Free Radicals May Not Be Cause of Aging

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free Radicals May Not Be Cause of Aging

Posted by timothy on Sunday December 19, 2010 @04:32AM from the with-very-few-exceptions-not-a-human-being dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have uncovered strong new evidence that that wildly-accepted mitochondrial free radical theory of aging (MFRTA) is wrong. MFRTA suggests that free radicals cause oxidative damage, which in turn leads to the aging process. This new evidence shows that high levels of Reactive Oxidative species are rather a biological signal used to combat aging then the process itself. This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."

371 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Then... by fyngyrz · 2010-12-19 04:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Jailing the radicals was good?

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 04:38 · Score: 0

Well...

"This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."/quote?
Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
1. Re:Well... by biryokumaru · 2010-12-19 04:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ya, scientists, pshaw. They're so full of it!
  This is why we need to institute mandatory human experimentation!
  
  --
  When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
2. Re:Well... by Culture20 · 2010-12-19 04:49 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Well...
  
  "This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."/quote?
  Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
  I stopped doing that decades ago after I grew up and couldn't be forced to eat them. Now I look at my friends who are vegetarians, and am shocked at how old they look compared to my mostly meat-eating self.
3. Re:Well... by bstender · 2010-12-19 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  i took the exact opposite strategy decades ago and became, for want of a better word, Godlike. I smell great too. (that's what all the gorgeous women tell me anyway)
  
  --
  look sig is kool
4. Re:Well... by Niedi · 2010-12-19 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A lot of proteins in these worms really are, but still, it's insane to jump at these conclusions so quickly...
  
  The article here also has a link to a paper of him from 2009 which seems to be about mice, but then again it's in a low-impact-factor journal. Since his findings would be of great interest for a broad audience this might be a sign of shabby/incomplete research (interesting enough for a big paper but not good enough)...
  
  Can't say more before I'm on a computer with access to the journal to actually read it though.
5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Take up smoking and you'll look even younger. It releases tons of free radicals.
6. Re:Well... by zach_the_lizard · 2010-12-19 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah? Well, I stopped eating all together, and became like the entire Pantheon all rolled up into one ball of pure awesomeness. The merest hint of a waft of my scent drives all the most beautiful women crazy. Try it.
  
  --
  SSC
7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly your subjective experience and apparent pat-on-the-back cynicism for bucking the trend makes for great science!
  Brilliant job, young man! Go back to FOX news...
8. Re:Well... by Pharmboy · 2010-12-19 05:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I completely understand vegetarian and vegan philosophy, although I'm not interested in participating. But I have noticed the same thing, that all the vegetarians I know are all pasty white and sickly looking, although there are obviously exceptions. Not sure if that is because of the lack of meat, or if just pasty and sickly people are more likely to give up meat. I won't eat veal, and *hate* the way we currently raise animals for meat, but I'm pretty sure we evolved to eat critters. They're tasty, too.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
9. Re:Well... by FiloEleven · 2010-12-19 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Oh yeah? Well I started being eaten, and became...well it actually kind of sucks. Also I am typing this with my elbow stubs.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
10. Re:Well... by Sponge+Bath · 2010-12-19 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  ...mandatory human experimentation!
  You first, tell us how it goes.
11. Re:Well... by Niedi · 2010-12-19 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I forgot to insert the quote-tag in my post. The comment was meant as a response to
  
  Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
12. Re:Well... by Dunbal · 2010-12-19 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
  People taking coumadin shouldn't be eating too much broccoli and spinach anyway, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
13. Re:Well... by Culture20 · 2010-12-19 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I have noticed the same thing, that all the vegetarians I know are all pasty white and sickly looking
  And wrinkly. Why are friends younger than me balding and getting wrinkles? They need some animal protein.
14. Re:Well... by MurphyZero · 2010-12-19 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Well it would be a solution to the politician, banker and lobbyist problem in this country.
  
  --
  Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
15. Re:Well... by sourcerror · 2010-12-19 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  And after getting eaten you'll smell bad too.
16. Re:Well... by Kagura · 2010-12-19 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But organic is the way to go! If it's natural, it's good for you
  Why do so many people think this is the case? That something manufactured is "not as good" as something natural. I'm sure there are as many cases where this is true as there are where this is false. Yet look at how organic foods have been taking off... I'd rather eat food that was kept bug-free by pesticides, and used fertilizer to make the plants grow to their maximum extent, and had preservatives added to keep the fruit at its tip-top freshness. (I know some organic food companies just add "organic" as a label that doesn't mean anything, but most organic producers follow some (if not all) of those rules.) Oh well... I guess people can eat what they choose, no matter what their rationale may be.
17. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  We all look younger when we view ourselves in a mirror..
18. Re:Well... by Dasuraga · 2010-12-19 06:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I dunno about most people, but I'll buy organic sometimes because it's usually indicative of a more sustainable farming process. I couldn't care less about the "all natural" part, but I do care about promoting intelligent usage of the (limited) resources on the planet.
  
  Then again I'll be dead before it becomes a problem so what do I care.
19. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  Probably like shit.
20. Re:Well... by Threni · 2010-12-19 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Or time to find out why stuff like green tea is so good for you it's not for this reason.
21. Re:Well... by Peeteriz · 2010-12-19 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to eat a severely restricted diet, then you must spend osme time to consider what replacements to eat to sustain your long-term health, you can't just skip a major food group and rely on things working out by themselves. Some vegans do it, some don't - and suffer after some time.
  You can't stay healthy on salad and tomatoes; I know some extremely healthy vegans who eat an extreme variety of foods every day that I don't consume in significant amounts - nuts, sprouts, berries, extreme variety of foreign origin vegetables. But if you take the lazy way of usually eating what your local food places have as vegetarian option, then you probably have an extremely unbalanced diet that's missing or lacking at at least a couple essential aminoacids or vitamins.
  That's the problem. With meat you can be lazy - while steak alone isn't balanced either, there have been experiments trying a sustained 100% meat+offal/brains diet for more than a year with no problems identified; but you can't survive on any staple plant alone, you need a diverse mix of them.
22. Re:Well... by skids · 2010-12-19 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It would be a less tenable position if the makers of processed food bothered at all to produce healthy products. Try to buy a box of crackers that hasn't had all the soluble fiber removed. You've got like two choices, and they both cost more than the products next to them which likely took more effort to refine.
  Personally I'd feel safer strolling down a supermarket drug aisle and popping a random pill than I would walking into the woods and eating a random mushroom. At the same time, I wouldn't trust the research lab telling me the corn-that-produces-its-own-pesticide is just fine for me farther than I could throw the CEOs lexus.
  Take a look at the crap nutritional value presented by the refined products, and the amount of corruption of science when it comes to analyzing health effects of some company's latest brainchild, and it leaves plenty of toehold for the "natural is good" meme to take root. If the research was not so clouded by money, and wasn't done almost exclusively on corporate patent-babies, people would be less likely to believe the crap they read on the food supplement sites.
  In the end it all comes down to trust, and the ability to verify that trust.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
23. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:04 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You are free to attempt to bring healthy crackers to the market. When they don't sell, or they spoil on the shelves, then you'll understand why the industry is the way it is.
24. Re:Well... by SpeZek · 2010-12-19 07:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  most organic producers follow some (if not all) of those rules.)
  Nope, they don't.
  Organic doesn't mean grown without fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or preservatives. Not at all. All fruits and vegetables are grown with all three in the process.
  The only difference is that the fertilizer, instead of being processed, enhanced, guaranteed free of disease, or synthesized, is all-natural manure, with all the possible contaminants contained within. The pesticides are all-natural, 100 year old recipes, with all of their possible health-effects and negative environmental impact that have been weeded out of modern, synthetic pesticides. The preservatives are, again, all natural, with all of the health issues and contaminant issues and, well, preservation issues, that modern preservatives are always striving to eliminate.
  Organic food is almost all grown the exact same was as regular food: on large, industrial farms, in large volumes, for a profit. The only difference is that the expense of Organic food comes from the limited supply (due to demand as well as a higher rate of spoilage), while the expense of normal food comes from making it better, cheaper, and safer.
25. Re:Well... by Dogtanian · 2010-12-19 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are free to attempt to bring healthy crackers to the market.
  Yes, and he's free to criticise makers of existing products whether he wants to compete with them or not.
  
  When they don't sell, or they spoil on the shelves, then you'll understand why the industry is the way it is.
  That doesn't mean that the industry isn't producing crap.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
26. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  What's funny is going in to supermarkets aimed at people who want to save money; almost all of the healthier processed foods are much, much more expensive than in the "yuppie" stores. One cereal I like, which is offered both in a lot of health food and regular supermarkets, costs me $2.89 at a Whole Foods in downtown Manhattan (or San Francisco) and over $5 at every Joe Schmoe supermarket I've been to in the past couple of years -- whether in a major city or a small town. At the first price you'd have a lot of people with modest incomes buy it, while the stores that are supposed to serve those people jack up the prices on the healthier foods. The Newman's line of products seems to be transitioning from being considered health food to being considered a regular option; at some stores their Newman-Os are cheaper than Oreos, while others have them off in a separate health food section and jack up the price 30% (Safeways in San Francisco springs to mind).
27. Re:Well... by marcello_dl · 2010-12-19 07:34 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Because natural stuff is coming from a system that evolved with humans since they populated the planet. Manufactured stuff isn't bad by default: but since artificial stuff is not tested for all the interactions with the substances that are already present in the environment to see long term effects, and it's produced in the name of profit (if you're less superficial in your view of society it's in the name of control), I'd go for natural stuff given the choice.
  Of course natural stuff can be manufactured by the same people and with the same motivations as artificial stuff so the distinction is really between stuff made with love and stuff that screws people over but being natural is a factor not to overlook.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
28. Re:Well... by tomhudson · 2010-12-19 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well...
  
  "This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."/quote?
  Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
  You share a majority (75%) of your genes with worms, you worm!
  We can even swap human and worm genes and they continue to work.
  
  the small creature also is a complex, multicelled organism that carries many genes that also exist in humans, and function in the same way.
  As a result, the worm provides a crucial keyhole view of the vast world of genetics, said Robert H. Waterston, who led a team at the Washington University Medical School in St. Louis that joined with British scientists to map the worm's genes.
  ``This worm is really an animal just as we are,'' said Waterston. ``It has muscles and many different kinds of cells. And it also ages, just as we do. By and large, it uses the same genes that we do.''
  By studying genes shared by worm and human, researchers will learn at a molecular level what can go wrong and how to fix it. Such microscopic studies are virtually impossible in humans.
  ``Half of the disease genes in humans have identifiable counterparts in this worm,'' said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He said researchers into many human diseases will be able to use the humble worm as a way of learning how to prevent, treat and cure the illnesses of man.
  ``I don't think that it is an overstatement to say that the hopes of the parents of a child with a birth defect, the hopes of a young man with a family history of cancer and the hopes of a couple caring for aging parents are advanced'' by this new understanding of the C. elegans, Collins said.
  In fact, researchers studying the worm identified genes that have been linked to Alzheimer's disease, to aging and to some forms of cancer, Waterston said.
  ``The only reason we know about some proteins in Alzheimer's disease is because there are related proteins in the worms, and the function of these proteins had been determined,'' he said.
  In terms of the gene-mapping's significance to science in general and to biology in particular, Collins said: ``This is like landing on the moon.''
  Collins said that by understanding what happens in the worm cells, researchers also learn what happens in human cells. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75 percent have matches in the worm, Collins said.
  
