Slashdot Mirror


Keeping Cool May Be the Key To Longevity

merryprankster writes "New Scientist reports that Scripps Research Institute scientists have found that lowering the body temperature of mice by just 0.5C extends their lifespan by around 15%. Until now the only proven way of increasing longevity has been calorie restriction — but as this also causes a lowering of body temperature the researchers speculate that this cooling may be the underlying mechanism retarding aging. In this study mice with a defect in their lateral hypothalamus, which has the side effect of cooling body temperature, not only lived longer but also ate normal amounts."

224 comments

  1. Sweet! by Aadain2001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alaska, here I come!

    --
    Space for rent, inquire within
    1. Re:Sweet! by cdrdude · · Score: 1

      Me, I'm just taking off my sweatshirt now. No joke, as soon as I read it, I took it off (I didn't read TFA of course, this is still slashdot).

      --
      This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
    2. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before we all go turning the thermostat down, how does the body regulate temperature in reaction to surroundings? I would think that your core temperature might increase with a cooler environment. So would you actually want to move towards the Equator?

    3. Re:Sweet! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Alaska, here I come!

      That seems to be working for Ted 'Internet Tubes' Stevens.
      That guy is seriously old.

    4. Re:Sweet! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not like we know what part of the body it applies to. Maybe it's brain temperature. Or maybe it's pituitary gland temperature.

      Personally I run hot no matter what but the only time I'm not uncomfortable is when I'm in a cool environment. Since I'm hot all the time, I guess I'm going to die young :( On the plus side it's a good excuse to drive like a maniac. "Sorry honey, I know you hate hearing about how fast I drive on the way to and from work, but since I generate so much heat I'm dying young anyhow."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Sweet! by boskone · · Score: 1

      do you feel hot or is your temperature actually high? If your body is actually cooler, perhaps the room "feels" more hot to you since it's a larger differential.

    6. Re:Sweet! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nah, I feel hot to everyone else. I also tend to sweat profusely even when I'm doing non-strenuous physical activity. It doesn't take much and I'm dripping. (I know this is an image you all needed...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Sweet! by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain, you are not alone! Typing this message with my sweaty palm right now... and when I get nervous, sweat breaks out.

      If you feel hot to everyone else, that means you are emitting energy out of your body.. and therefore your body temp could be cooler. On the other hand, if you feel cool to other people, that means your pores are shut and your body is not emitting energy but perhaps taking on more energy.

      When my wife complains she is feeling hot, her skin usually feels cool to me, and vice versa...

    8. Re:Sweet! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not me. When I feel hot to other people, I feel hot to me, too. Unfortunately.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Sweet! by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1
      how does the body regulate temperature in reaction to surroundings?


      Don't know about yours, but my body just pees.
  2. Thermostat by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So when my dad kept yelling at me not to touch the thermostat, to keep it at 60 degrees, he was really trying to help me live longer?

    Thanks Dad!

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    1. Re:Thermostat by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      He was probably trying to save his own ass, given that he's older. How'd that work out?

    2. Re:Thermostat by Ana10g · · Score: 1

      Wait, so does this mean that when Grandma keeps the thermostat at 150F at the nursing home, she's actually trying to kill herself? WHY GRANDMA, WHY?

      --
      just an analog boy living in a digital age.
    3. Re:Thermostat by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, she only turns it up when you're around. She can't afford to keep giving you holiday presents on her fixed income, and decided the best solution was to remove you from the picture. For your own safety, I suggest you bribe the nursing staff to put her on heavy sedatives, and get her an electric blanket on her next birthday - that way she'll be too sleepy and comfortable to resume plotting your demise, and you will have effectively turned the tables on the murderous old bag. Old people try to do these things all the time, and its time we fought back. VIVA LA RESISTANCE!

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    4. Re:Thermostat by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      when I was a kid I knew that if I wanted to live longer I wouldn't turn up the thermostat, but that had more to do with my dad than any scientific study.

    5. Re:Thermostat by Gigaflynn · · Score: 1

      60 degrees!!! dear god boy!!! how didn't you cook!!! thats hotter than cairo!?!?!?

      --
      "Neo, follow the white rabbit"
      "Can i eat the white rabbit?"
      "No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
    6. Re:Thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He surely meant Fahrenheit. :)

    7. Re:Thermostat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also means that global warming is even worse news that we thought, even though it'll save on heating bills.

  3. Re:I hear that the key by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 1

    I should live a long and fruitful life then!

  4. Oh crap by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then with global warming, we'd be truly screwed, eh?

    1. Re:Oh crap by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Nah. This is just our plan (U.S.) to save Social Security.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Oh crap by vp0ng · · Score: 1
      Then with global warming, we'd be truly screwed, eh?
      We shouldn't have anything to worry about up in chilly Canada :D
      --
      (Futurama) Fry: "My folks were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the pope?"
  5. Re:I hear that the key by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

    Hey that explains why congressional pages live so long!

  6. What about infections? by thePig · · Score: 1

    It did extend the life by 12-20%, but what will happen in case there is an infection?
    Wouldnt this force us to have relatively poor immunity to diseases ?
    In the end, would this even out?

    --
    rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    1. Re:What about infections? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, that's what fevers were for.

    2. Re:What about infections? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Wouldnt this force us to have relatively poor immunity to diseases ?

      No.

      On the other hand it might go a long way toward explaining why there seem to be so many people with defective brains shuffling about.

      KFG

    3. Re:What about infections? by Daemonstar · · Score: 1

      Cold air doesn't cause infections, but it can facillitate the "catching" of an infection. The invading organism must be present in order for one to become infected.

      Cold air has to be warmed before it gets to the lungs, which is accomplished when blood vessels dialate in the nose to increase blood flow in the nose to warm the air. It (cold air) also causes the mucus to thicken, which inhibits removal of particles and organisms from the body.

      If "poor immunity" were true, then people who live in cold regions would be sick more then they are. There was a study done with scientists in Antartica (don't have any references, sorry). The scientists only got sick when they came in contact with an infected person. Who's to say they wouldn't have gotten sick, anyway? The point was that the cold wasn't making them "sick". Besides, if you aren't exposed to things, how are you supposed to build up an immunity? Innoculations are injections of dead invaders into your body so you can make antibodies.

      --
      I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
    4. Re:What about infections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the cold, it was the rhinovirus!

    5. Re:What about infections? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's true that cold doesn't cause infections, and a lot of research suggests that it doesn't even help "catching" infections. The idea that being out in the cold will cause you to get colds is pretty much bunk. If being cold manages to cause significant congestion or inflammation, the congestion or inflammation can become a good breading ground for bacteria. Now, I'm not a doctor, but this is what I've heard from various sources, including doctors.

      However, I've also read that the human immune system works better at higher temperatures. That means that, once you have an infection, your body will fight it off better if your body temperature is raised. This may be why we have fevers when we're sick.

    6. Re:What about infections? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We have fevers when we're sick because the organisms that cause that reaction in us are more fragile than we are, and they die at a lower temperature. A fever is your body's attempt to cook whatever's eating you. Or at least, that's my understanding.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:What about infections? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, there is some truth to that. Some infections may have difficulties with the increased temperatures. However, I believe there are also some immune responses that operate more efficiently at higher temperatures, and this is believed to be part of the reason for fevers.

      I'm really not pretending to be an expert, but how I've heard it described to me is that your "normal" body temperature is a compromise between various biological processes. You have some things going on in your body which would be better or more efficient if they were happening at higher temperatures, and some things would work better at lower temperatures. To account for this, evolution has found a sort of compromise at 98.6 degrees, which represents sub-optimal temperature for most things, but all of them work well enough. However, when our bodies decide that it's worth hindering brain function a little to fight off an infection, we get a fever.

