of us have extraordinary appetites as part of our genetic code. For me, I built it up while I was swimming competitively in high school and college. When I finally left the sport (thanks to tendonitis in both shoulders so bad I couldn't swim anymore) I was left with a huge appetite and no way of managing the caloric intake on a daily basis. So I gained wait. It's not like I was eating a ton, but my calories weren't being used. Now, I work for a living. I get into the office at 7:30 and don't get home til 6:30pm. I don't have time for a workout, but still I eat. Should I feel bad for eating better than African refugees? Hell no. Why should I? I work very hard to pay my rent and have my big steak on Saturday.

Whimsical gene names.

[Guppy]

The gene has been affectionately nicknamed "I'm Not Dead Yet."

Geneticists, especially Drosophila ones, have a long history of giving genes interesting names.

Several years ago, the Annals of Improbable Research had a story writing contest where the objective was to write a short story using only the names of genes, for instance, like the one below:

In the LOT behind CLUB ETHER-A-GOGO, AMY PRUNE's BREATHLESS TORSO was SPLAYED in the GRAVEL. Her CROOKED-NECK was BENT over the STONEWALL in an ABRUPT TWIST. Her REFRINGENT THRONG was DISHEVELED and her WHITE-MOTTLED MINI UPTURNED . But no COPPER would ARREST the DERANGED KILLER-OF-PRUNE. No CELL would HOLD-UP that HEARTLESS SNAKE. For a SHOTGUN had REDUCED OSKAR's BIG-BRAIN into STARDUST and FAINT-LITTLE-BALLS.

Every single one of the capitalized words happens to be a real name of a Drosophila gene.

Not that easy for all

[airship]

I get upset when I read a comment by some person without a weight problem that "all you have to do is eat less" to lose weight. While this is certainly _true_ in an absolute sense, there are extreme genetic differences in people, and for some people these differences make it much, much more difficult to do. Appetite is regulated in the brain, and brain chemistry is quite different from person to person. Just as some people are predisposed to other addictions, many of us are brain-chemistry-dictated food addicts. Likewise, there are wide variations in metabolism. I think you might be surprised if you monitored the food intake of fat people - while you'd certainly find a fair share of overeaters, you'd also find a great many with low metabolic rates who consume no more - and even less - than 'normal' people. Storing up the excess calories as fat is an adaptation that was a great advantage in the Ice Age, but it's a real life-threatener in these affleuent times. BTW, you'd have to do more than double your lifespan to exceed Methuselah - he lived to be over 800 years old!

Re:American overconsumption of resources

[Ereth]

Because most of the world's hunger problems are caused by things like this - inefficient use of resources and vast overconsumption by the First World, especially America.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. There's more than enough food to feed every man, woman and child in the world full healthy meals, every single day. And it's not that it's being eaten by us Americans that prevents poor starving people from having any. Don't forget, we have our poor, starving people too (we just like to pretend we don't).

It's not a zero-sum game, in that we can produce far more food than we can eat. If we were short on food then yes, it's conceivable that my eating that big steak might mean somebody else couldn't eat, and then I'd agree with you that perhaps I should feel guilty about it. But whether I eat that big, juicy, delicious steak or not, doesn't affect those poor, starving people in the world in the least. The problems are much more complex than that. If they weren't, we could solve the problem by shipping all the unused food (day old bread, out of date food, etc) to the poor.

The first, of course, is simple capitalism. The poor, starving people of the world don't have the funds to pay for food. This is one that both individuals and countries can resolve, if they find it in their hearts to want to.

The second is distribution. Getting the food to those poor, starving people is actually more complex yet. It's not as easy as writing a check, or even sending a ship full of food to their closest city. Remember the scandal in the 80's over all the food sent to Ethiopia and how little of it actually reached the people who needed it most?

And, as you get farther from First World civilization, the problems increase. Sure, you can set up a food bank and a shelter in Chicago and advertise and people will probably hear about it and come. But how do you get the word out to people who don't live in large communities or cities or towns? How does the small family out in the middle of nowhere, desperately trying to eke out a meager existence, learn that they could have free food if they only knew to travel 100 miles to the closest town? You or I eating less doesn't impact that problem in the slightest.

As a college wrestler...

[Gregoyle]

As a college wrestler who has had to lose as much as 10 lbs in a week, I must take issue with some of what you say.

This article deals with a special kind of "weight loss" that is brought about by calorie deprivation. Many different studies have found that when the human body (and also the rat and now the fruit fly) is routinely denied the amount of calories it is supposed to need, for whatever reason it lives much longer. We are talking say 75% of needed calories, *every day*. I guarantee that anyone who does this *will lose weight*. If my body burns at 3500 calories a day at my current metabolism, and I only eat 2600 a day, it is not able to adjust the metabolism down enough to deal with the difference (normally the metabolism can change as much as 15% or so). My body will then look to process muscle and fat for its energy needs. On an active person (also depending on other nutrition), fat is the first to go.

The new idea that the calorie deprivation theory introduces is that after all the fat and all the excess muscle is consumed (no I am not saying it is healthy to lose this muscle), we don't just die. If we have proper nutrition otherwise (which means enough protein, vitamins, minerals, and fats) our body seems to adapt further to allow for the low caloric intake. How the body does this is still murky in scientific fields, but it has been shown true in countless cases. One side effect of this also seems to be increased longevity. In lab rats lifespan has been incresed by more than 150%; obviously, YMMV ;-).

Also, yes, the brain does regulate the appetite, and many people can't control their appetites. It is simply a matter of discipline. I know this, I have done it. You can tell your body to starve itself, and after it gets used to it you don't even have to try hard. Realize, too, that I am not saying this is necessarily a healthy thing to do. You must consult with a nutritionist to develop a diet that is healthy for you, and I do admit that I had a nutritionist's advice for wrestling. My priorities were also different; I was simply looking for a way to lose massive amounts of weight quickly without getting sick or adversely affecting performance. Most people are looking to enrich their lives.