  -- Barbie
29. Re:Well... by OrangeTide · 2010-12-19 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  When they don't sell, or they spoil on the shelves, then you'll understand why the industry is the way it is.
  so you agree that making nutritious food is not the priority of the industry.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
30. Re:Well... by OrangeTide · 2010-12-19 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  all the vegetarians I know are all pasty white and sickly looking
  That has not been my experience. I'm not remotely vegetarian, but many of my friends are. And they are not sickly looking at all. Perhaps the people you know where sickly to begin with, and were attracted to vegetarianism in an attempt to fix their weak constitution? Or perhaps they are simply doing it wrong.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
31. Re:Well... by Snocone · 2010-12-19 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  ...there have been experiments trying a sustained 100% meat+offal/brains diet for more than a year with no problems identified...
  There have been experiments trying that diet for over 8,000 years at least, resulting in the healthiest population on the planet; archaeologists routinely find skeletons of 70+ year olds with all their original teeth, the only population on Earth to produce those.
  Said population being Canada's Inuit. Zero carb birth to death except for partially digested stomach contents of prey animals. As there is no edible plant matter whatsoever in the traditional Inuit habitat.
  In what is no doubt a complete coincidence, since a modern "healthy" diet with plenty of vegetables was introduced to the Inuit after World War II, obesity, diabetes, and cancer have gone from nothing to epidemic proportions and lifespan is plummeting.
32. Re:Well... by jimicus · 2010-12-19 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  In what is no doubt a complete coincidence, since a modern "healthy" diet with plenty of vegetables was introduced to the Inuit after World War II, obesity, diabetes, and cancer have gone from nothing to epidemic proportions and lifespan is plummeting.
  Sounds like a variant on something in a play I was once in. (Forgive the paraphrasing, it was fifteen years ago):
  A: Curries are all very well, but eat too many and they rot your kidneys.
  B: Eurgh. I won't eat any more
  A: Once in a while is all right. Everything in moderation! But in your grandfathers day, nobody ate curry. Kidney transplants were unheard of.
33. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 08:02 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Manure isn't fertilizer. Composed manure is. Parasites and diseases of mammals do not live through the many months long process of composting. The only things you would find in it are already found in the same dirty soil that all plants are grown in.
  Nothing you just said made sense. In short, shut up and/or get a clue.
34. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Organic doesn't mean grown without fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or preservatives. Not at all. All fruits and vegetables are grown with all three in the process.
  You are just wrong. Fertilizers, sure. They use compost, made from manure and organic agricultural waste. Compost is not manure, by the way.
  No pesticides, herbicides, or preservatives are allowed.
35. Re:Well... by jimicus · 2010-12-19 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  I stopped doing that decades ago after I grew up and couldn't be forced to eat them. Now I look at my friends who are vegetarians, and am shocked at how old they look compared to my mostly meat-eating self.
  Easiest way to fuck up a vegetarian diet is to take a normal meat-eaters diet and simply cut out the meat. You can't do that and expect to be healthy, you have to actually learn to cook properly - which means more than just cooking good food, it means cooking nutritious food. It is possible to get every nutrient you need, but it'd be quite difficult unless you know exactly what things you need to eat.
  Disclaimer: Way back in the mists of time, I went to a vegetarian school. You weren't obliged to be veggie, but meat and meat products weren't allowed on the premises.
36. Re:Well... by marcello_dl · 2010-12-19 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  We don't get energy from the sun directly so we kill other stuff.
  Veg*ans split hairs on why killing vegetables is different than killing the rest. A life form is a life form. My position is we didn't choose (or recall we did, at least :) ) to be human vs. plants so we don't bear responsibility for our needing to survive through others. Just try not to squander resources so that all the stuff that died and will die because of us didn't do it in vain. If you're Christian there's the sin of gluttony no? :D
  Nonetheless veg*ans have good points on the effect of what we eat for our health.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
37. Re:Well... by Joe+Tie. · 2010-12-19 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Probably genetics. There's really not a huge amount we can do with the aging process. Balding in particular, barring pharmaceutical intervention, is going to happen like clockwork.
  
  --
  Everything will be taken away from you.
38. Re:Well... by Joe+Tie. · 2010-12-19 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, it's always a really bad idea to draw too many conclusions from non-experimental data. It's not even close to uncommon for people to look at populations, notice a nutritional difference, and attribute it to a different diet. Then it turns out that the isolated breeding population wound up with a genetic quirk that your average person in western cultures doesn't. Hell, even situations where the food did matter, but it only mattered, again, because it was interacting with genetic elements that aren't present in 99.9% of humans on earth.
  
  --
  Everything will be taken away from you.
39. Re:Well... by Culture20 · 2010-12-19 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  It would be if the consumers would go to the factory to do their purchasing, but they're too lazy to go to 30 different factories for all of the food they buy every day. Food needs preserved somehow. We used to use incredible amounts of salt, smoke, or lye to do it.
40. Re:Well... by SpeZek · 2010-12-19 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Organic farming uses organic pesticides and preservatives.
41. Re:Well... by Snocone · 2010-12-19 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like there's a whole host of genetic elements affecting what's a proper diet for you, and you've got to figure out which ones apply.
  Dairy, starches, grains, and fructose are four of the most important. For my extreme northern European/Mongol ancestry, lots of the first and none of the last three is best. Take someone whose ancestry is 50 degrees of latitude south of mine, and the chances are pretty good that the exact opposite would be a good diet for them.
42. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  You know arguments like this are only valid until you realize the obvious :
  Nature does not have your best intrests at heart. Rather it's got IT's best intrests at heart. Darwin at work.
  Unfortunately, this means that organic farming can lead to some quite horrific ways to die. I'm just naming one, but the list is actually quite lengthy.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claviceps_purpurea
  The problem is, this disease cannot be detected in wheats without expensive tests, which are therefore not done. However in normal farming the disease is poisoned out preventively, all but guaranteeing it's absence (1 death in over 60 years resulting from normal farming - few people are infected and live). However in the last 10 years cases have skyrocketed (meaning 10-20 cases yearly over the US). Now read the symptoms list ... gangrene, total loss of well ... your brain, immensely violent reactions against everyone and everything (one case described a person attacking a coathook until the muscles of his arm lay on the ground, and even then he wouldn't stop), spasms so powerful they sometimes break bones, sounds fun doesn't it ? Think about it the next "natural wheat" you buy.
  But there's lots of fun to be had with "natural" products. Perhaps best to remember though, your parents warning you as a child not to eat anything you find in nature ... there's a reason for those warnings ...
43. Re:Well... by NiceGeek · 2010-12-19 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  You can be a vegetarian and still make poor food choices. Oreos are a vegan food for example.
  You can't judge all vegetarians by your friends any more than I can judge all meat-eaters by the 400 lb guy in the scooter at McDonalds.
44. Re:Well... by Steeltoe · 2010-12-19 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'd go with food made for the sake of love and interest over profits any day.
  Well said.
  MOD PARENT UP!
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
45. Re:Well... by Steeltoe · 2010-12-19 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  Funny, being vegetarian and looking at others, seeing how old they look, I'm more inclined to believe it has more to do with genes. I believe there is a clockwork in our body, making us older, by programming rather than something that has to happen. I believe there are drugs you can take to supposedly "slow the aging process", but it's not been proven yet.
  Especially when thinking about the massive amounts of Cola and candies I've consumed ;-)
  Anecdotes, anecdotes..
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
46. Re:Well... by JSG · 2010-12-19 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  I'd love to see how you would create a double blind trial on this
47. Re:Well... by chri · 2010-12-19 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  But organic is the way to go! If it's natural, it's good for you
  Why do so many people think this is the case?
  I think the reasoning behind this is that natural substances are things we are more likely to have evolved in the presence of, and therefore we are more likely to be able to process. This is not always the case, but on the whole, "natural" substances are a safer bet.
  
  --
  greetings earthlings
48. Re:Well... by RobinH · 2010-12-19 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I would love for your statements to be true, but do you actually have any evidence or references to back up all these claims, or is everyone just spouting hot air here?
  
  --
  "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
49. Re:Well... by SpeZek · 2010-12-19 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  Sure.
  http://web.mit.edu/~sdavies/MacData/afs.sdavies/MacData/afs.course/other/sp275/www/organicmyth.pdf
  http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/14079717/The-Seven-Most-Dangerous-Myths-About-Organic
50. Re:Well... by SirWinston · 2010-12-19 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  > You can't judge all vegetarians by your friends
  > any more than I can judge all meat-eaters by the
  > 400 lb guy in the scooter at McDonalds.
  His name is CowboyNeal, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
51. Re:Well... by skids · 2010-12-19 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  Funny how this conversation went from soluble fiber to "you hippie, complaining about preservatives!" in one angry AC troll.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
52. Re:Well... by janvo · 2010-12-19 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  Companies can NOT simply add 'organic' as a label their product. It does mean something and can be used if the product does not meet specific criteria.
  If you want to claim: "Organic" (or a similar statement):
  Your product: Must contain at least 95% organic ingredients, not counting added water and salt.
  Must not contain added sulfites.
  May contain up to 5% of:
  1. non-organically produced agricultural ingredients which are not commercially available in organic form; and/or
  2. other substances allowed by 7 CFR 205.605.
  Your label MUST:
  Show an ingredient statement.
  List the organic ingredients as "organic" when other organic labeling is shown.
  1 Water and salt included as ingredients must not be identified as organic. (IS)
  Show below the name and address of the handler (bottler, distributor, importer, manufacturer, packer, processor, etc.) of the finished product, the statement:
  "Certified organic by ___" or similar phrase, followed by the name of the Certifying Agent. Certifying Agent seals may not be used to satisfy this requirement. (IP)
  Your label MAY show:
  The term "Organic" to modify the product name. (PDP/IP/OP)
  "X% organic" or "X% organic ingredients." (PDP/IP/OP)
  The USDA Organic seal and/or certifying agent seal(s). (PDP/OP)
  The certifying agent business/Internet address or telephone number. (IP)
  1 To identify an ingredient as organically produced, in the ingredients statement, use the word, "organic" in conjunction with the name of the ingredient, or an asterisk or other reference mark which is defined below the ingredient statement.
53. Re:Well... by Mspangler · 2010-12-19 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  "But organic is the way to go! If it's natural, it's good for you"
  This always gives me a chuckle.
  google amantin, alpha variant is fine. 100% organic in both senses of the word.
  Not good for you.
54. Re:Well... by digitig · 2010-12-19 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
  Irrelevant. There was never any correlation between antioxidants in the diet and antioxidants in the bloodstream. The whole "superfoods" thing was only ever a marketing thing, never anything to do with science. Vegetables are good for you, but it's not because they contain antioxidants.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
55. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  The most lethal poison known to man is also completely natural: botulism. 90-200 ng (that's NANOgrams) for an average 90Kg person is lethal. All from canning green beans. Organic green beans. Think about it.
56. Re:Well... by rrohbeck · 2010-12-19 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because industrial food manufacturers have adulterated food to the point that it makes you sick, simple as that.
  There isn't much need to go organic, but there is a need to go back to natural foods. It would roll back the obesity epidemic.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
57. Re:Well... by Hartree · 2010-12-19 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  "This is why we need to institute mandatory human experimentation!"
  We already have it. It's called living on modern society.
  We also have a great variation in the experiments being done, what with the striking variation of how people live and eat worldwide.
  The problem is deciding just who would constitute a control group. :)
58. Re:Well... by Billlagr · 2010-12-19 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  God help me I have to say it... In Soviet Russia, the vegetables eat YOU! I feel dirty now
59. Re:Well... by jordan_robot · 2010-12-19 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to wipe with no hands.
60. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  Poke out both eyes then insist on an eye mask ?
61. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  Pssshh... I've been a vegetarian for years and bench just over 200. You don't even want me to talk about squatting.
  I'd say the pasty white / sickly looking vegetarians are that way because of other life choices. It just happens that those *other* life choices are very compatible with vegetarianism.
62. Re:Well... by fractoid · 2010-12-19 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Form two groups of humans. Feed one group a diet low in antioxidants, and the other group with a diet high in antioxidants but otherwise equivalent. It may be necessary to stop the two groups comparing notes to maintain the double-blind nature of the trial. Observe the aging process in two groups and calculate the statistical probability of the observed aging occurring given either (a) the assumption that antioxidants improve human life expectancy, and (b) the assumption that they do not.
  