    8. Re:What about infections? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      FWIW your core temperature is not 98.6 degrees. It's more like 100. 98.6 is orifice temperature. I do not, however, suggest stabbing yourself with a meat thermometer to gain confirmation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:What about infections? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      However, I've also read that the human immune system works better at higher temperatures. That means that, once you have an infection, your body will fight it off better if your body temperature is raised.
      Don't most chemical reactions occur more rapidly in a warm environment? Thus the existence of "warm-blooded" creatures in the first place. If you could tweak your homeostasis mechanisms and lower your body temp, you just live that much slower, and hence longer. But who wants to be sluggish all the time, like a lizard or insect in cold weather?
  7. Umm by Troed · · Score: 1
    "retarding aging"


    ... yeah, that's what ... I ... remember ... about that ... umm ... thing ... aswell.

  8. It all figures... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Global warming is bad for your health.

  9. HEAT IS BAD by sparkane · · Score: 1

    Apparently heat makes your CPU die early too. Down with heat!

    1. Re:HEAT IS BAD by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      Yes, CPUs and just about any electrical or mechanical equipment from incandescent light bulbs (dim them to 95% input voltage and they double their life) to car engines. I guess we're machines after all...

  10. Ice cream! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Excuse me, I'm off to 31 Flavors. My very life depends on it!

    1. Re:Ice cream! by norminator · · Score: 1
      Excuse me, I'm off to 31 Flavors. My very life depends on it!

      Actually, I remember seeing something on TV once (was it on Supersize Me?) that the founders of Baskin Robbins died young of heart disease... explain that one science!
    2. Re:Ice cream! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, it's worth mentioning that the inventor of the Atkins diet actually had a congenital heart defect but ended up dying because he slipped on some ice outside his house and hit his poor old head. (No signs of cardiac arrest, besides the fact that you can tell when someone's dead because their heart isn't beating.) No idea about the B-R people but eating a bunch of ice cream all the time is generally considered to be an unhealthy activity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Ice cream! by robpoe · · Score: 1

      it was on supersize me .. and something about they died early or at least had bypasses at an early age

      --
      = Grow a brain...
    4. Re:Ice cream! by Gospodin · · Score: 1
      No idea about the B-R people but eating a bunch of ice cream all the time is generally considered to be an unhealthy activity.

      What?!

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    5. Re:Ice cream! by Yahol · · Score: 1

      Sure, makes sense to me. Doesn't matter if it's cold, your body stores all those calories into fat, therefore making you fatter. This'll make your metabolism increase, making yourself "hotter" and die sooner :P (sure, clogged arteries and diabetes may also help)

  11. Re:I hear that the key by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Aye, Moby Dick fans: swallow ye the whale, ere that Soviet Russian devil swallow you.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  12. All hail! by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    The glorious Air Conditioner!

    --
    Deleted
  13. Live longer, but why bother? by minniger · · Score: 1

    Let's see... be cold all the time and eat just enough to keep your body going.

    Sounds like a ton of fun.

    I think I'll pass...

    1. Re:Live longer, but why bother? by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      reminds me of the guy from "blackhawk down" talking about how americans "all live long, dull and uninteresting lives."

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    2. Re:Live longer, but why bother? by SevenHands · · Score: 1

      Thinking about how much television we watch also reminds me of what that guy said. We seem preoccupied trying to live someone elses life, even if that other life is media manufactured.

    3. Re:Live longer, but why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works perfectly for those of use who don't mind "cold" temperatures and aren't fat slobs.

  14. Don't you remember Dannon yogurt? by the+Gray+Mouser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They ran commercials years ago showing people from the frigid north somewhere (Russia maybe)? eating Dannon yogurt and living to 100 years old.

    This is nothing new.

    1. Re:Don't you remember Dannon yogurt? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I think those people lived that long because of low stress not because they fed little or shivered in the cold.

    2. Re:Don't you remember Dannon yogurt? by sparkane · · Score: 1

      Of course it's new. Now we know it wasn't the yogurt.

    3. Re:Don't you remember Dannon yogurt? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I hear it turns out those folks were from a culture where age was venerated and they tended to lie about their age.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Don't you remember Dannon yogurt? by bishiraver · · Score: 1
      I hear it turns out those folks were from a culture where age was venerated and they tended to lie about their age.
      I hope that pun wasn't intended.
    5. Re:Don't you remember Dannon yogurt? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      You don't think I'd admit it if it wasn't, do you? B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  15. This explains everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason I am a fat lazy slob is because I have defective hypothalamus. It's not because I sit in front of a computer all day reading slashdot and not exercising, it's because I have abnormal brain composition.

  16. I rather by toetagger1 · · Score: 1

    Live 80 years or so compfortable and warm, than freezing for 90 years or so!
    This is a line from the computergame Aqua Nox.

    --
    who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    1. Re:I rather by kfg · · Score: 1

      Live 80 years or so compfortable and warm, than freezing for . . .

      50 years and then getting hit by a truck. Longevity studies have little to do with how long you'll live.

      KFG

    2. Re:I rather by ack154 · · Score: 1
      Live 80 years or so compfortable and warm, than freezing for 90 years or so!

      Do you think that explains why old people move to Florida? They're all trying to go where it's warm to hurry up and die?
  17. Sweet, sweet data center air conditioning by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    So when people complain that I'm weird for liking a data center cold enough in which to hang meat, I'll have the last laugh? Enjoy your warm, short life in those cozy, tropical getaways, suckers! I'll be here configuring a new web appliance in one of my racks, freezing my ass off and barely able to type with my cold, stiff hands. Hah! I win!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Sweet, sweet data center air conditioning by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      ...so you'll be miserable, but at least you'll be around longer to experience it?

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    2. Re:Sweet, sweet data center air conditioning by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      "...freezing my ass off and barely able to type with my cold, stiff hands."

      UNDEAD!

    3. Re:Sweet, sweet data center air conditioning by awggie · · Score: 1

      yeah, but all the EM radiation from living in a datacenter will certainly equal out any gains from the cold. lol

  18. Server Room by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

    Huh, I thought those guys in the server room looked a bit young for their age...

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  19. Hmmmm.... by meckardt · · Score: 1

    Let's see... .5C for 15% extension of life... so 150C decrease in temperature should yeild a 3000% extension....

    Freeze me!

    1. Re:Hmmmm.... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Should we thaw you out when the Wii is released?

    2. Re:Hmmmm.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Should we thaw you out when the Wii is released?

            Better yet, thaw him when Duke Nukem Forever can be played with a Wii...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Hmmmm.... by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 1

      Let's see... .5C for 15% extension of life... so 150C decrease in temperature should yeild a 3000% extension....

      Freeze me!


      Yeah, but would it be worth the 3000% of shrinkage ...

      --
      Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
  20. I knew my graphics card would kill me by dryriver · · Score: 1

    must... find... better... heatsink.... yeaaaarggghh... /RIP

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:I knew my graphics card would kill me by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      It's the other way around. You better keep the heat in you computer and processor instead of having it blown into your room!

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  21. I for one ... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our 15% longer living, micro-cryo-frozen mutantmice!

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  22. Minnesoooooootans? by Speare · · Score: 1

    This has been discussed many times with the folk-science of elders in colder climates around the world for centuries. If the landscape wasn't violent as well as cold, people up North just seem to live longer.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:Minnesoooooootans? by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1
      Interesting question. The article says:
      This may be because the body burns less fuel when it is at a lower temperature, which results in the production of fewer free-radical compounds that damage cells and promote the wear and tear of ageing.

      So is there an evolutionary advantage with having a lower body temperature in colder climates? Maybe there is. Since having a lower bodytemperature means having a lower basal metabolism you'd be able to make do with less food than someone with a high basal metabolism (well, before the generally affluent times we live in now). The ones that could make it through the long cold winters for one reason or another must have had an advantage.

      But question is, do cold climate populations have a lower body tempertaure in general. I know I do (being of hardy finnish farmer stock ;) but one sample says nothing.
    2. Re:Minnesoooooootans? by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      The opposite may be true. Lower external temperature means your body will have to generate more heat for homeostasis - to maintain your body's internal temperature. That means more chemical reactions need to occur which means it will burn more fuel.

    3. Re:Minnesoooooootans? by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      And a individual with a need for a higher internal temperature would therefor be at a double disadvantage in the local (lower-temperature) biotope: they would need more fuel and they would have more, possibly harmful, chemical reactions. So, if (and only if) the proposed free-radical theory holds then it would seem to me that in a warmer biotope nothing stops the free-radical reactions while in a colder biotope there could be a advantage with a lower body temperature.

      And one could add to that fact that in most colder climates compared to most warmer ones the food supply is more restricted. So the longevity wouldn't be so much a direct as an indirect cause. But without any proper background data it would be hard to say how much lower body temperature in human populations matter.

    4. Re:Minnesoooooootans? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Your sample is now three:

      I'm of 50% Norwegian extraction (the other half being Scot/Irish/Welsh/English, not exactly sauna climates either) and my =normal= body temp is in the 97.0F to 97.5F range; at the moment it's 96.9F. If my body temp hits 98.6F, I'm actually feverish.

      A friend who is German, English, and IIRC Norwegian, has the same trait.

      We're both from long-lived farming bloodlines that age very well.

      Oh yeah, I'm also related to about half the folk in northern Minnesooooota, and I can say Ja and Ufda with the best of 'em :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Minnesoooooootans? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, I'm also related to about half the folk in northern Minnesooooota
      So this proves that in-bredding also makes you live longer...?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Minnesoooooootans? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Nah, just that if you wanna live a long time, you'd best pick Norwegian ancestors ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  23. Must be exponential. by BigAssRat · · Score: 0

    Since I hear that lowering your body to say 0 degrees centigrade will keep you from aging a day.

  24. Better know as ... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

    Yeah, better known as cryogenetically freezing.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  25. Is this news to anyone that's used a refrigerator? by binarybum · · Score: 1

    While it's great that this research was carried out and has provided some reasoning behind caloric restriction, it's not a very shocking finding at all. The aging process is just a series of chemical reactions, some that we understand, some that we do not. Most organic reactions are slowed down significantly by relatively small decreases in ambient energy (lowering temp). Hence aging process should be expected to slow down as well.

    --
    ôó
  26. Frigid woman by totallygeek · · Score: 1, Funny

    So, if your woman is frigid, will she live longer?

    1. Re:Frigid woman by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      If she's frigid, who cares?

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Frigid woman by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but you might not want to. ;)

    3. Re:Frigid woman by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Damn! That means we have to put up with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for a long, long time! ;-)

    4. Re:Frigid woman by AP2005 · · Score: 1

      No, it will just seem that way to you.

  27. For us cool people... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...will we live longer? No, really! I have a bodytemp that's about 36.5 C / 97.7 F.

    Not so cool otherwise I guess.

    1. Re:For us cool people... by HoboMaster · · Score: 1

      I was kind of thinking the opposite for myself. I have a high metabolism and thus a high body temp. Plus I live in Texas. Guess I'm screwed.

      --
      Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
    2. Re:For us cool people... by blackbear · · Score: 1

      Ha! Got you beat. Mine typically varies between 97.4-97.6F. The last time I gave blood (double unit of red cells) it was 97.1F on a nice warm day. (Body temp measured before the blood draw.)

      The thing is, I've never heard of anyone else having an average body temprature a full degree below the human average. Perhaps it's not that uncommon.

    3. Re:For us cool people... by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      I'm another one that's about a degree low; I usually read between 97.5 and 98.0. I'm not sure exactly because none of my thermometers have been that accurate, but I do know that I've never read out at 98.5 or above unless I was sick. Speaking of which, I should point out that AFAICT I don't get sick any more often than the average person (maybe less often). Which should serve as at least anecdotal evidence agianst the people claiming this would weaken the immune system...

    4. Re:For us cool people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      96.8, baby :) go us cool people.

    5. Re:For us cool people... by adinb · · Score: 1

      Since I came down with ME/CFS, my body temp is around 96.8-98. If I go below 96.8 (gone as low as 94) I have a fever....usually it'll dip, and if its really nasty it'll swing back up, topping out around 104. The interesting thing is that my metabolism all the sudden (over a few weeks) got *extremely* efficient -- I was on a one cup of cream soup a day for three months, only lost 25lbs. Once I was able to keep one semi-normal meal a day down I gained all the weight back 30lbs.

      But with the body's thermostat being so hinky all the time it makes life during summertime rather interesting, especially since my body can't regulate itself in high temps -- I just go straight to the 104 and tachycardia.

      Miserable, but it sounds like I'll get a couple extra years outta it. :)

      --
      Moderation is for Monks!
    6. Re:For us cool people... by smchris · · Score: 1

      97.8

      The occasional childhood problem was making people believe I felt lousy. Some viruses can make you feel pretty crummy with only a degree or so of fever.

      As a down side I wonder if that is a contributing factor to my borderline obesity. I do feel noticeably and unpleasantly cold when I am hungry. And I hate with a passion levels of office air conditioning that others seem to find tolerable.

      Since we are taking names, probably the most famous low temperature person?

      George W. Bush

      President Bush Sails Through Annual Physical
      http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Preventive Care/tb/1460?pfc=101&spc=235

    7. Re:For us cool people... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Hothead :) In the interests of science, I just took my temp (with a known-accurate digital thermometer), and it's presently 96.9F. My normal temp is in the 97.0 to 97.5 range; akin to what someone below says, at 98.6, I'm feverish and don't feel well.

      The lowest I've ever seen it go was 94.something, after too many hours out in -40F weather... wasn't yet properly hypothermic, but sure felt a need for a gallon of hot tea. :)

      I have an exaggerated cold reflex too, which doubtless serves to better preserve core body heat under extreme conditions.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  28. Gotta find another job by RPGonAS400 · · Score: 1

    Just another reason to get out of this job where I am in the computer room of 89 degrees!

  29. of course! by GrumpySimon · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Fonz will NEVER die!

    Oh, wrong 'cool'. My bad.

    1. Re:of course! by hotdip · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Family Guy quote from the episode called, "The Fater, the Son and the Holy Fonz."

      Peter: May the Fonz be with you
      Congregation: And also with you
      Peter: Let us Ay
      Congregation: Aaaaaaaay!!!

  30. Man, this sucks by jbrader · · Score: 1

    My body temp is usually a little high, around 99 f. Nice knowing you guys.

    --
    You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
  31. Oh, God! Don't cook. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Let's see... .5C for 15% extension of life... so 150C decrease in temperature should yeild a 3000% extension...

    So, when you read the directions to cook a turkey and see "cook 5 hrs for 20 lb at 325 degrees". Do you think, "well, if I cook it at 650 degrees, I can get it done in 2.5 hours. And if I bring it down to the kiln at the art studio, cook it at 1300 degrees, I can have it done in 1 hour and 15 minutes! OR, I can bring the turkey down to my local steel mill, put into the balst furance at 2600 dgrees and I have my turkey in a little over a half hour! Woohoo!

    1. Re:Oh, God! Don't cook. by timster · · Score: 1

      John Kerry, is that you?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:Oh, God! Don't cook. by DDubz · · Score: 1

      This is kinda off topic but if you deep fry your turkey it tastes much better AND cooks faster!

    3. Re:Oh, God! Don't cook. by Canthros · · Score: 1

      That's because oil is a better medium for the transference of heat energy than is air.

      (Well, that's why it cooks faster. It tastes better because you just cooked it in grease. Grease makes almost everything taste better.)

      --
      Canthros
    4. Re:Oh, God! Don't cook. by bcat24 · · Score: 1

      You mean you *don't* cook your turkey in a blast furnace?!

    5. Re:Oh, God! Don't cook. by alx5000 · · Score: 1

      Like, say, John Travolta...