  Seems pretty straightforward to me.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
63. Re:Well... by Genda · 2010-12-19 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you're not an organic farmer, nor do you apparently know anything about organic farming.
  You're right, all crops are fertilized. However, you're mistaken about how organic farms are fertilized. While large commercial farms use fertilizers that have a tremendous load on the environment in both use of fresh water and petrochemicals (read oil), organic farming uses both old and new technologies. Anything from advanced composting and intelligent use of crop stubble to introduced nitrogen fixing bacteria and proper crop rotation. This leads to dramatically enhanced soil fertility and crop yield without the inherent downside of chemical fertilizers.
  Likewise you're right, organic farms use pesticides, you're wrong however on the methods and types. Some methods are indeed ancient, and have proven effective even by today's standards. Others are cutting edge including biological pesticides and pheromones (that sicken and kill pests or interrupt their reproduction), use of predatory species, combined crops that mutually deter each others pests, and breakthrough growing methods that dramatically enhance crop resistance without the introduction of toxic chemicals. By the way if you haven't studied the impact of chemical pesticides on farm workers, or the significant amounts of pesticides found in certain foods ( href="http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/332/the-new-dirty-dozen-12-foods-to-eat-organic-and-avoid-pesticide-residue.html" target - "_blank">Dirty Dozen) and their known risk to consumers, you may want to think twice about chowing down on certain fruits and veggies that aren't organic.
  You are almost completely mistaken about organic farms being large industrial farms. Most are boutique farms, one reason they have higher prices. Another is that they can command higher prices because people are willing to pay extra for food which are intrinsically cleaner and less likely to end up causing them cancer in 30 years. As far as what you call "normal food" the big four "Big Agro" crops are Wheat, Soy, Corn, and Cotton, and their price is low because their industrial agro-business corporations take tens of billions of your tax dollars home every year in the form of subsidies. If you did some honest accounting, I think you'd find your "Cheap Produce" way more expensive than you ever imagined. Of course that's the problem with these issues. The real world is complex, and simple world views tend to be over simplistic, and filled with mistakes and short-cut generalizations.
  By far the most important aspect of modern organic farming, is that it is part of a growing movement to farm in a way that is productive, sustainable, does not poison the earth (look at every major study on mega-farming and the harm it does to the fundamental structure and composition of soil), the water (look at studies on depleted aquifers, toxic farm run-off, and ocean dead-zones caused by careless agricultural practices the world over), and air (ever breath the choking fumes coming from a commercial farm? The release of toxic ammonia, methane, pesticides and other poisonous emissions, not to mention the simple stench of the chemical fertilizers?)
  There has been a growing "Strip Mining" mentality regarding most human endeavor, build bigger and better fishing boats until the fish are all gone, build farms that cover entire mid-western states, and burn up the human and natural resources at an ever accelerating pace, turn agricultural land in other places into more suburban sprawls and strip malls. When is enough, enough? When is choosing a path that doesn't end in a depleted environment, a burnt out economy, or a shattered global policy for human interaction going to be a priority for all of us. This isn't an argument for taking less, its a commitment to taking better. There's a great line from the movie "The book of Eli", where Eli tells a young woman that before it all went to hell, "We didn't know what was precious. We threw things away that people kill each other for now..." That's a future worth avoiding. Or
64. Re:Well... by fractoid · 2010-12-19 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  'Nature' doesn't have any interests at heart, any more than gravity or fire or nuclear fusion. You're assigning intentionality to a physical process.
  
  That said, I completely agree that despite the excellent P.R. campaign, organic or "natural" farming can lead to far more suffering for the animals involved. It can also lead to various nasty consequences for the consumers of the produce. Think of it this way - what's happier and healthier, a human living off the land in a rain forest or on a savanna, or a human living in civilized comfort in a first-world city? The former case is far more 'natural' (in the simplistic view espoused by the back-to-nature crowd) than the latter, but then so is dying of smallpox.
  
  Of course, if you actually think about it logically, human nature is to analyse, understand, and manipulate our environment. So living in a high-rise apartment block, watching TV or using a computer, eating cheese and crackers and drinking red wine, is as 'natural' for you or I as living in a hollow tree and eating nuts is for a squirrel.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
65. Re:Well... by fractoid · 2010-12-19 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's what happens when you don't get enough soluble fiber in your diet. You get cranky.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
66. Re:Well... by TheTurtlesMoves · 2010-12-19 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Many places I have seen use fresh cow shit and chicken shit, fresh as in it was food yesterday, shit today. Nothing about composting at all. The pesticides that are marked acceptable for organic, are just as toxic to humans as the normal stuff, you have to wear and do all the same safety procedures. There is one difference, it doesn't have to rain before you harvest with organics while it does with normal pesticides. Perhaps you should be getting the clue.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
67. Re:Well... by TheTurtlesMoves · 2010-12-19 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Some places may, but many i have seen use fresh shit. No shit.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
68. Re:Well... by risom · 2010-12-19 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Where's the problem? I go to the local supermarket once a week and buy my food for the next week. All of that is organic. Vegetables etc. wouldn't last much longer anyway, organic or not. And stuff like jam or canned vegetables last years.
69. Re:Well... by ffreeloader · 2010-12-19 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  This has to be one of the dumber arguments here against organic farming methods.
  Don't properly clean and cook your food to kill naturally occurring bacteria and you'll get sick from eating it. That's an argument against organic farming? Try not properly cleaning up after handling raw chicken and see what happens. Try eating produce raised in a non-organic manner without properly cleaning it where the pickers are taking shits in the field and see what happens to you.
  BTW, botulism in canned green beans can exist no matter how they are raised. The same procedures must be used to ensure that the end product is free of botulism whether they are raised organically or not. Large scale agribusiness must take the same precautions that people canning the green beans they raised organically in their garden must take. Your ignorance is really something.....
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
70. Re:Well... by Dabido · 2010-12-19 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  I read elsewhere that ageing is mostly genetic, so your friends will look older regardless of what they eat. I've been a vegetarian for almost my entire life and I get mistaken for someone 10-20 years younger than my age. My younger brother who is a huge meat eater is often mistaken for the elder of us both. But, I don't think it has to do with what we're eating. Though people mistake him for someone older than me, he also is mistaken for someone younger than what he is.
  My mother often gets mistaken for someone about 20 years younger than she is too. She's 'mostly' a vegetarian (but often will eat a fish or something lean every now and then). Your friends and my family are hardly a large sample group, so not enough evidence to make a theory from, but if it was all we had to go on, then I'd say diet has very little to do with how old people look.
  Of course, ageing doesn't necessarily equate to how old someone looks either. Some people have very fit lean bodies that are 'younger' than their age but have faces that only a pit bull would love. :-)
  
  --
  Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
71. Re:Well... by Kashgarinn · 2010-12-19 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  People confuse "manufactured" and "heavily processed"
  I'm all for taking natural ingredients and industrialising it, but when your treatments of foods becomes overly processed, you're adding corn syrup to everything, or MSG, or E-marked ingredients, or keeping things in plastics which are soluble and act like female hormones, etc.. that's when I start to object.
72. Re:Well... by arkane1234 · 2010-12-20 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  The reason is because said pesticides and such, when introduced into the body, are scientifically found to be catalysts and/or queuing mechanisms for issues physically.
  Say what you will, but the whole "life through chemicals" thing only existed for about 100-150 years, when it comes to food. Everything else being inundated with chemicals wasn't until the 1930's/1940's.
  If it's certified organic, it's not just a word anymore than FDA approved. Bad example I guess, but you get the jist :)
  Please don't sound like my dad... which is pretty bad since I'm 36 lol
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
73. Re:Well... by arkane1234 · 2010-12-20 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's natural and is on most farms anyway.
  You say it like it's an odd thing? It's natural fertilizer, adding minerals to the ground. So many things touch the food between then and now that it's not even a thought...
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
74. Re:Well... by mdm-adph · 2010-12-20 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Something else to manipulate on their days off from running the country?
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
75. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Organic chemistry studies the reactions and properties of compounds with carbon in it. Is there even a law/regulation that specifies what organic means? Organic chemicals? Muahahahah. The problem is that our common usage of words tends towards words that are general in meaning rather than specific. You can stick the "organic" label to many things with varying degrees of "naturalness".
76. Re:Well... by dasunt · 2010-12-20 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  No pesticides, herbicides, or preservatives are allowed.
  In the US, the law specifically allows the use of non-synthetic pesticides and other materials.
  For example, pyrethrin, a poison derived from some plants, is used as an insecticide.
  Copper sulfate, a mineral, is also allowed under USDA rules.
  There's a lot of other fun examples, including some that were allowed earlier, but later ended up being banned because of health concerns.
77. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  I think the more pertinent point is that purchasing nutritious food is not the priority of the customer. The industry is simply responding.
78. Re:Well... by Abcd1234 · 2010-12-20 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if that is because of the lack of meat, or if just pasty and sickly people are more likely to give up meat
  I think it far more likely that "fashionable" vegetarians and vegans don't bother to actually research what's involved in eating a properly balanced vegetarian diet. It's actually quite challenging to get the full spectrum of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids from entirely non-meat sources (unless you make allowances for eggs, milk, or fish). Entirely doable, yes, but it requires some conscious effort, which is something your average vegetarian bandwagon-jumper isn't terribly interested in.
79. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Are we talking marigolds or malathion?
80. Re:Well... by Ol+Olsoc · 2010-12-20 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, the "organic" moniker doesn't really mean squat. But food grown the old fashioned or natural way really does taste better. Wild meat is just one example. The taste and texture of a wild native trout and a farm grown one would almost make you think they weren't the same species. Eggs from real free range chickens have a fair bit of taste difference, and a big texture difference - the commercial eggs are thicker consistency. Factory chickens taste a lot like fish. I refuse to eat the pink bullets that some call tomatoes after feasting on real and properly grown ones.
  It isn't rocket surgery. Artificially produced food tends to taste artificial. It's not to say that all applied chemistry is bad, but we've gone so far along that path that modern food is pretty artificial.
  Even things like irradiating food are not necessarily evil. The evil is that the manufacturers want to irradiate the food so they can ship it to you with fecal matter on it. Yum. Enjoy your sterilized e coli. But if you like it that way, have at it.
  
  --
  Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
No, no by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 04:39 · Score: 0

Jailing the radicals was *bad*. Radicals want to be free! TUBULAR!
1. Re:No, no by fyngyrz · 2010-12-19 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I guess if free radicals don't cause aging, jailed radicals might.
  OTOH... Never mind.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well obviously. by pablo_max · 2010-12-19 04:40 · Score: 1

I mean, how can anything with the word free right there as part of it's name be bad for you?
Like, free porn, or free t-shirts and free guns. So obvious.
1. Re:Well obviously. by Brad1138 · 2010-12-19 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot, free as in beer
  
  --
  If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
2. Re:Well obviously. by JamesP · 2010-12-19 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  free arson??
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
3. Re:Well obviously. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Freemason?
4. Re:Well obviously. by John+Hasler · 2010-12-19 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The radicals aren't free as in beer: you have to pay for them when you buy foods "high in free radicals". They are free as in speech, though, in that you don't need permission from the grocery store to pass them on when you are done with them. The bacteria at the sewage plant thank you.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
5. Re:Well obviously. by Arthur+Grumbine · 2010-12-19 05:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I mean, how can anything with the word free right there as part of it's name be bad for you?
  Free Hat!
  
  --
  Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
6. Re:Well obviously. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Durka durrrr.
7. Re:Well obviously. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, Free Dummy!
8. Re:Well obviously. by fishexe · 2010-12-19 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, how can anything with the word free right there as part of it's name be bad for you?
  Free STDs! Today only, in my garage.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
9. Re:Well obviously. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Free James Brown!
10. Re:Well obviously. by Nialin · 2010-12-19 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Free Weezy! ...wait, no. Don't do that.
11. Re:Well obviously. by jordan_robot · 2010-12-19 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Matt Damonnn!
12. Re:Well obviously. by rdnetto · 2010-12-19 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  2 words: Freedom fondle
  
  --
  Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
13. Re:Well obviously. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Free Ebola?
Free radicals have their limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 04:42 · Score: 1

Well it's not surprising at all to hear this about free radicals. We all know that libre radicals have a better chance at it.
Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 04:42 · Score: 1

One more data point in the quest to end aging. Just like there are no male or female carbon atoms, there are no 10 year old or 40 year old carbon atoms. They're all the same, act the same, always, everywhere. So why is there aging? IMO, it's all about enzymes. We have enzymes that handle the more toxic by-products of the process of life. If we didn't, we wouldn't live long enough to reproduce. Things like AGE molecules seem to accumulate in the human body.
These molecules are harmless enough in short time scales so there's no pressure to get rid of them. However, they accumulate and eventually gum up the works so to speak.
When can we start seeing attempts to cleave these AGE molecules in-vivo in humans? I want to live longer. Just like some people want to see other planets, I want to see more time.
1. Re:Good. by couchslug · 2010-12-19 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  "When can we start seeing attempts to cleave these AGE molecules in-vivo in humans? I want to live longer. Just like some people want to see other planets, I want to see more time."
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjbAgwdBaTI
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yeah, it was too good to be true... by wisebabo · 2010-12-19 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

If free radicals were responsible for (a large part) of aging then blueberry farmers would routinely live to be more than 100. Blueberries supposedly have the highest amount of anti-oxidants (by weight? volume? serving size?) of any food.
Too bad, I love blueberries.
1. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by pablo_max · 2010-12-19 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the Acai Berries has twice the amount of Anti-oxidants than blueberries.
2. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by dimeglio · 2010-12-19 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Black coffee, espresso in particular, is also very high in anti-oxidants. Too bad all that coffee wont help...
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
3. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by blind+biker · 2010-12-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, there are a huge variety of antioxidatns. It's really stupid to compare catechins, which are hydrosoluble, and curcuminoids, which are liposoluble. Both are antioxidants, but are not comparable.
  Second: this study does not disprove the usefulness of antioxidants for preserving DNA integrity. OTOH, there are studies with evidence that anti-oxidants are effective in this sense.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
4. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by jandersen · 2010-12-19 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  ...then blueberry farmers would routinely live to be more than 100
  Not quite, since what the supermarket calls blueberry is not necessarily what we are talking about. The most commonly sold one is vaccinium corymbosum, which has big fruits, but not a lot of the anthocyanins that are supposed to be good for you (they are white inside, not blue all through).
  Anyway, there is evidence to suggest that aging is related to the shortening of telomeres; this is really a rather old idea, but apparently it has been gaining in strengths recently. In my view, ageing is just one of many life-style related decays that we are slowly learning to counteract - and with some success. Haven't you noticed how people not so many years agou used to look quite old and frail already in their sixties, but now we are no longer surprised to find that people in their seventies are still physically active and mentally alert? It is all about finding the right balance - what to eat and what not to eat, what to do and what not; gobbling up unlimited quantities of "superfoods" is neither pleasant nor good for you.
5. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by Sebastopol · 2010-12-19 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  Seems like you need to read the /. post from a few days ago about the link between fertility and cell phones...
  