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    6. Re:Oh, God! Don't cook. by Cctoide · · Score: 1

      The combination of the ten or so comments in this tree with the corresponding sigs nearly made me spill my chocolate milk all over the keyboard.

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
  32. Re:I hear that the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You and I should get together

  33. If they don't kill me first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My body temp has always been about 3 degrees F colder than normal. When I get sick, I have a real hard time talking nurses/doctors into believing that's a 6 degree fever, not a 3 degree one, and I need help NOW.
    Almost died from viral pnuemonia once...

    1. Re:If they don't kill me first by kfg · · Score: 1

      My body temp has always been about 3 degrees F colder than normal.

      And now you know why. Just wait until your coworkers figure it out.

      KFG

    2. Re:If they don't kill me first by mbstone · · Score: 1

      My SO also has a normal body temp of 97.1. It's called "Low Temperature Syndrome." When she goes to a health care facility and tries to tell them this, the doctors and nurses just smile and nod like she's nuts. Maybe getting a MedicAlert tag made up would convince them.

    3. Re:If they don't kill me first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the spread between normal core temperature and abnormally high temperature that makes a fever dangerous per se. Yes, someone with an unusually low normal core temperature will be working harder to try to maintain that spread, which will be uncomfortable. However, what makes fever dangerous both to the person involved and the pathogens triggering the pyrexia is the absolute core temperature.

      Essentially, numerous critical catalytic reactions become inefficient outside a narrow temperature range. Organisms with homeostatic temperature control keep the bulk of their cells which require these catalytic reactions well within the envelope. Other organisms -- and exposed cells in the thermo-homeostatic ones -- are tolerant of these inefficiencies and sometimes can cope with a long-term inactivation of the reactions (for example, by sporulating).

      Fevers work by making the catalytic reactions in pathogens (or virally infected host cells) slow down. This slow-down in itself reduces the multiplication/growth and spread of the diseased tissues. Meanwhile, a variety of immune-system cells are more tolerant of high temperatures, and destroy the slowed-down or inactivated disease tissues.

      Too high a fever damages temperature-sensitive cells within a number of human organs and inactivates some critical reactions in others. The critical point is 42 degrees celsius, independent of what the normal core body temperature is.

      By way of contrast with your colder-than-average s.o., dogs and cats both have higher normal core temperatures than humans by 1 to 3 degrees (celsius), but both have the same critical temperature ceiling as we do.

  34. longevity here I come! by Polybius · · Score: 1

    This is good news to me. Ever since I was a kid my non-sick temperature ranges from 97.0 to 97.8 during routine checkups.

  35. Warm climates by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    So, the next piece of research will be telling us that people who live in warmer climates have a shorter average lifespan, right?

    1. Re:Warm climates by sblanky · · Score: 1

      I think body temperature is mostly a function of internal function, not external temperature. Dropping your thermostat in your house a couple degrees won't make you live longer, just make you work harder keeping your body at your normal body temp.

    2. Re:Warm climates by adinb · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct! You win the cookie award for actually "getting it" :)

      --
      Moderation is for Monks!
  36. Confusing title by Gregory+Cox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite the title, and all the comments talking about living in a low-temperature environment, I hope people realise that turning down the thermostat or moving to Alaska is not going to make a difference.

    I'm sure most people remember, but just in case, internal body temperature is carefully regulated by your brain, and won't change unless you catch a fever, or start freezing, in which case you have other problems to worry about.

    As for the results of this study, lab mice are not humans, and correlation does not imply cause... both mice and humans must have evolved to have their normal body temperature for a reason, so lowering it will undoubtedly have some negative effect on the chances of survival.

    --
    If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
    1. Re:Confusing title by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Eh, I wouldn't necessarily say that it would have some negative effect on chances of survival. Remember, it only has to do with living long enough to have lots of babies. After that, you don't really matter to evolution.

      Also, keep in mind that we have plenty of former defense mechanisms (storing lots of excess energy as fat, anyone?) that aren't very useful to us now.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    2. Re:Confusing title by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember, it only has to do with living long enough to have lots of babies. After that, you don't really matter to evolution.

      That is probably not true for humans.

      Humans are creatures of culture: accumulated, collectively held knowledge. The people who transmit culture are elders--in modern society, grandparents. They remember how they raised you, and when you have kids they provide guidance that effectively transmits traditions, habits and beliefs across generations. You, on the other hand, don't remember how you were raised, certainly not at a very early age.

      This may explain why humans live twice as long as they "should". One way of normalizing lifespan across species is to measure it in heartbeats. All mammals except humans live about one billion heartbeats. The range is around 0.7 to 1.1 billion. Humans live over two billion heartbeats, far outside the range of all other mammals. One plausible reason for this is that human groups that had more elders were more effectively able to accumulate knowledge across generations, and therefore were more successful. Not everyone would have to survive into old age to make this effective, but everyone would have to have the capacity to survive into old age to make it likely that a few members of each generation would.

      Ergo, until mouse model results are proven in humans--which so far as I know CR etc has not been--they are interesting, but not nearly so promising as one might naively think. We may already be so heavily optimized for long life that the simple tricks that work well for other species are considerably less effective for us.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:Confusing title by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      After that, you don't really matter to evolution.

      Untrue. We are social creatures. There is strong evidence to suggest that having grandparents around turned out to be a huge advantage to humans. By having experience in the society, parenting improved., and shared child rearing improved survival rates.

      Parent post is an example of way oversimplified evolutionary theory.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Confusing title by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, we store excess fat and carbohydrates as fat. We don't get energy until we convert 'em to glucose (or ketones!) and then burn them. If we would back off on the carbohydrates, and most importantly stop eating more calories than we burn while we sit on our asses, then we wouldn't get fat.

      Besides, the ability to store energy is still potentially useful when civilization crashes due to the time_t bug :)

      Seriously though, the thing that's not helping us today isn't that we store fat - that's still useful. It's whatever part of us that makes us keep eating after we're full. You might note that some people don't do this, and they tend not to be fat :P

      When coupled with the fat storage mechanism, this used to be a very useful trait - you'd eat when there was plenty, and live [partly] off your reserves when there wasn't. The fat storage may still help us someday, and it does help people in some situations. For instance, you're definitely burning fat reserves when you run a marathon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Confusing title by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      After that, you don't really matter to evolution.

      I've heard people post this before, and it's really a bizarre notion. And easily proven wrong -- I have two groups of people. One group evolves the behavior that anyone over child-bearing age gets a overwheming desire to sacrifice their life at any cost to protect a child. The other group evolves a behavior that once you get beyond child-bearing age, you have an overwhelming desire to kill children. Which group is going thrive better? By your logic, it shouldn't matter, since the only difference is among people past child-bearing age.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    6. Re:Confusing title by Gregory+Cox · · Score: 1

      Well, those are fairly reasonable points, but if you're going to get into the finer details...

      It's also generally an evolutionary advantage to live on a little to look after your offspring. Not much use spawning lots of babies and dropping dead. You only really become less important after your offspring have made it to adulthood.

      As for not needing fat - it may be an unnecessary weight on the waists of the fast-food eating, TV-watching populations, but there must be many people around the world even today for whom fat reserves are a definite plus. Fat may be just be unhealthy if you're leading a safe, comfortable lifestyle, but if there's a disaster or a famine - when it counts - it makes a difference.

      I agree that the human body isn't necessarily optimally adapted for life in the modern world, but trying to alter it is always going to involve some kind of tradeoff. I would have liked the article to discuss that, rather than simply holding out "staying cool" as the key to increasing longevity.

      --
      If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
    7. Re:Confusing title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure most people remember, but just in case, internal body temperature is carefully regulated by your brain, and won't change unless you catch a fever, or start freezing

      I remember it very differently. Internal body temperatures varies depending on time of day, external temps, food intake and even changes when a woman ovulates. Body temperature is far from constant. Since normal variation is +-1 deg, lowering you temperature by .5 deg should be as crazy and you think. If you don't believe me, I suggest you rely on google instead of your memory.