  --
  https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
6. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by davester666 · 2010-12-19 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  If the farmers ingested and/or bathed in them. But they don't. They sell them.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
7. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by MillionthMonkey · 2010-12-19 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'll just sprinkle potassium permanganate on my corn flakes this morning.
8. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by rogeroger · 2010-12-19 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  the resultant blue milk should prove placebo positive
9. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by fain0v · 2010-12-19 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the Acai Berries has twice the amount of Anti-oxidants than blueberries.
  Maybe fresh ones do, but reducing agents disappear over time, especially in a plastic bottle on a shelf.
10. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by RichardJenkins · 2010-12-19 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad, I love blueberries.
  Then eat them! Blueberries are nutritious and delicious. Maybe they won't make you live forever; seriously though - what do people want from a damned fruit!
11. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by interval1066 · 2010-12-19 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Too bad, I love blueberries."
  Well,, you don't have to stop eating them. THIS JUST IN: Blueberries in high amounts cause cancer.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
12. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by estestvoispytatel · 2010-12-19 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  I have heard, typical acai berry farmers live past 200 years easily.
13. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  little known fact is cacao beats any other substance in antioxidants... hot chocolate is preferable to coffee
14. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by AliasMarlowe · 2010-12-19 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  I'll just sprinkle potassium permanganate on my corn flakes this morning.
  Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent. Wouldn't you prefer a strong reducing (=anti-oxidizing) agent instead? If so, try adding some lithium aluminium hydride, or sodium borohydride, or oxalic acid, or hydrazine to those cornflakes. Let us know how the "life extension" strategy works out.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
15. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by w0mprat · 2010-12-19 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Lycopene in tomatoes is a far more potent anti-oxidant (once the tomatoes are processed to improve bioavailability). In one study of 11,000 men aged 50-60 3-4 servings of tomatoes a week it reduced the incidence of prostate cancer by 50% and of those who did get it the disease was less agressive. In another german study 55g of tomato paste per day reduced aging in the skin and provided on average a 30% sunburn protection factor.
  
  Anti-oxidants at work my friend. Directly protecting cells from damage.
  
  So naturally I eat lots of tomatoes now - bare in mind alot of drugs get FDA approval with much less established effect, and much smaller trials.
  
  But it may be that anti-oxidant foods have other things such as antiangiogenic compounds: http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
16. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by HiThere · 2010-12-19 07:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Oxalic acid should be "sort of" OK. It's supposed to be common in spinach. In fact it's supposed to be the reason that the iron in spinach is unavailable, unless you eat it with vinegar.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
17. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by MillionthMonkey · 2010-12-19 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry- I'm saving the permanganate for mixed drinks.
18. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  If you love something that should be unconditional. The word love and condition does not exist together. If you love to eat blueberries,eat.
  By the way what's wrong in that if that is not responsible for anti aging any more as you believe upon that research. Antioxidants and Vitamins is still there to boost your immunity to fight with virus and bacteria and protect you. Staying healthy has nothing to do with aging!!!!! i believe.
19. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by Notyourpapa · 2010-12-20 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you really want serious anti-oxidants then berries, schmerries....go for mushrooms. In particular, try Cordyceps or Reishi. Get the extract and use it in black coffee...and have a blueberry muffin...and then do a CrossFit workout. You may not get any younger but you'll feel like a puppy.
20. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by dzfoo · 2010-12-20 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I have a serious question: I've never heard of the vinegar-spinach combination as a recommendation. I'm not questioning your assertion, but would you mind offering some reference? I'd like to learn more about it.
  -dZ.
  
  --
  Carol vs. Ghost
  ...Can you save Christmas?
21. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by AliasMarlowe · 2010-12-20 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oxalic acid should be "sort of" OK.
  For sufficiently small values of "sort of", I suppose. We treated it as a poison in chemistry lab work. Tiny amounts exist in many vegetables, and are excreted via the kidneys. Rhubarb leaves are considered poisonous primarily because they contain significant amounts of oxalic acid (far more than rhubarb stalks).
  A lethal dose might require a good big spoonful of oxalic acid, but you'll suffer on ingesting much smaller quantities. Acute symptoms include burning eyes/throat/mouth, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, progressing to convulsions, respiratory failure and cardiovascular failure if the dose is large enough.
  Chronic effects of moderate doses can also cause considerable discomforts. It's not particularly soluble, and easily precipitates in the presence of many common cations, so it tends to accumulate as stones in the kidneys and bladder.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
22. Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... by HiThere · 2010-12-20 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe what the trick with vinegar does is cause it to percipitate before being digested? (Though I think the explanation I heard was more along the lines of "All acetates are soluble", so iron acetate will go into solution, where iron oxalate would be insoluble.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Wow! by countertrolling · 2010-12-19 04:46 · Score: 1

Next they're going to tell us that asbestos actually cures lung cancer and we should sprinkle DDT on our cereal every morning to avoid shingles..

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
1. Re:Wow! by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2010-12-19 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  With your asbestos example, I think the connection is pretty clear, the anti-aging connection was assumed in the case of anti-oxidants, with (apparently) little effort to investigate to confirm the hypothesis.
  I never did really understand the claims for anti-oxidants, it was always a vague argument from anti-oxidant proponents and food product packages. I'm sure they're good, but when people just go overboard on anything, it's usually not a good thing.
2. Re:Wow! by countertrolling · 2010-12-19 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I never did really understand the claims for anti-oxidants...
  It's a classic case of marketing. Create a need for a useless by-product of some fat rendering process (or similar), or finding a profitable way of disposing toxic waste.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
They're not harmful right? by calmofthestorm · 2010-12-19 04:59 · Score: 1

I don't think I could give up my tomatoes even if they were...

--
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
They forgot something on to the title by alphastrike · 2010-12-19 04:59 · Score: 1

The full title ought to be:
"Free Radicals May Not Be The Cause of Aging This Week!"
Really? by beakerMeep · 2010-12-19 05:00 · Score: 1

I always got the sense that the antioxidant craze was healthwashing run amok. Every time I've looked into it there seem to be as many detriments as benefits. From what I've read, oxidation plays a role in so many different processes isn't it unclear whether its good or bad as a whole?

--
meep
Maybe that's a good thing... by Brad1138 · 2010-12-19 05:00 · Score: 1

What would happen if they actually "cured aging". Would our system work if all the sudden people lived to 200 or 500 or... I would almost think, like that STNG episode where they all had to die at 60, maybe you would have to cap it a 100 or 150. If I could live to 100 as healthy as I am now (at 43) I would think that would be a pretty good life.

--
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
1. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Pharmboy · 2010-12-19 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  That is an excellent point, and one I have thought about on more than one occasion, but for different reasons. What would happen to social welfare and retirement pensions when the average person was drawing on them for 100 years, instead of 10 years? Would you have to forego Social Security payments if you "took the cure for aging"? Would only rich people be able to afford it, and then create an oppressive voting block over time in a democracy? Would you eventually just get bored with life even while you are still healthy? What would happen 50 to 100 years down the line when the average age of a person was over 100? Would we have to restrict the number of births that a couple has, to prevent even greater overpopulation? Would prisoners serving life sentences be eligible for the same treatment? Do we only reserve it for persons deemed "worthy"? Who decides that? Could it be used as a weapon?
  A "cure" for old age is very much a double edged sword and might bring more misery than joy, particularly if you are talking about average life spans jumping to 150 years or more.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
2. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  1. Social Security is already broke, it's not going to last much longer anyway. 2. Prices will come down over time. 3. The fertility rate in developed countries is already sub-replacement, it goes down with increasing wealth. 4. If you're healthy, there's a million things to do, places to go. 5. You decide if it's worth it to you.
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
3. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by PlusFiveTroll · 2010-12-19 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  There would be tons of secondary problems come out of 'solving' the problem of aging too. For example a woman is born with all the eggs she will ovulate. Currently that's not an issue in most people as we tend to have kids around 20 or so years old, but as women push back childbirth in to the later part of their lives all kinds of issues start cropping up. Again, these issues can be over come with enough science, but as we all know that doesn't come cheap and will benefit the rich the most.
  Also, I remember reading that some organ of the body seemed to follow a different aging process. I'll have to try to find that, who knows with all the medical bullshit that's written, it could have been conjecture I had read a story about.
4. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Pharmboy · 2010-12-19 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's swell, but I don't think it so cut and dry. If extending the average age was gradual over time, then yes, there is no concern. I'm talking about a situation where we made an instant leap from 72 year average expectancy to double or better. I've given the situation more than a passing thought, and there are a lot of ramifications that aren't obvious at first glance. I don't know if such a "cure" is going to happen in my lifetime, if at all, but it is certainly possible. Globally, it has already doubled over the last 150 years. If it happened in a very rapid fashion, there is no end to the issues it would cause. Too many to even try to list.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
5. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Maxo-Texas · 2010-12-19 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  It would be one thing if you were healthy, 35, and live to 200 or 500. You would work and be productive. Birth control would be no more of a concern than it is now ( imo earth is already past the carrying capacity so it's just a question of critical failure in 35 years or 75 years.) Obviously, you'd need a strong tie between the immortality treatment and birth control (vasectomies for men, not sure what for women-everything we have now is invasive except iud/pill and those don't work for everyone)
  OTH, if any people (say .1% per year) got a chronic illness and could not work or be productive then over 500 years, a huge portion of the population would be invalids.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
6. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Maxo-Texas · 2010-12-19 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Social security will survive with at least 75% benefits through at least 2050 (and probably beyond-- once the boomers start dying off the pressure drops). It would be better than that if they removed the payments to children and other survivors and if they treated it as insurance against poverty and means tested it. They could basically cap it at the inflation adjusted median income. You do not get any social security that exceeds $60,000 when added to your other income.
  But "what about me, I PAID all my life ! I want what's coming to me!!!!!" Well for one thing, most boomers paid about $120k. It's insane to pay them a $29,000 a year on their $120k investment. At current rates, that assumes their $120k has grown to about 1.2 million dollars. The benefits are too high (and I'm only 12 years away from early retirement so this hits me too).
  Medicare is in serious trouble. It's bankrupt (not 75%) by 2020 (some say 2019).
  Fertility rate is not down for hispanics and islamics in the 1st world. It's also not down for other subsets of the population (I know three strippers and all three had 4 or more children).
  Picture the 1st world lifestyle as penicillin. Some parts of the population are resistant to it. Over time, they will grow to dominate the population (in the south USA, hispanics will be a majority by 2040).
  Increased poverty also increases the birth rate. The wealth is not being shared equally by the top 2% any more. So the benefits of sacrificing having children are not as large as they were only 20 years ago.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
7. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Some examples would be nice. For one thing, you wouldn't know the real life expectancy until people start dying. Not sure how instant that can be ...
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
8. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Everything starts out expensive...
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
9. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see any fundamental issues here. There are always problems.
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
10. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Peeteriz · 2010-12-19 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  If most people would be able to stay reasonably healthy and with normal functional capacity for 500 years on average, then there is no reason or possibility for retirement at 60 - eternal life would naturally mean eternal work to sustain yourself, of course.
11. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Lehk228 · 2010-12-19 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  in the honorverse series, on manticore and other "civilized" planets prolong therapy is considered a basic right that everyone receives.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
12. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by selven · 2010-12-19 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Extrapolating from current demographic trends, we'll just have no new children. I'd gladly sterilize myself if that was the price of living forever.
13. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  I hope that people working in the research field aren't letting fear of bucking the status quo keep them from finding a cure for mortality.
  That's all the arguments against stopping aging are. In the past, we made a virtue out of aging and dying, because we couldn't imagine ever fighting it. We made up stories about life being a test and a veil of tears wherein we must embrace our mortality and go to a joyous death if we wished to be rewarded in the afterlife. It's all bullshit, to say the least. If we can find a way to extend our lives, we can find a way to adapt our society to it. What, would you prefer the alternative of not existing, just because it would take some work to change the way we live?
  Now that science has shown us that there are cures to our medical problems, and that the only thing keeping them from being available to everyone is the creation of artificial scarcity and our own ignorant beliefs in the myths of the past, we are stupid to turn down this opportunity because we're worried about living conditions being different. I still maintain that living (even in a world that is experiencing growing pains) is better than nothing.
14. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  Right, because the rich are the only ones that will be initially benefited, we totally shouldn't have any medicine or science.
  Perhaps, one day, people will realize that the wealthy don't have any power over you if you tell them that their money isn't any good. Wealth, like slavery, is a condition that the lower classes maintain by accepting things as they are. There's more of "us" than "them."
  All the us vs. the wealthy bullshit is besides the point, though. If we change our attitudes and refuse to accept that only some people are entitled to medical care, then maybe it won't be a thing for just the wealthy anymore. If people stood up and demanded their human rights...
  Ah, that won't happen. We're not humans, we're sheep, lead by our shepherds. The sheep will never realize that the shepherd only has one dog, and we're a whole flock.
15. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by pnutjam · 2010-12-19 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  remove payments to children? Social Security was originally intended to help widows and surviving children.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
16. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by pnutjam · 2010-12-19 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, the sterilized nation with multiple lifetimes to learn will stay in their rut and be wiped out by the nation that rejects immortality and continues to innovate and see the beauty and value of children.
  