    8. Re:Confusing title by thc69 · · Score: 1
      For instance, you're definitely burning fat reserves when you run a marathon.
      Actually, if you catch me running a marathon, then I'm already burning in hell.
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    9. Re:Confusing title by Intron · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about when anyone past child-bearing age gets an overwhelming desire to tell you how you're getting fat, how well your siblings are doing compared to you and how you married the wrong person?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    10. Re:Confusing title by Monchanger · · Score: 1
      Parent post is an example of way oversimplified evolutionary theory

      Yeah, parent said something stupid. Gregory Cox has already pointed out the stupid error, that evolution requires the offspring to survive. In humans, it requires that the parent survive.

      There is strong evidence to suggest that having grandparents around turned out to be a huge advantage to humans.

      I'm not sure about your example's relevance to evolution. Scientists studying evolution generally don't care much about the progress of homo sapiens, but instead focus on how we (and all other species) came to be. I believe humans are unique in demonstrating linear grandparenting (other animals, such as lions and some primates raise children in community), so your saying it is relevant doesn't make sense.
    11. Re:Confusing title by archen · · Score: 1

      Actually I read a study on menopause that actually referred to the same thing. I mean why have we evolved so that at some point women DON'T produce offspring? Now granted there are a lot of personal reasons a woman shouldn't have children at a point - huge increase in risks to the mother AND offspring, but what does evolution care about that? If 1 in 1000 produces an extra kid that would be a benefit correct?

      But for some reason women do go through menopause. And the general theory provided in remote locations tended to lean to the theory that there is indeed some benefit to grandparents. For instance a village with a few elderly has a sort of history storage bank of how to deal with uncommon scenarios - extreme drought and such, which short term generations may not have had to deal with.

      Granted it's just a theory but it does seem plausable.

    12. Re:Confusing title by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      Yup, having grandparents was probably important back several thousand years ago, now we just stick them in an old-folks-home. Now they are a hindrance!

    13. Re:Confusing title by lortho · · Score: 1

      As for the results of this study, lab mice are not humans, and correlation does not imply cause... both mice and humans must have evolved to have their normal body temperature for a reason, so lowering it will undoubtedly have some negative effect on the chances of survival.

      I don't think you can say outright that making changes to the way we've evolved will lower our chances of survival.

      The modern world is different than the one we evolved in, and what was once advantageous may not be anymore. Take our taste for fatty foods, for example - obviously, in an environment where food was scarce and the possibility of building up excess body fat was very low, this was an advantage in the quest for survival. But now that things have changed, the taste for fat probably ends up killing a lot more people than it saves.

      This may not apply to our bodies' temperature regulation, of course - one would think that our optimal temperature is was it is, regardless of outside conditions - but I still don't think we can rule out the possibility of room for improvement. Who's to say that evolution has gotten everything perfect? Maybe 98.6 wasn't the 'optimal' temperature, but was still 'good enough' for us to survive long enough to breed and pass on our genes.

      My point is, there could be something to this. Correlation may not *prove* cause, but it can certainly imply the *possibility* of it.

    14. Re:Confusing title by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      That's a bit of a nonsense example. I think when he said "after [having babies], you don't really matter to evolution", most people would assume that covers having the baby and raising it to the point where it can live on its own. Obviously dying upon childbirth and killing your own offspring do not constitute successful procreation.

      The ultimate point is a good one. Someone up thread asked why we would evolve so that women would reach a point where they could no longer give birth. In reality it's likely that is not something that was actually selected for. For the vast majority of our species history we didn't live nearly long enough to reach menopause and so in that case the trait is irrelevant to our evolutionary fitness.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    15. Re:Confusing title by noigmn · · Score: 1

      It isn't uncommon for people to have lower of higher body temperatures. I've got a naturally low body temperature. It has never caused any problems. It's about 35.8(96.4) at the cool end of the day, around 36.5(97.7) at the hot end. Normally about 37.1(98.8) when i've got a virus. I've had temperatures above 39(102.2) before and my body survived it okay also, so it doesn't make me any less durable to fevers.

      I was thinking a good way of testing in humans would be to correlate statistics on body temperature with ones on average lifespan to see if it suggests the same.

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    16. Re:Confusing title by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      When we developed fire, evolution stopped because the pressure had been removed. When we first evolved, it was 1 billion heartbeats. Technology made medicine and better nutrition, which improved our lifespan significantly. It's not evolutionary, it's technology.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    17. Re:Confusing title by pseudopawn · · Score: 1

      The key to this is having babies that live long enough to have successful offspring. I having living grandparents was beneficial to the survival of offspring then this trait would be more likely to be passed on. For example having someone to watch children while adults are hunting or gathering or in a prehistoric (literally before written language) society someone remembering where the best hunting spot/techniques.

    18. Re:Confusing title by Monchanger · · Score: 1
      If 1 in 1000 produces an extra kid that would be a benefit correct?
      Interesting example. But more offspring doesn't necessarily mean better chances of them living. With greater litters, parents have more mouths to feed, possibly reducing the chance of the others. This wouldn't happen in all species, of course- some have a new child/litter only after the previous one has "left the nest" (especially likely in reptiles and fish, which don't require much parenting, and birds which mature quickly).
    19. Re:Confusing title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be careful when using the evolution argument - just because an argument sounds plausible, doesn't mean that it's correct. I forget the example, but there was in my intro to psych textbook an example of a perfectly reasonable evolutionary argument for a specific behaviour. Unfortunately, it turned out to not be evolutionary at all. That doesn't mean that you're wrong, just that you'd need more than just a hand-waving argument - you've got you're hypothesis, now design an experiment to test it.

    20. Re:Confusing title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This may explain why humans live twice as long as they "should".
      No. What largely explains it is modern medical techniques, health practices & increasing wealth; hence one century ago the average life expectancy for a baby born in the United States was in the mid-40's, now it's approaching 80, whilst today in many poor countries the life expectancy at birth is the same or lower there than it was in the 19th Century United States.

      So, except in this very exceptional time and place, humans didn't live longer than they 'should'.
    21. Re:Confusing title by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The argument is that people have the capability to live to be grandparents during the full childhood of their grandchildren, and that is not a recent event, nor does it require advanced technology. Aristotle lived into his sixties; that was 2300 years ago.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    22. Re:Confusing title by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1
      Remember, it only has to do with living long enough to have lots of babies. After that, you don't really matter to evolution.
      Worker bees and worker ants don't have babies by definition. Don't bees and ants evolve sophisticated worker traits? How can the workers not "matter to evolution"?
    23. Re:Confusing title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For instance, you're definitely burning fat reserves when you run a marathon.


      No, not definitely. Not even very likely. A standard human carries about 2000 kcal in glycogen. Factoring out simple sugars and other during-the-marathon intake, that is the only likely source of energy being drawn upon by a marathon runner.

      Glycogenolysis is fast. It can deliver 10kcal/min if necessary. The limiting factor is VO2max, and marathon runners/bikers/swimmers/skiiers and other endurance aerobic exercisers can gain a further 20% to about 800kcal/hour.

      Lipolysis, on the other hand, is slow. This is why marathon runners hit the wall when they run out of glycogen.

      Lipolysis is, however, the favoured mechanism in human bodies. The triglycerides that can be released per unit time are used; muscular and liver glycogen is tapped to make up for energy shortfalls.

      Highly aerobic but bursty exercise -- ice hockey being a classic example -- is well supported by this system. While the player is on the ice, glycogen is being tapped; while the player is on the bench or waiting between plays, glycogen is being generated from surplus triglycerides released from adipose tissue However, the release of triglycerides is slow enough that busy hockey players who manage more than 15 minutes of play in a game, are also prone to hitting the wall. This usually happens at the worst possible time, during a very aggressive shift.

      Marathons produce a constant energy draw so there is never a surplus of serum triglycerides. There are certainly triglycerides being released from fat, so you are technically correct (in that there is lipolysis without lipogenesis), but the uplift in a marathon racer is often not much over the resting fat burning rate, and the energy contribution is dwarfed by glycogen burning.

      Finally, usually more than 50% of the calories burned during a marathon -- this is especially true in the Tour de France -- is consumed during the race in the form of sugared drinks and other carbohydrates consumed along the way.
  37. Even better: by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    If it's compounded, you get to live 1.62x10^16 % longer!

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  38. metric conversion error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Average body temp appears to actally be closer to 98.2. The 98.6 figure comes from a rounding error in converting from celsius.

    From Lena Wong
    "I vaguely remember hearing that the oft-quoted healthy human body temperature of 98.6 degrees fahrenheit was a "factoid"-- a statement treated as factual that has, in fact, never been verified. I have sent students out in search of real research on this matter, but they have all come up negative. It is a surprisingly difficult assignment. Source after source faithfully states that the temperature of a healthy human body is 98.6 F or 37 C -- no exceptions, end of story. The table above hints at the "truth"of the matter.

    The first systematic measurements of human body temperature were performed by the German physician Carl Wunderlich. In 1861 he measured the temperatures of one million healthy individuals (a sample size that seems too large to be believed). The average value was reported as 37 degrees celsius. When converted this value becomes 98.6 degreed fahrenheit. So what's the problem? Wunderlich's value has only two significant figures while the converted value has three. The last digit (the "point six" at the end) should be regarded with great suspicion. Wunderlich's converted value should really be stated as "ninety eight point something" if one is being honest.

    In 1992 Mackowiak, Wasserman, and Levine measured the body temperatures of 65 men and 65 women and came up with a value of 36.8 C (98.2 F). You can do a statistical analysis of the data yourself. The numbers are available online at numerous websites including The Physics Factbook"

  39. Flawed Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but as this [calorie restriction] also causes a lowering of body temperature"

    I don't think the net effect will end up in your favor.

  40. Re:I hear that the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aw! :P

  41. Sub-Zero wins! Sorry, Granny, time to hibernate. by Channard · · Score: 1

    So looks like the UK Govt has an excuse to stop paying winter fuel top-ups to OAPs then.

  42. Does that mean... by Admin_Jason · · Score: 1

    Cryogenics is for real? People have been freezing their eggs and embryos for years, and reducing temperature has long been known to slow the metabolism. What grandiose parent organization funded research to prove the obvious? Instead, you should have given me the research funds and I would study the effects of caffeine in underpaid technicians for periods of 5+ years. Provided of course I could publish the results independantly in book form for additional subsidies from the likes of Barnes and Noble and Amazon! [/rant] In all seriousness though, as the most of the previous posts do seem to lean toward this end of sarcasm and wit, the larger issue is that grant and research dollars are being funneled to projects like this. At what point do we step up and say stop wasting our tax dollars?

    --
    Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
    1. Re:Does that mean... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Freezing a unicellular gamete is far simpler than freezing a multi-cellular person, and far less disatrous should it fail.

    2. Re:Does that mean... by Admin_Jason · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the thousands of couples that pay literally tens of thousands of dollars to freeze embryos who are going through the painful process of fertility without insurance to help. And we are also not talking about uni-(a.k.a. singular)-celluar gametes. We are talking about embryos...fully formed and developed to a certain growth of cells. Remember your high school biology?

      If not, this site may be helpful: Embryo Development I would also submit that if you do not remember this it could possibly be because you haven't had the class yet, which means the $10 large is likely a monetary figure you have yet to see in your bank account.

      I am no scientist, but if cells multiple by 2 every 24 hours (and this is a conservative estimate as division speeds with each passing hour. It is likely at least 10 times this size, but to keep things simple here, we'll assume single replication per day.) This is at day 12, (when the freezing process takes place)

      1x2 = 2 (day 1)
      2x2 = 4 (day 2)
      4x2 = 8 (day 3)
      8x2 = 16 (day 4)
      16x2 = 32 (day 5)
      32x2 = 64 (day 6)
      64x2 = 128 (day 7)
      128x2 = 256 (day 8)
      256x2 = 512 (day 9)
      512x2 = 1024 (day 10)
      1024x2 = 2048 (day 11)
      2048x2 = 4096 (day 12)

      4096 cells (not gigs of RAM :) )constitutes an embryo, and is what I would call a living being even though it needs a host. This is hardly a "unicellular gamete". while I grant you it is certainly not anywhere near the size of a mouse, due to the tens of thousands of dollars invested, failure can be quite tragic. If you invested $10 large to freeze an embryo for development later, how would you feel about that dying versus a mouse due to a failed process? My money (figuratively) is that you would be a little more upset at the former...

      --
      Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
    3. Re:Does that mean... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      I do recally my High School Biology, thanks. However, from the post to which I res responding: "...freezing their eggs..." - eggs ARE gametes, unless I'm mistaken in thinking that 'gamete' = 'reproductive cell, such as, say, an EGG'. Also, I was refering to the difference between freezing unfertilized eggs, and actual people, not people-to-be-if-it's-lucky embryos.

  43. I think i read something about this before.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in '98 there was an article about this very subject http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33562?issue=4 227&special=1998

  44. Finaly som good news by Varris · · Score: 1

    After a dozen of years discovering that everything fun is unhealty, finaly some good news! We can eat Pita, pizza and hamburgers as long as we keep cool. Turn the airco a bit lower or get red or get rid of that sweater and fine!

  45. Suspended animation is no way to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, if we eat less, don't move, and encase ourselves in ice, we can live forever. Wouldn't be much of a life, though.

    "It ain't the years, it's the mileage." If there's less wear and tear on your body, of course it won't break down as fast. Cold slows things down. Duh.

    I'd rather live 72 years with enough heat to feel comfortable than 80 years freezing my ass off.

  46. As a close friend with a degree in Foods and Nutrition points out:

    The rodent calorie-restriction longevity increase only shows up in laboratory settings, where the rodents are protected from exposure to infectious agents. When they are allowed such exposure, they prove to be much more susceptable to them, becoming ill more easily and dying form it ditto. So calorie restriction in ordinary environments REDUCES lifespan from this effect alone (i.e. not counting competitive disadvantages of underfeeding).

    Lowered body temperature has been known for a long time to suppress the immune system. Lowered temperature a symptom of the calorie restriction and lowered temperature alone able to produce the longevity increase is entirely consistent with the previous info - just pushing understanding of the mechanism one step further down.

    Of course a big push in researching the longevity increase was to see if there was a point where the mechanisms leading to immune suppression and the absent-infection logevity increase diverge, so a practical intervention can be designed. This research implies they're still coupled at the lower-body-temperature step.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Bingo by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      So now we need to compare experimental scientists on a calorie-restricted diet with theoretical scientists. If the experimental scientists live longer we know that it's because they eat fewer calories AND spend most of their time in a lab, and that the rest of us need to do more lab time.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:Bingo by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      The rodent calorie-restriction longevity increase only shows up in laboratory settings, where the rodents are protected from exposure to infectious agents. When they are allowed such exposure, they prove to be much more susceptable to them, becoming ill more easily and dying form it ditto.
      That's a very interesting result, do you happen to have a pointer to the paper?
  47. As a member of the calorie restriction society... by Washizu · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a member of the calorie restriction society I have one thing to say:

    Ohhhh my god give me a sandwich!

    --
    OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
  48. I live in Montana and feel younger by dbdweeb · · Score: 1

    Since escaping the Slick-On Valley rat race and moving to Montana I've felt much younger. I feel sorry for all those rats I left behind.

  49. Re:Is this news to anyone that's used a refrigerat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice insight...after the fact.

    noob.