  I see nothing good coming of a cure to aging.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
17. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Maxo-Texas · 2010-12-19 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, there were no provisions for any type of benefits to children in the Social Security Act of 1935.
  The promised benefits have been increased. Per business week, "If Social Security checks had been adjusted for inflation ever since the program started in 1935, retirees today would take home only $425 a month."
  What we consider a minimum fair amount has grown.
  If you donated $129k, then a fair benefit would have been about $7000 (about 6%) for most of the last century and 6 or 7 years of this one. The current interest rates are unrealistically low.
  But actual benefits are considerably higher. Part of the reason we can't afford them over the long term.
  But again, it won't go bankrupt, they estimate it will pay about 75% (so about $8400 inflation adjusted).
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
18. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by PlusFiveTroll · 2010-12-20 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  The sheep will never realize that the shepherd only has one dog, and we're a whole flock.
  Only one dog? Yea, wow, just wow. Open your eyes, there are plenty of dogs out there that will kill you if you try to upset their world. See: wikileaks.
19. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by Maxo-Texas · 2010-12-20 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  After this, I read that insurance companies are willing to sell an annuity which pays $10,000 a year for $120,000.
  So it seems reasonable the government could provide $10,750 for $129,000 contributed.
  Annuities work like this because everyone gives $129,000, half of them die by 75ish, and not many make it to 100.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
20. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by selven · 2010-12-20 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that when you say "nation that rejects immortality", you're saying "government that denies its citizens the right to medical care"? You're quite literally advocating mass murder.
  A cure to aging is not a means to some other end, like cultural or industrial progress, it is an end in itself.
21. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by pnutjam · 2010-12-21 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  No,if there were a "cure" for aging, there will be communities that reject it. I think they will prove that an end to aging is a sideline of history that will dead-end with stagnation and suicide.
  
  Or maybe they will wipe out the abominations...
  
  Moot point...
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
22. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by selven · 2010-12-26 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  How can a community reject something? If you mean a group of individuals who reject it going off and forming a new community, fine. But in practice it'll end up being a community that forces some individuals who don't want to die to do so anyway. My point is that this is morally unacceptable - it's murder. If some people can't figure out what to do with infinite life and kill themselves after 300 years, that's fine. But they still lived 300 years instead of 80. And as for "stagnation", so what if there's stagnation? The point of a community is to serve individuals, people who think individuals are only there to serve the community have it backwards. The whole point of progress is to make people's lives better and longer. If progress does the opposite, then I for one think it's better to live without that false 'progress'.
23. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by pnutjam · 2010-12-26 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree, community is not to serve individuals. That is a very selfish point of view and I think you can make a very good argument that as far as humanity is concerned, selfish = evil.
  
  People serve each other, you have to give as much as you receive. You must not interact with children much, a civilization without them is not one worth living in.
  
  If you think your values are correct, then you should be have as many children as you can afford, because the future belongs to children, yours or someone else's. Can you imagine the wealth disparity that will come about if people live to 300 without any signs of aging? It would tear a community apart and end up in a Sparta like situation where all the wealth is funneled into keeping the old folk on top. Eventually that would crumble like any authoritarian system. Man wants to be free and procreate. That's pretty much it.
  
  Anyway, who would enforce a trade off of sterility for no aging? Everyone would have kids and stop aging (thus destroying the world)? Your sterility caveat is what I really object to. Read Greybeard. very depressing...
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
24. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by selven · 2010-12-26 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  People serve each other, you have to give as much as you receive.
  Exactly. People serve each other. Individuals are not slaves to some abstract idea of "progress" or "society", they serve other individuals, and in doing so serve themselves.
  
  You must not interact with children much, a civilization without them is not one worth living in.
  I interact with children a lot. This is part of the reason why I'm so willing to go without them.
  
  It would tear a community apart and end up in a Sparta like situation where all the wealth is funneled into keeping the old folk on top.
  Except, as you yourself state, such a pyramid is inherently authoritarian and unstable and would eventually fall apart. So what's the problem?
  
  Man wants to be free and procreate. That's pretty much it. Everyone would have kids and stop aging (thus destroying the world)?
  
  Let's look at some statistics:
  Fertility rate of Uganda - 6.77 children per woman
  Fertility rate of Ethiopia - 6.12 children per woman
  Fertility rate of India - 2.72 children per woman
  Fertility rate of Mexico - 2.34 children per woman
  Fertility rate of France - 1.98 children per woman
  Fertility rate of Sweden - 1.67 children per woman
  The facts clearly show that as society becomes more advanced, children become less desirable. In developed countries, the problem is not population going too high, it's the threat of population going too low. And even if there will be a population boom and people start starving or there's a war, how is people dying of one of those two worse than people dying of aging?
  Think about this issue from the other side - imagine that people are immortal, there are whatever social problems that arise. Imagine someone stands up and suggests that as a solution we use genetic engineering to make everyone die after 80-120 years no matter what. How would you feel if someone decided to force such a solution on you?
25. Re:Maybe that's a good thing... by pnutjam · 2010-12-27 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Facts also indicate that as the life expectancy increases, births go down, but 300 years of life, without old age is going to give people who want to breed a long time to breed, the Duggers have 19 (I think). You could build your own empire in 300 years. We also both seem to be imagining that everyone would have access to this life extending treatment. I think that is highly unlikely. This would probably only be available to the wealthiest, unless you live in Canada or some other "socialist utopia".
  
  Would you consider it immoral or murder to deprive people of this treatment due to cost? I got into an ethical argument with someone the other day when I indicated we have a duty to provide care for people who need lifelong medical care, my example was a child with AIDS from birth. I believe that child has an inalienable right to life, which in turn obligates us as a society to provide the health care necessary for him or her. Does this carry over to the obligation to extend life or youth for decades or centuries?
  
  And, as long as you are calling me a out...
  Your proposed solution, requiring sterilization in trade for immortality, involves essentially forced sterilization. Would that only be required if you could not pay on the open market? Do you advocate the sterilization of indigent people today?
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
BWHAHA by techsoldaten · 2010-12-19 05:00 · Score: 1

More proof my all beer diet is going to make me live forever.
Bad science and "nutrition science" by Toe,+The · 2010-12-19 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation. That's just bad science.
And yet, it seems to be rather prevalent. Especially in the questionable science of nutrition, where any slightly new idea can lead to a fortune in book sales, diet plans, drug development, etc.
1. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's not biochemists writing diet plans, going on oprah or marketing fruit extracts to public. Where was the last drug candidate that was just anti-oxidants. You see where I'm going here?
2. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by nine-times · 2010-12-19 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well to be fair, confusing cause and effect is terrifically easy in science, as is confusing correlation and causation. For the most part, science can only discover correlation, and assigning causation requires a sort of intellectual leap.
  And all the fad diets and the industries built around them-- the problem there isn't "bad science". It's really a couple of bad things that happen regardless of how good the science is. First, you have bad news reporting. A single study comes out that suggests some small correlation between coffee and cancer, and then suddenly new outlets are reporting that coffee causes cancer, or coffee cures cancer, or whatever. That's not necessarily the scientists' fault.
  The second problem is deceptive marketing by companies selling crap. It's not limited to food and diets. It happens all over, and they don't need scientific studies.
3. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by ToasterMonkey · 2010-12-19 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation. That's just bad science.
  And yet, it seems to be rather prevalent. Especially in the questionable science of nutrition, where any slightly new idea can lead to a fortune in book sales, diet plans, drug development, etc.
  Has a scientist ever told you to eat more antioxidants so you'd live longer? My gut tells me scientists are smarter than the people you actually hear this stuff from.
  It's one thing to say X seems to have effect on Y in your body, and another to say doing X will make you live longer.
  CA:
  It's like blaming mechanics for the notion that changing your oil more frequently makes your car last longer. If you actually ask one, they'd tell you plainly, more frequently != more betterer...
4. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Ahh, the old "correlation isn't causation". I can assure you that scientist are in fact very much aware of the distinction. The problem comes from the fact that the only way to prove causation is to observe correlation and then eliminate other possible explanations except causation. This is a process that isn't impervious to mistakes - but, sadly, no other method exists.
5. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation.
  You are right of course, but it's easy to say and surprisingly hard to do.
  
  I'll give you an example. A certain Slashdot reader (whose name I will not mention but whose number might be 545098) noticed that in the field of nutrition, people often confuse cause and effect. This reader also noticed that scientists were researching the field, and came to the concluded that the scientists were the cause of this. But he was wrong. It was not the scientists who were misinterpreting their results, the scientists were very good at not confusing cause and effect. But the popular media, and others, reading the results did misinterpret them. If this slashdot reader had instead gone and read peer reviewed nutrition papers, he would see a lot of good work being done that he would approve of.
  
  See how easy it is? Be careful who you accuse of things.
  
  --
  Qxe4
6. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Kilrah_il · 2010-12-19 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or to perform a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial, which is the only way to prove causation... but let's see you do such an expensive trial for something as cheap as ant-oxidants. It's easier to just put on some marketing slogan and send it to the public to pay for.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
7. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  That would still just be a really strong correlation.
8. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by HiThere · 2010-12-19 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  But you can't do it for anti-oxidants. You can only do it for an anti-oxidant. And there are lots of them. And there's no particular reason to believe that they all act the same. (Unless you have a model of how things work that suggests that they would. And THAT model can be tested.)
  But I don't think any scientist uses such a simple model. E.g., there has been a study that reported that a diet containing high levels of Co-enzyne Q10 and Alpha-lipoeic acid tended to reduce the loss of hair cells in rats exposed to environmental stresses. And loss of hair cells is one of the chief causes of hearing loss in elderly humans. From this, one can conclude ... what?
  Well, nothing really. What does "high levels" mean? Were there any other side effects? Does it apply to humans? Would other anti-oxidants work as well? Do you need both anti-oxidants? Since my family tends to loose hearing as we age, I've started taking those pills. It's a gamble. I don't know how much I should take, or what side effects could show up. But I have weak eyes, and I'd rather not be both deaf and blind, so I'm taking a gamble. I'm sure not going to say that scientists said I should do so, it's my decision, and it's a known gamble (with unknown risks).
  The point is that some things are irreducibly complex. This means that there are lots of problems with trying so make predictions about what action will result in what result. Body chemistry is such a field. And different people have significantly different body chemistries. Standard medicines don't have the same effect on everyone who takes them. (Read the warning panels on a prescription drug.) People talk about personalized medicine, and I'm sure that would be a great breakthrough. In fact, it will probably require several great breakthroughs before it becomes practical.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
9. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Kilrah_il · 2010-12-19 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  No. If I take two groups of people, with both groups randomally assigned, as to discard the effect of any known and unknown confounders and then give each group a different treatment, any difference in outcome I see is due to the treatment. This is causation.
  Now, I know, not all RCT(randomized controlled trials) are set up well: They may not have enough participants to overcome random effects, or they may be set up by the drug company in a way that may show a benefit where there isn't much or there wan't proper randomization, but if done properly, a RCT can show causation. See Wikipedia.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
10. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Kilrah_il · 2010-12-19 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, I understand that performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for each anti-oxidant and for each indication (anti-aging, preventing hearing loss, etc.) is unrealistic, I just wanted to state the fact that a RCT can be used to show causation. People here like to shout out loud "correlation is not causation" so much, that they forget that causation can be proved, albit very expensively.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
11. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I agree there's all sorts of chicanery going on out there.
  However, it's time to drop the smug "correlation doesn't equal causation" cliche.
  Science isn't always tidy--in fact, it's a chaotic mess.
  Experiments have their own problems--generalizability, confounds, post hoc manipulations, etc. etc. etc.--and that's assuming they're even possible, practical, or ethical to conduct in all situations.
  No one has forced you to drink acai soy shakes for breakfast with a side of blueberry green tea puree every day.
  There's a benefit-cost-risk calculation to be made for everyone, and the question isn't always "does this correlation reflect a causative process?", it's often "does the assumption that this is a causative process result in significant costs, even if it turns out to be incorrect?"
  I personally like acai soy shakes, blueberries, and green tea. Even if the free radical theory turns out to be completely wrong (which I've generally assumed it would be), it's cost me almost nothing.
  Pascal's wager applies to more than eternal damnation, after all.
12. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by radtea · 2010-12-20 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  People talk about personalized medicine, and I'm sure that would be a great breakthrough. In fact, it will probably require several great breakthroughs before it becomes practical.
  Most of them would be economic. Current medical practice is based on mass-produced industrialized delivery of medical care. Doctors are trained that way, and can maximize patient through-put that way.
  Until physician behaviour changes, personalized medicine will be a dead letter, and there is exactly zero incentive for physician behaviour to change.
  The rest of your argument is just "science is hard" whining. That's true, but irrelevant. Science has always been hard. Go read Newton's "Opticks" and see how hard it was to prove the proposition "Light from the sun consists of rays of differing refrangibility": it took him thirty-odd pages to describe seven different experiments to prove that one simple thing. I'm sure a lot of other people had fiddled with prisms before Newton, but they all thought it would be "too hard" to investigate the phenomenology of light by systematic observation and controlled experiment, which is what science is. Nobody remembers them, and rightly so.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
13. Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" by HiThere · 2010-12-20 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the problems with personalized medicine are certainly economic. But a far cry from all, or even most, of them. E.g., many variations exist in personal biochemistry, but we don't know which ones are significant. This would require long term studies of a significant fraction of the worlds population, after identifying each participant by they proteome as well as by their genome. Just not doable. Perhaps at some point we'll be able to make a retrospective study, but then we'll need to identify exactly which choices which people made, how significant they were, and to what extent they were driven by physiology. (E.g., it's well know that generally men are more interested in eating meat than women? Is this important physiologically? Beneficial or harmful? To what extent? It is driven by physiology or custom? We'd need to do that kind of analysis for each metabolic variation.)
  Basically, we just don't really know enough.
  P.S.: If you heard the tone as whining, I think that says more about you than about me, because I don't feel that way. The fact that in the absence of hard data I feel I must gamble I consider to be a common part of the human condition. (And, for that matter, of the animal and plant condition.) This is because time is, so far as we know, irreversible.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You mean... by Chris+Mattern · 2010-12-19 05:05 · Score: 1

...Noam Chomsky *isn't* making me get older?
wildly? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:05 · Score: 0

Shouldn't it be "widely" ?
1. Re:wildly? by Smallpond · 2010-12-19 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't it be "widely" ?
  No. In this case crazed researchers chanting "Free the Radicals" stormed the barricades, set fire to the labs and forced their theory of mitochondrial breakdown as the root cause of aging on everyone they found. Why do you ask?
some bodies age slowly, others quickly by nido · 2010-12-19 05:10 · Score: -1, Troll

One of the main differences is how much polyunsaturated fatty acid is consumed. PUFAs are unstable, oxidize spontaneously when introduced to a human body, and generally wreck havoc in a warm-blooded mammalian systems (fish need these thin oils because they live in cold water). No amount of anti-oxidants is enough to counter the damage done by rancid oils. All seed oils are deodorized to hide rancidity.
My dad's wife is not aging gracefully. Her skin is wrinkled like someone 15 years older than she is. One of her regular dishes is fish fried in "vegetable" oil (corn/soy/rapeseed).
Safe oils are saturated, like butter, coconut oil, and lamb fat.

--
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
1. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by flonker · 2010-12-19 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  So, what you are saying is, cholesterol is a good thing?
2. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by the+eric+conspiracy · 2010-12-19 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like a disciple of the well-known crackpot Weston Price.
3. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by kimvette · 2010-12-19 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Cholesterol is necessary for proper cardiovascular and adrenal function. Most people synthesize enough so that they don't really need to eat a significant amount of cholesterol. However, some people's bodies do not synthesize enough cholesterol to remain healthy (folks with certain adrenal gland disorders for example - more specifically the liver may be functioning what would normally be adequate but due to the adrenal disorder supplemental cholesterol intake may be required to make the adrenal glands function - or go on a concoction of steroids with nasty side effects) and need to eat quite a bit.
  So yes, cholesterol intake can be a good thing in some cases. Normally you need minimal cholesterol intake.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
4. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  Normally, cholesterol intake does not correspond to serum cholesterol in any case, since your liver makes up the difference. It's not really something to worry about.
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
5. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by IICV · 2010-12-19 06:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  PUFAs are unstable, oxidize spontaneously when introduced to a human body, and generally wreck havoc in a warm-blooded mammalian systems (fish need these thin oils because they live in cold water). No amount of anti-oxidants is enough to counter the damage done by rancid oils.
  [citation needed]
  Seriously, you can't just spout something like that and expect us to take your word for it. Is even a single link too much work?
6. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Natural cholesterol, like that in eggs and animal products.
7. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by fishexe · 2010-12-19 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Safe oils are saturated, like butter, coconut oil, and lamb fat.
  Sure, if your definition of "safe" is "less prone to accelerate aging but far more prone to give you a heart attack", that is.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
8. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by CAIMLAS · 2010-12-19 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I could not agree more. "Vegetable" oils are not terribly good for you.
  There are some vegetable oils which are good for you, but these tend to be incredibly fresh, low-sulfur, and not from a grain or legume (see: olive oil).
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
9. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not true at all. Saturated fats don't cause heart attacks, there aren't any studies that show otherwise.
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
10. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by fishexe · 2010-12-19 07:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not true at all. Saturated fats don't cause heart attacks,
  Seriously? The link between increased saturated fat consumption and increased risk of coronary disease is one of the most well-established findings of modern dietary science.
  
  there aren't any studies that show otherwise.
  Just to start. It's only page one and over half of them show statistically significant links. You can say there are new studies that cast doubt on these results, or you can say there are methodological problems with these studies that make their results less valid, but to claim there aren't any studies showing the link is both false and irresponsible.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
11. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by Lehk228 · 2010-12-19 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  that is from eating too much of it, the point is that we need to eat less oil in general, rather than eating "unsaturated" because it's "better for us" no it's just bad for you in a different way
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
12. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet you anything she's not getting enough vegetables (good ones like green beans or broccoli; lettuce doesn't count). That is far more important than the amount of fat she eats.
  
  --
  Qxe4
13. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by selven · 2010-12-19 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  My dad's wife is not aging gracefully. Her skin is wrinkled like someone 15 years older than she is. One of her regular dishes is fish fried in "vegetable" oil (corn/soy/rapeseed).
  Safe oils are saturated, like butter, coconut oil, and lamb fat.
  I really need a citation for that. What you said is the exact opposite of what all nutrition/health literature has been saying for the past few decades.
14. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by fishexe · 2010-12-19 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  that is from eating too much of it, the point is that we need to eat less oil in general, rather than eating "unsaturated" because it's "better for us" no it's just bad for you in a different way
  Sure, but OP didn't say anything about eating less fat, he said to eat saturated instead of unsaturated because, according to him, saturated is "better for us" than unsaturated. Although there are also quite a few studies showing that consuming large amounts of monounsaturated fats can actually be really good for us; OP made the inference that since polyunsaturated fats had bad effects, that all unsaturated fats must have the same, then tried to push that inference over on us by claiming saturated fats are healthy. Bullshit.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
15. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by HiThere · 2010-12-19 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't sound quite right, but it is true that oil that is repeatedly heated is bad nutritionally, though I'm not sure of the details. And I think the harm *is* related to the oil being oxidized.
  But this just says don't fry your foods. And limit your use of cooking oil. Rephrased in that way it sounds just like obviously sensible advice.
  OTOH, I've never heard it claimed that coconut oil was good for you, except as insulation. I guess that if you do a lot of swimming in cold water it would be good...
  I believe that there is good evidence that too much lard and beef fat are bad for your arteries. Possibly not for everyone, because people *are* different, but that's the way to bet. I haven't heard anything specific about lamb fat.
  OTOH, I tend to have low cholesterol. I enjoy eating 2-3 eggs a day, as my grandfather did before me. (OTOH, I don't milk the cows or raise the chickens... so I can't necessarily count on the same benefits.) But my cholesterol is low. Both kinds. Worrisomely. Medications don't seem to help, and neither does exercise. (Some people find that exercise raises their HDL levels.)
  But I tend to feel that, for me at least, the main problem with the lamb fat is the calories. If you have high cholesterol, your situation might well be different. Claiming that all people have the same biochemistry is a fallacy that we are forced into by being forced to use an oversimplified model by lack of detailed individualized information. (Which doesn't mean that there aren't some true universals, but they don't tend to be properly reported by our current system, which focuses of "things which are generally true".)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
16. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by RebelWithoutAClue · 2010-12-19 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there's a lot of research. Most all of it has problems though. For instance in the Nurses' Health Study, they used Food Frequency Questionnaires, which have significant issues. People drastically under-report consumption of "socially undesireable" foods like Red Meat.
  You should read these for some issues with those studies.
  http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2009/03/will-eating-meat-make-us-die-younger.html
  http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/09/new-study-shows-that-lying-about-your.html
  
  --
  "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
17. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by haruchai · 2010-12-19 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Saturated fat got a bad rap way back when - I believe Ancel Keys was largely responsible. The long-held belief in alternative medicine was that it was hydrogenated fats that were to blame, not naturally saturated ones. Also, too much polyunsaturated isn't supposed to be healthy as they are prone to rancidity, and should not be used for high-temp frying since they'll form toxic compounds much quicker ( such as HNE ).
  Because baked goods benefit from the use of solid fats, when companies started dropping butter and coconut/palm oil, they started using hydrogenated polyunsaturated oils.
  That is so mind-blowingly stupid, yet the sheeple keep buying the stuff, thinking they're doing right by themselves and their kids
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
18. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by Wilson+of+Waste · 2010-12-19 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I would not go as far as to say oils are bad for you like that. He should have been more specific and said hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils are bad for you. I truly do believe they work. I doubted it but thought I would give it a go and lost weight, with no other change in fat or calorie consumption, exercise, sugar intake, or anything...
19. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by fnj · 2010-12-19 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  wreck havoc
  ... that would be wreak havoc.
20. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by Rinikusu · 2010-12-19 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, seriously. For a primer, read Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and if you're still interested, check out the *extensive* bibliography and go do your own research if you're still not convinced.
  
  --
  If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
21. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by nido · 2010-12-20 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_peroxidation
  I didn't have time to make a complete post yesterday - the story came up just as I was heading out.
  Now if you could have a word with all the moderators who flamed me for disagreeing with "consensus", that'd be great. Thanks. :)
  
  --
  Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
  www.teslabox.com
22. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by haruchai · 2010-12-20 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  What idiot modded this as Troll. Wise up, dickhead.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
23. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  On a similar and less unsound note than the OPs, there are at least 33 saturated fats that I have read about...yet most of the studies linking cardiovascular disease to saturated fat do not take this detail into consideration.
24. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by nido · 2010-12-20 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH, I've never heard it claimed that coconut oil was good for you, except as insulation. I guess that if you do a lot of swimming in cold water it would be good...
  Really? When I search for 'coconut oil' on Google (no quotes), the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th links are about the benefits of coconut oil.
  As for "insulation" - fish need thin oils because saturated fats solidify at temperatures below 60 degrees. Imagine a salmon trying to swim through arctic waters with oils the consistency of fudge.
  The reason seed oils are so common, and saturated fats so vilified, is a simple case of 'follow the money'. My post was based on my recent readings of Ray Peat, PhD's site. raypeat.com HTH, thanks for your open-minded post, HAND.
  