  50. Re:I hear that the key by stinkyweezelteets · · Score: 0

    Shh. Hear that, it's the sound of millions of nerds clicking a profile link.

  51. Proof is in the Refrigerator by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    If it works on my leftovers, why wouldn't it work on me?

  52. So this means by Goblez · · Score: 1

    Cartman had it right! Damn, I'm going to bury myself in some snow in the mountains. Wiiii!!!!

    --
    - Kal`Goblez
  53. Re:I hear that the key by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

    Not with all those STIs, you won't.

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  54. Don't Get It Backwards by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lest we be fooled, lowering your body temperature as a warm-blooded person is impossible. What the researchers actually did was artificially inject a protein that when unfolding generated higher amounts of heat than normal proteins into the hypothalamus. This tricked the mouse's brain into lowering its internal thermostat.

    This is more like holding a match to a thermometer which can trigger a fire alarm. It's fooling a local sensor to simulate a global sensation.

    So you can't eat ice cream, or live in Antarctica, or whatever to fool it. You have to trick your brain. Even better, at this tricked out brain level, you need less calories to survive because your brain doesn't turn on its "must store fat" warning level as quickly. So this might be a good cure for obesity in the future.

    But seriously, how cool is it that they can use a heat-generating protein to trick a mouse's brain? I love how neurology proves how gullible we are.

    1. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by nschubach · · Score: 1

      So, your theoretically making the body work less...

      Isn't that like saying your car engine will run longer if you don't run it at redline all the time?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Impossible hey? Come here, I have a nice semi-frozen pond to show you. Bet you $1000 I can lower your body temperature with just one push.

    3. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      Weight gain is caused by excess caloric intake. If I turned off "the munchies" in your head, you would eat less calories and gain less weight. That's what having a lower core temperature would do: it would reduce your body's unconscious need for food.

      The better car analogy would be if you only needed half the gallons of gas to get the same distance in your car.

    4. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by noidentity · · Score: 1
      But seriously, how cool is it that they can use a heat-generating protein to trick a mouse's brain? I love how neurology proves how gullible we are.

      According to the summary, about 0.5 C cooler.

    5. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

      So you can't eat ice cream, or live in Antarctica, or whatever to fool it.
      Agreed. In fact, cooling your core body temperature by environmental means would actually cause you to burn more calories to maintain homeostasis.

      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>
    6. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Rats!

    7. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by Oxen · · Score: 1

      What the researchers actually did was artificially inject a protein that when unfolding generated higher amounts of heat
      First of all, they didn't inject a protein, the genetically engineered the mouse to express a protein in the brain.

      Lest we be fooled, lowering your body temperature as a warm-blooded person is impossible.
      Second of all, it is certainly possible to lower the temperature of a warm blooded animal, you just have to add some hydrogen sulfide. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/2 2/0228226&from=rss

      --
      First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
    8. Re:Don't Get It Backwards by deadlock911 · · Score: 1

      actually it IS possible to lower the temperature of a warm blooded human.
      I think what you are trying to say is that the body attempts to correct this by using more energy, thus decreasing the amount of wasted energy stored as fat or removing energy previously stored. The temperature of a person will lower by being in a cold environment because it takes the body time to adjust.
      Also the temperature of food changes how much of the energy in it we use, making ice cream better for you than......um.....melted ice cream >_

  55. Works for hard drives by reaktor · · Score: 1

    Lower temp = longer life.

    1. Re:Works for hard drives by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Interesting! That could explain the clicking noise from my grandfather's head immediately before he passed away.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  56. Simple way to test this. by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    Do people in Finland, Russia, Alaska, Canada, etc... live on average %15 longer than people who live in warmer climates?

    Okay... those in warmer climates who die of old age, not starvation, disease, war, etc...

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Simple way to test this. by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Scandinavia (note, not the Nordic countries, so this excludes Finland) has one of the highest life expectancies in the world, IIRC. I think it's more to do with universal access to healthcare, some of the best in the world, high standards of living, etc. The cold can't hurt either, apparently!

    2. Re:Simple way to test this. by TiMike · · Score: 1

      Oh that's brilliant. Just because they are in a cold climate does not mean their body temp is lower. People in cold temperatures tend to wear big honkin' coats and stay inside to, you know, STAY WARM!!

    3. Re:Simple way to test this. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, people who live in cold climates (like me) tend to keep room temperature lower and are uncomfortable in the furnaces the rest of the world seems to like. I wonder if people who live in cold climates really do tend to keep their body temperatures a touch lower.

    4. Re:Simple way to test this. by Firedog · · Score: 1

      Seems like cold climates would naturally select for people who maintain a lower body temperature, for various reasons.

      I doubt that just moving to a cold climate would help much, but if you come from a long line of cold-climate dwellers, you might well have evolved this adaptation to some degree.

    5. Re:Simple way to test this. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if you could acquire some of the characteristics through acclimatization. People who move to high altitudes gain some features of people who grew up in them.

  57. Heat == Energy Use by aztektum · · Score: 1

    I don't have time to read the article, but this kind of makes sense. Especially from a nerd point of view. The hotter something is, the more energy it uses. For humans this requires more fuel which means more calories. It stands to reason that we're on borrowed time and just wearing out our parts. Take care of them and you live longer.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  58. Re:I hear that the key by Gospodin · · Score: 1

    Long, maybe. But not fruitful if that's all you're doing with it.

    --
    ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
  59. Great - I Gotta be a thin Mr. Freeze by gadlaw · · Score: 1

    I gotta be cold, hungry and drink red wine in moderation while eating fish and vegetables if I want to live longer. And apparently become a Super Villian. As long as I don't have to have that fake Austrian accent.

    Man, and what's up with all the stuff I now have to do to write a comment? Geez.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
  60. at last, vindication! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't live in my parents' basement just because it's economically sound or just because I love my parents so much, nay, I do it mostly because I can live longer. So, go ahead and mock me, I shall have the last laugh/sniffle

  61. Re:I hear that the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the "fruit" part was intentional.

  62. Don't get it backward! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many comments say that keepin' it cool with AC = longer life. Wrong. What makes you live longer is a slower metabolism, obtained either through low calories or through tricking the brain into keeping the body cooler. A cooler basal temp = less energy consumed = metabolism can run slower.

    By physically cooling the body, you make it produce more heat (so you don't die). This means more metabolic activity ---> shorter life. Hence people in A/C or the south pole might be expected to have shorter lifespans than those in tropical climes. (This is purely hypothetical).

  63. Some run hot, others cool by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Personally, my temperature is usually slightly below 98, which is interesting because longevity also runs in my family (primarily on my father's side).

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  64. Re:It all figures...Another ice age by david_g17 · · Score: 1

    Another ice age is just what mankind needs to survive, eh?

  65. Re:Is this news to anyone that's used a refrigerat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus all the hullaboo about cryogenic suspension and hibernation.

  66. In other news... by filou007 · · Score: 1

    Real estate values in the Canadian great north up 25% while Florida retirement homes file for bankrupcy.

  67. Re:As a member of the calorie restriction society. by volpe · · Score: 1

    ... and a tub of ice.

  68. calorie restriction increasing longevity proven? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you follow the link from the blurb, you will find the idea of calorie restriction increasing longevity is contraversial.

    A rat will eat itself to death, that doesn't mean that starving yourself makes you live longer.

  69. Welcome to Canada, eh? by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

    It's pretty darn chilly up here, so you'll live a lot long... oh, wait ...

    --
    licet differant, aequabitur
  70. Re:As a member of the calorie restriction society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calorie restriction focuses more on simple foods - which a sandwich isn't.

  71. Truth stranger than... by maxume · · Score: 1
    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  72. Prolonging life by hb0mb · · Score: 1

    That's why I'm freezing myself until the Ninteno Wii comes out.

  73. How else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do we keep alive long enough for the Nintendo Wii to come out?

  74. Work Naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new reason to work naked! "It's for my health."

  75. Keeping Cool Key to Longevity by igneousGoo · · Score: 1

    No thanks. I'll take a cozy, short, well-fed life over a long life of hunger and cold any lifetime.

  76. Unfunny by afz902k · · Score: 1

    It's bad for your health if you watch too many episodes of single female lawyer. [Insert comment about the possible uses of a beowulf cluster of refrigerators]

  77. Re:I hear that the key by jx100 · · Score: 1

    Who wouldn't want an Impreza?

  78. Oh NOW i see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why we send all our old people to florida!

    It makes perfect sense now!

  79. biophysical mechanism : free radicals by macklin01 · · Score: 1

    The biophysical mechanism in the article makes sense. Reactive oxygen species (i.e., the "free radicals", like superoxide and hydrogen peroxide) are generated in the mitochondria during metabolism. The bulk of the ROS's are scavenged before they can cause harm, but those that aren't neutralized can damage biological molecules (e.g., proteins, lipids, and DNA). On a slightly unrelated note that might make this a bit more concrete, UV rays generate ROS's when they strike biological moleculues in the skin. These ROS's are responsible for a lot of the damage from UV rays, both to collagen (wrinkles) and DNA (carcinogenesis). So there's a very concrete example of free radicals contributing to aging that you can actually see.

    The article claims that the "thermostat" is being tricked to reduce metabolism, so that would, in turn, decrease the generation of ROS's. I also wonder if ROS production is temperature-dependent. (Are the molecules less energetic, to the point that it's more difficult to form ROS's?) So, it really does make sense.

    Interesting, stuff, though. -- Paul

    --
    OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
  80. Oh thats just typical by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1

    Why did no one tell me this a week ago BEFORE I spent $4000 on a new furnace........

    --
    Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
  81. +15% by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1

    Does this mean you stay younger longer, or older longer?

  82. Aquarium' fish ... by henc · · Score: 1

    From what I've heard (not sooner than 10 years ago) - it was common knowledge around zoo-keepers that it was a tradeoff between active "pet fish" in an aquarium and cost-effective fish... - you simply could regulate that with the temperature of the water. - A higher temperature would yield more interesting fish that would swim around faster. But, die sooner... - (and the opposite)... - Why wouldn't this also be true for other species? h

  83. I'm going to ... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    I'm going to use this research as the factual evidence supporting a new health program that you can buy for only $19.95 call now

    "Live Longer: Reduce your Core Temperature by Not Exercising!"

  84. Reduced Caloric Intake... by WgT2 · · Score: 1

    This must explain why fasting (as in: only drinking water) for more than two days: you get cold and, according to the Old Testament, renew your youth.

  85. Elderly by bukharin · · Score: 1

    Doctors haved recognised for a long time that the elderly tend to have lower body temperatures than young people. Perhaps that's partly because those with lower body temperatures tend to live longer, and thus make it to "elderly"...

  86. live cooler, eat better and live longer? by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 1

    Buffalo,NY debunks that theory.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  87. drugs are healthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smoking dope lowers your core temperature by .5 - 1 degrees.

  88. Correct, it's not environment... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    They are talking about core body temperature, not your cubicle temperature.

    So, the question is this - If "they" can offer you a gene-splice "cure" for aging that involves you looking like a crocodile or turtle for the next 200 years, do you want it?

    What if you could double your lifespan, but think twice as slow?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Correct, it's not environment... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Both good questions, but they need to be followed up with further questions.

      1) does the gene-cure include a tweak that makes crocoturtle people seem more attractive too?

      2) (assuming "twice as slow" means, "half as fast") slow as in IQ-70? or slow as in the handicapped genius kid from "Malcolm in the Middle?"

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  89. Keeping cool? I guess I'm screwed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between getting punched, insulted, violated, and not to mention the toasty costumes themselves... I guess we mascots are meant to dye young.

  90. for the ultimate in longevity... by ydrol · · Score: 1

    Join the coldest most calories restricted people.. the Cadaver Society. Oh wait.

  91. longevity by artpearson · · Score: 1

    Yipee! My normal body temp is 97 degrees.

  92. Speed of metabolism by yoprst · · Score: 1

    Don't both calorie restriction and body cooling slow down metabolism? I'm just curious...

  93. Body Temperature Purposed Variations 11/04/2006 by ImitationEnergy · · Score: 1

    Purposed variations of body temperature has many benefits. You do not have to travel to Alaska to increase your stamina and longevity. Set up a temperature "ocillating" system right in your own home or apartment. http://www.prleap.com/pr/32066 is your entry portal to an entirely New World of Super Health. All you need is a small btu window air conditioner and a partitioned off computer room.

    Why didn't we think of it a long time ago? An air conditioner is a HEAT EXTRACTION DEVICE that pulls heat out of a computer room, COOLING EVERYTHING IN THE COMPUTER ROOM.. Per the main article > Pulling heat from a computer room MAKES THE COMPUTER PARTS LAST LONGER &&& MAKES YOU LAST LONGER. The window AC unit can be placed in the room's door instead of needing to build a partition, letting the door be the partition.

    Cool your computer and it lasts longer. Cool your body and you last longer.

    The heat that is extracted {transferred} out of your computer room is sent into an adjoining room, so every time you exit the computer room to visit the kitchen or bathroom or answer the door or whatever, you exit a cooled room into a heated area. This "oscillation" of body temperature is an INTENSE BODY FLUID EXERCISE. It is in fact a very real Fountain of Youth Health System. The cool-cold computer room air is like skinny dipping in a cold fluid (air) so each time you exit the room into the heated room IT HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS RUNNING THROUGH TIRES IN ARMY BASIC TRAINING. It is not a toy. This system can kill you. As with all new exercise routines you should be very cautious and have yourself a good physical before attempting. Use a low air conditioner setting. Drink more water or fluids.

    BENEFITS OF THIS SYSTEM BEGIN IMMEDIATELY. Within two month's time of gradually increasing daily & 24/7 usage a healthy man and woman should be in vastly improved cardiovascular health worthy of an endurance runner. http://www.newpath4.com/ can be the beginning of the rest of your healthy lifetime. The cold air you breathe in the computer room is contracted, so each breath you take is giving your heart, brain, organs, blood & body an "OXYGEN BATH" that raises body alkalinity (cancer fighting). It is a simple idea that can improve Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers on the old age side but also is for young people, pregnant women for having a much improved physical maintenance during pregnancy, and the baby benefits from the slight {non-poisonous} increase in blood O2 levels and lowered cholesterol of its Mom.

    --
    Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
  94. As a fellow member... by evilviper · · Score: 1

    As a fellow member:

    Don't make me laugh, or I'll pass out...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  95. Re: Post Saved into a gif liked it so much! by ImitationEnergy · · Score: 1
    --
    Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
  96. What if your body temp is naturally a little low? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    I wonder what implications this has for those humans whose *normal* body temperature is BELOW the standard 98.6F??

    Frex, mine is typically around 97.5F or even a little lower; at 98.6F, I'm actually running enough of a fever to *notice* that I don't feel well.

    [Consults thermometer known to be accurate] At the moment, it's 96.9F, which starts to border on a feeling of "I could use a hot cuppa," but I'm not yet really chilled.

    A friend also has naturally low body temp, and the other things we have in common is that we both come from long-lived bloodlines, and can readily pass for 15 years younger than we really are. Coincidence?

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  97. Re:As a member of the calorie restriction society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean 'Wieght Watchers'?

  98. Enjoy Life by Monkey+Fuck · · Score: 1

    I'd rather die sooner in comfort than live a long, cold, and miserable life! I was gifted (or cursed, which ever) with a high metabolism, so calorie restriction is out of the question.

    I'm a southern boy, but still not satisfied. So put me down where the coconuts and bananas grow, and a stock pile of red meat, and I just might really enjoy the shortened life! O'yea, a local bar is a must too.