  --
  Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
  www.teslabox.com
25. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by nido · 2010-12-20 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  What idiot modded this as Troll. Wise up, dickhead.
  hey, it happens. I didn't post a substantiating link, so the "consensus view of reality" was unimpeded in using their rhetorical hammer to beat down alternate theories.
  I did post a few followups - did you see them? Wikipedia has a neat article on Lipid peroxidation, and Ray Peat's site is my favorite for the month. :)
  Thanks posting!
  
  --
  Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
  www.teslabox.com
26. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by nido · 2010-12-20 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I would not go as far as to say oils are bad for you like that.
  take a look at raypeat.com. :)
  
  He should have been more specific and said hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils are bad for you. I truly do believe they work. I doubted it but thought I would give it a go and lost weight, with no other change in fat or calorie consumption, exercise, sugar intake, or anything...
  You totally lost me here. What did you do to lose weight? The most likely thing I'd assume is that you stopped eating hydrogenated oils. Did you replace them with polyunsaturated oils, olive oil, coconut oil, or carbohydrates/proteins (say, by steaming your food)?
  
  --
  Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
  www.teslabox.com
27. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by haruchai · 2010-12-20 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  I've read that lipid peroxidation is one reason to be careful with consumption of fish oils, although it can be mitigates by vitamin E. Another alternative is to consume krill oil which (supposedly) doesn't oxidize like say, cod liver or salmon oil, has an unusual antioxidant called astaxanthin and also contains phospholipids.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
28. Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly by HiThere · 2010-12-21 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that bit was almost a joke. (Though I haven't heard it claimed that it's good for you, and I'm not going intentionally go looking for misinformation. The bit about "swimming in cold water" is based around pigs eating copra, and laying down a layer of unmetabolized coconut fat, i.e., copra. So the pig fat didn't end up tasting right. It would, however, be good insulation for swimming in cold water, which the polynesians did/do a bunch of. And the polynesians tend to have a genetic mod which causes their fat layers to be distributed all over their body. So it's not totally a joke.
  As for fish...yeah, the omega-3's are for fish (non-homeothermic) that swim in cold water. This doesn't mean that we use it the same way. Our biochemistrys (homeothermic) are significantly different. Most of the data used to recommend it are based around population studies rather than around theories. And I trust the population studies more than I trust ANY of the current theories. (Though they *can* hide significant variables that people just didn't think to look for.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

If ANY diet made you live significantly longer we'd have noticed by now.
Same goes for exercise regimes, eg. If running five miles a day made you live longer we'd have noticed.
We can point to plenty of things that make your life shorter, eg. smoking, eating nothing but junk food, but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Occam's razor... by DirePickle · 2010-12-19 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  It is pretty widely understood that a calorie-restricted diet (something like 30% fewer calories than the RDA, for humans) makes *any* animal live significantly longer and with fewer health problems. It's worked for everything it's been tested on. There have been some short-term studies on humans, but I'm not sure if there are any long-term ones.
  
  But 'eat so much less that you're always hungry' is not an acceptable diet plan. We all just want to eat something *extra*, or take a pill, to fix it. I know I can't do the calorie-restricted thing.
2. Re:Occam's razor... by DirePickle · 2010-12-19 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't apply to people that are starving or otherwise malnourished. This is assuming a *balanced* calorie restricted diet. You still need the fats, proteins, carbs, vitamins, minerals. Just fewer calories.
3. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting theory. I have had problems maintaining a normal weight all my life, I'm generally very very thin. One time I took a medication that made me gain a lot of weight and I felt a whole lot better with that extra weight. I felt healthy and my workouts were much more effective.
  There are a number of very thin my people in my family and they all lived a pretty long time (over 95) but I certainly felt a lot healthier at a higher "normal" weight.
4. Re:Occam's razor... by chichilalescu · 2010-12-19 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  it's very simple. you live longer if, in your bloodline, children are consistently conceived at old age. and that's about it...
  
  --
  new sig
5. Re:Occam's razor... by JonySuede · 2010-12-19 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  we know of at least one that extends life,on of them is called calorie restriction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Mortality
  But it seems to be awful to be in starvation everyday for the rest of your long life.
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
6. Re:Occam's razor... by Nrrqshrr · 2010-12-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Seaweed makes you live longer, fact.
7. Re:Occam's razor... by base3 · 2010-12-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Whether a calorie restricted diet would make me live longer or not, I know it would seem like longer!
  
  --
  One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
8. Re:Occam's razor... by Kjella · 2010-12-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  We can point to plenty of things that make your life shorter, eg. smoking, eating nothing but junk food, but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.
  And avoid setting off the chain reaction that'll trip a systemic collapse and kill you. Seriously, I have some elderly in my family that seem to hang on by the thread of their lives but they do it year in and year out as long as a gentle breeze doesn't knock them off their feet. Others have seemed far more healthy, but then they get hit with a bad case of the flu that a 60 year old would recover from, a 40 year old would just be off his feet a few days but an 80 year old starts getting all sorts of other problems that pile up. That sort of thing can easily be the difference between living to 70 or 80 or 90. That's just good advice for staying alive though, it won't improve the human life span.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  We have noticed that Japanese live longer than most everyone. ;)
10. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 06:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I don't know all the answers to salorie restriction but it's been known about since 1934. Nearly 80 years is enough time to find out if it works in humans but I'm not aware of any practitioners living extra-long lives (and there's been plenty of people who tried it...)
  If you plot a graph of size vs. lifespan in mammals it forms a fairly straight line. See here. Humans already live much longer than the graph predicts (we're the dot marked "HS" on that graph) and we're not sure why. Maybe there's a connection. Maybe that's why calorie restriction doesn't work on humans because we're already a long way above the line.
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:Occam's razor... by kcitren · 2010-12-19 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Caloric restriction is effective at increasing lifespans [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction].
12. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  There's no evidence that it works in humans.
  It's been known about for a long time and there have been plenty of practitioners. None have lived exceptionally long lives AFAIK.
  What studies seem to suggest is that the long-term adverse effects of calorie restriction eventually catch up with the benefits and cancel them out. ie. Symptoms of aging are delayed a bit but when they arrive they're much worse.
  
  --
  No sig today...
13. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  You seriously think no occidental has ever tried the seaweed diet...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
14. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Please point us to the line on that page that says that it works in humans...
  
  --
  No sig today...
15. Re:Occam's razor... by CAIMLAS · 2010-12-19 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  There are diets which, adjusted for other significant factors, do tend to make people live better and longer. Certain people have noticed.
  The basic rundown is this:
  * High in fat and protein
  * Low in carbohydrates and/or un-fermented carbohydrates
  * Absent of manufactured or modern cured foods
  There are many indigenous tribes throughout the world still which have diets such as this. They'll ferment their grain mashes, they'll eat mostly meats, dairy, and the like, and they'll live to be 80+ years old with few degenerative diseases.
  No/few cavities, no obesity or high blood pressure, and certainly no diabetes.
  Of course, they also lead active lifestyles: they don't sit at an office cubicle all day. In fact, they mostly lead fairly active lifestyles, spending a great amount of time running and doing other cardio (if not out of lifestyle necessity, then for recreation - think "native American ceremonies and sports").
  There are, of course, a couple exceptions which defy these rules (I recall reading about a South American tribe that ate mostly fried/high-fat corn meal and drank corn mash, with little else - but they ran like crazy in rugged terrain), and we're still trying to figure them out.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
16. Re:Occam's razor... by CAIMLAS · 2010-12-19 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  one thing I have to ask (because I do not know) is: what kind of calories are we talking about, here?
  I ask, because I know that societies with low-carb/starch diets tend to eat a LOT more calories, but at the same time live longer than surrounding tribes/etc. Without knowing too much abotu the studies I'd argue the type of calories consumed have a lot to do with the end result. Meat and dairy have a much higher nutritional density, for instance.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
17. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 07:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.
  That's what you get for 'being fairly sure' instead of actually investigating. We've noticed a lot. We've noticed that exercise keeps your telomeres long. Also important in that study, the more exercise, the longer the telomeres. There are lots of studies like this that show exercise can reverse the effects of aging. This one is not related to aging directly, but exercise helps you grow new brain cells. Some researchers at Berkeley did a 20 year study of more than 100,000 runners, and found that the more you run, the longer you live, up to 50 miles a week (the benefits probably extend beyond 50 miles a week, but they couldn't find enough people who run that far to get good numbers). It's pretty clear there are a lot of things you can do to live longer.
  
  You also may consider reading a book about nutrition, since you likely have some misconceptions in that area, too.
  
  --
  Qxe4
18. Re:Occam's razor... by HiThere · 2010-12-19 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  It's not the sort of diet that you can stick to of your own free will. I'm sure that there have been short term attempts. Long term attempts...I seriously doubt it. (Note that simple starvation won't do. You've got to have properly balanced starvation. And this *does* make you more susceptible to infections and diseases, so it needs to be in healthy circumstances. Can always get warm enough, etc.)
  The limitations on this strategy are severe enough that I really doubt it could be done on/by anyone who wasn't a prisoner in a laboratory.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
19. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  not sure about that, how many Japanese "centenarians" died decades ago, but the family didn't want to lose the pension check.
20. Re:Occam's razor... by HiThere · 2010-12-19 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  There's no group of people who live on this kind of diet. It's not cheap, it's not satisfying. Etc. A rat who is a prisoner in a lab can be forced to live this way. People can't unless they are also prisoners in a lab. This is essentially a "perfectly balanced" starvation diet. (Well, we don't really know what "perfectly balanced" is, but for rats we have a pretty fair idea. And it's not standard lab chow.)
  The "ideal diet" is probably closer to "The Zone" balance than to most diets that people actually use, but it needs significantly more bulk (brans, etc.), and a more careful balance of proteins. And it's a lot less in calories.
  Also please note that on this diet you are significantly more vulnerable to cold, infections, and other environmental stresses. Secondary infections when you get something like the flu are significantly more likely, and more likely to be deadly. (OTOH, the flu itself, and many other viruses, would be milder.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
21. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure which part of "reasonable lifestyle" is confusing you.
  PS: Correlation isn't causation. Maybe people who are good at (or enjoy) running in middle age also have other genetic differences. If you pick out the "runners" from a population you might really be selecting some other factor.
  
  --
  No sig today...
22. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's worked for everything it's been tested on.
  Which consists entirely small animals with high metabolic rates (and generally short lifespans to begin with.)
23. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  There's entire societies of calorie restriction proponents out there, and have been for many years, including many doctors.
  
  --
  No sig today...
24. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  You clearly have the natural geeky tendency to refuse to learn when you are wrong.
  
  It's not about reasonable lifestyle, it's about a direct correlation between more exercise and longer living. If you are running 5 miles a day, which is certainly reasonable, you can do better by running 7 miles a day. This is pretty clear.
  
  Regarding your PS, did you even think? The first study I linked to was an identical twin study. As you are hopefully aware, identical twin studies rule out genetic causes.
  
  --
  Qxe4
25. Re:Occam's razor... by hobdes · 2010-12-19 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting graph but it shows a power-law, not a straight line. Notice the natural logarithms, "ln", on the axes. So the relationship is (maximum longevity) ~ (adult body mass)^x where x looks to be about 1/4 from the graph.
26. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Um, the "twins" study was about telomeres, not longevity.
  You're presuming there's a link between the two. As far as we know the long telomeres=long life thing only works in mole rats.
  
  --
  No sig today...
27. Re:Occam's razor... by timothy · 2010-12-19 08:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But salorie restriction is very unpopular with girlfriends, wives, heirs, etc ... ;)
  timothy
  
  --
  jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
28. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Eh, running 5 miles a day *does* make you live longer
29. Re:Occam's razor... by ColdWetDog · 2010-12-19 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you are running 5 miles a day, which is certainly reasonable, you can do better by running 7 miles a day. This is pretty clear.
  No, it's not 'pretty clear' and it isn't what the article you linked said. Your FA (a newspaper article quoting a researcher, nothing published) stated that there was a correlation between miles ran per week and longevity. For the moment, ignore the multiple potential areas of bias here and look at his conclusion. Even if he's correct, you cannot run it backwards (longer life means you ran more miles). It doesn't work. It's a correlative study at best and probably not a terribly good one.
  
  Yes, there is some literature that suggests that long term athletes do better than the general population in the aging game, but the couple that I glanced through, admittedly quickly, confirmed my previous bias that the numbers weren't all that impressive.
  
  But I wanted to hound you about the apparent logical fallacy you made.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
30. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  If you plot a graph of size vs. lifespan in mammals it forms a fairly straight line.
  You may want to have a look at the naked mole rat. 30 gram size, lifespan up to 20 years. Oh, and extremely high levels of oxidative modification of both protein and DNA.
31. Re:Occam's razor... by martin-boundary · 2010-12-19 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If ANY diet made you live significantly longer we'd have noticed by now.
  
  Two economists are walking down the street. One sees a hundred dollar bill lying on the pavement and bends down to pick it up. "Don't bother," says the other, "if it was real someone would have already picked it up by now."
32. Re:Occam's razor... by Pyrus.mg · 2010-12-19 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The last thing we need in this economy is more restrictions on salories.
33. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Almost.
  Not running five miles a day might make you live less.
  Running might help you achieve your your programmed lifespan but it won't extend it.
  
  --
  No sig today...
34. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 10:04 · Score: 2
  
  Two economists are walking down the street. They see a hundred dollar bill lying on the pavement. They stand there for a while and watch several bank managers come along, pick it up, inspect it and put it down again.
  One bends down to pick it up. "Don't bother," says the other, "if it was real one of those bankers would have kept it."
  
  --
  No sig today...
35. Re:Occam's razor... by seven+of+five · 2010-12-19 10:09 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know all the answers to salorie restriction
  
  (smacks forehead) wow... my boss isn't being cheap... he wants me to live longer.
36. Re:Occam's razor... by Stevecrox · 2010-12-19 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to point out that I did something similar to this recently. I noticed I'd reached 14.3 stone so I went on the Speacial K diet and changed my evening meals so they involved pasta/chicken/etc.. I arranged things so I got all my vitamins and minerals but was significantly short in fat and calories.
  
  During the first week I was starving every day, for the first two weeks I noticed becoming extremely tired when doing my gym workout. But my body has adjusted over the last four months. My stomachs shrunk and I would struggle to stay on my previous diet oh and I've reached 12.5 stone.
  
  I agree the change was radical and not every diet will work for everyone but the body does adjust over time, its the the reason I gained so much in the first place.
37. Re:Occam's razor... by miguelactico · 2010-12-19 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  . Humans already live much longer than the graph predicts (we're the dot marked "HS" on that graph) and we're not sure why.
  Don't know why? Improvements in the health sciences have not connection with this whatsoever? How much was the life expectancy just a couple of centuries back? 40 years? Then we would have fitted perfectly in the correlation. We are already an outlier and it may be difficult to push us further up.
38. Re:Occam's razor... by Angry+Toad · 2010-12-19 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  CR Society has only existed since 94, and apart from that I'm unaware of any serious collective effort prior to that to practice the idea. The CR effect as a whole has only been widely broadcast and understood (for very small values of "widely") since the 70s, and proper science done on humans is only in its infancy at this point. Way too early to make any calls yet, is my point.
39. Re:Occam's razor... by wen1454 · 2010-12-19 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. The control animals in these studies are given unlimited amounts of food. They eat excessively because evolution has programmed them to feast when food is available. They are the equivalent of obese humans. So eat 30% less than the typical obese person eats, which would be approximately the RDA not 30% less than the RDA.
40. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  Believers want to believe.
  
  --
  No sig today...
41. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  There would seem to me to be some in out relationship as well. Taking first world laborers as an example. They don't live notably shorter lives than other workers; but they do tend to eat lots more calories than most desk jockeys to power all that physical effort.
  I used to watch the warehouse guys at lunch time at former employer. I keep track of the calories I eat personally so I know the values of lots of foods in my head. As a desk worker I usually eat between 1600 and 2000 calories each day. The warehouse guys who were almost all thinner and more muscled than I would eat that just for one meal.
  I have know farmers who ate steak and eggs for breakfast practically every day their whole lives as well, but they also spend their entire day out working in the field, physically move stuff jumping on and off machinery etc, lots of those guys lived well into their 80's and 90's.
42. Re:Occam's razor... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2010-12-19 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  Okinawans live quite a long while and seem to live on a low calorie, nutrient rich diet though.
  The problem is that 80 years is actually not long, since nobody has completed a controlled experiment, even with monkeys yet. If the experiment with humans will take about 85 years, and nobody has started it yet, the lack of evidence doesn't really mean anything!
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
43. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  Eat to Live: http://www.drfuhrman.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw
44. Re:Occam's razor... by DirePickle · 2010-12-19 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually been done with other primates as well.
45. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  So in other words, you didn't read the original study, don't particularly know much about it except quick look through two articles, and for some reason you want to hound me about a logical fallacy?
  
  I find your argument convincing, sir.
  
  If you want me to really address your argument, I'll say, the fact that you can't run it backwards doesn't mean anything other than that there is more than one factor. Exercise can give you a longer life, but other things can too, or can prevent you from living a longer life. Often when there are many factors involved, you can't run the relationship backwards; and indeed, in this case you can't even run it forwards: more exercise doesn't mean you'll necessarily live longer. But there is no doubt it will help.
  
  --
  Qxe4
46. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're presuming there's a link between the two
  No, by talking to you I'm presuming that you have at least a little intelligence in your brain. The fact that some of the twins got a lot of exercise and their genetic equal did not is clear evidence that the desire to exercise is not a genetic thing.
  
  The vast majority of scientific evidence shows a connection between longevity and exercise. By ignoring that you are wandering dangerously close to scientific denialism. Don't do that. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. But don't do stupid things for the sake of geeky pride.
  
  --
  Qxe4
47. Re:Occam's razor... by 7-Vodka · 2010-12-19 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you plot a graph of size vs. lifespan in mammals it forms a fairly straight line. See here
  Yes but what does that actually *mean*?
  Ha, I guess If I eat myself to 600lbs I'll live to 240 years.:-)
  Actually, if you look within species of mammals the trend reverses and it is the small ones that live longer. I know it applies to pets, little dogs for example, outlive big dogs on average. And I'm willing to bet 120lb men outlive 400lb men.
  It just goes to show you, statistics mean nothing if you don't understand them. And trends that look very important can be insignificant until you get much more knowledgeable. I'm guessing we're missing some important facts as to why that correlation might exist.
  
  --
  Liberty.
48. Re:Occam's razor... by ChrisMaple · 2010-12-19 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your chart is missing tortoises, which outlive humans by a substantial margin and (usually) weigh less.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
49. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  An astute observation. Two things cause degenerative disease: heavy metals and chemical exposure. Only those two things. Just ... those ... two ... things.
50. Re:Occam's razor... by ChrisMaple · 2010-12-19 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard about, and seen, too many examples of running not being good for you. The endorphins produced by extended running produce results similar to other mind-degrading drugs: if your career depends upon topflight mental performance, you will lose your edge if you run long distances frequently. Run long distances at oxygen-deficit levels (particularly in polluted air), and unless you consume adequate supplements you'll see signs of accelerated aging (wrinkles) within a year.
  Pain is a big clue that you're doing something wrong. If you run until you hurt, or until your body produces chemicals to dull pain (endorphins), you're damaging yourself.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
51. Re:Occam's razor... by ColdWetDog · 2010-12-19 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, I read the article because it was potentially interesting and ran counter to some previous research. Unfortunately, the blurb you referenced doesn't change my feelings much, in part because the it seems that researcher was apparently trying to pull the same logical fallacy. (Given that it's a lay journalist quoting somebody, I'm open to giving the researcher benefit of the doubt concerning his thoughts).
  
  We already know that some exercise helps (compared to the couch potato life style). Little doubt about that, however "some" is a pretty vague concept. But does more = better? Is there an 'exercise floor' or 'ceiling'? Hard to know. Most of the extant literature following elite athletes, military people, astronauts and other typically fairly small populations suggests that there is benefit to staying fit, it's not a huge benefit and the "most elite" athletes didn't fare any better than just good ones.
  
  This sort of research is nearly impossible to do. When you look at these sorts of small, handpicked populations you have all sorts of problems - an enormous selection bias, statistical power issues, end point definitions and the observational or retrospective nature of the research. Thus one ought to be very modest when attempting to make conclusions.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
52. Re:Occam's razor... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  If ANY diet made you live significantly longer we'd have noticed by now.
  You're right, and we did notice:
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6710896/Vegetarian-low-protein-diet-could-be-key-to-long-life.html
  Here's another for good measure:
  http://foodawareness.org/life_span_11.html
  You might think that being American is going to kill us all pretty effectively, but there may be hope. Use the veggies Luke.
53. Re:Occam's razor... by Angry+Toad · 2010-12-19 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  That seems like a non sequitur - this is a discussion about evidence. An insufficient amount of data has been gathered to support or disprove this effect in humans. Unless you can cite a study I'm unaware of which specifically demonstrates that this phenomenon is not relevant in human cells, then we're still looking at an unknown. I'm unaware of any data in nonhumans which would lead me to expect that this effect would not pertain.
54. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-19 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, I read the article because it was potentially interesting and ran counter to some previous research.
  What previous research? I am interested.
  
  Unfortunately, the blurb you referenced doesn't change my feelings much, in part because the it seems that researcher was apparently trying to pull the same logical fallacy.
  The researcher is well aware of the limitations of his research. Almost always if a scientific article presents an obvious logical fallacy, it is due to the author of the article, not the original scientist doing the research.
  
  This study demonstrated a clear correlation between more exercise and better health. It wasn't due to genetic capacity because nearly anyone is capable of running 50 miles in a week (the max considered by the study). The study also considered changes in running habits over time by the same people, and observed the effects on health.
  
  The main difficulty with the study is that the people chose themselves to be runners. It is possible that only healthy people run, but I find that to be counter-intuitive based on the obvious health benefits of exercise, bringing unfit people to fitness (demonstrated in other studies, and as you already mentioned in your second paragraph).
  
  --
  Qxe4
55. Re:Occam's razor... by Ubi_NL · 2010-12-19 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  One caveman to the other: if fire was such a great idea the other cavemen would have thought of it already!
  
  --
  
  If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
56. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-20 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  no evidence...apart from the lack of really old people.
  Even if the method still needs some 'fine tuning' you'd think there'd *something* to measure after nearly 80 years.
  It's soooo reliable in rats, causing 100% (one hundred percent!) lifespan increase but we're still not above background noise results in humans? Something tells me it's not working.
  
  --
  No sig today...
57. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-20 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't due to genetic capacity because nearly anyone is capable of running 50 miles in a week (the max considered by the study)
  Very few people actually run 50 miles per week. Picking those people out of a population for a study is the very definition of selection bias and absolutely allows for genetic differences.
  
  --
  No sig today...
58. Re:Occam's razor... by Veetox · 2010-12-20 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  The National Geographic ran an article a few years back about the comparatively long average life span of islanders (e.g. Okinawa, Sicily, etc.). We can at least produce strong hypotheses about the components that contribute to longevity. A diet composed of significant amounts of fish and vegetables is likely. A high incident rate of walking between destinations is also likely.
  Coding for 18 hours in an adjustable office chair... not likely.
59. Re:Occam's razor... by Kielistic · 2010-12-20 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Tortoises are not mammals.
60. Re:Occam's razor... by oh_my_080980980 · 2010-12-20 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually we have. Diet and exercise will extend your life span, usually by a couple years, average 5. So it's not huge but it's a step in the right direction.
61. Re:Occam's razor... by Angry+Toad · 2010-12-20 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Humans live for decades, rats for a few years. The net effect of the protocol is a % increase related to how late you start the diet, so for any humans in their 50s (say) who started the diet in the late 70's or the early to mid 1980s, you would only expect to start seeing any effect at all on the survival curve around now. That's in the best possible case, in which you assume that an experimental and a control cohort were selected and studied since then, which they were not. In fact decent animal studies on the CR effect only started up in the 90s, and I'm unaware of any kind of actual human work done on the effect at all, at any point. I think the worst you can say about it is that it's a total unknown - that's perfectly fair. We're decades away from being able to draw any serious conclusions about human results, positive or negative.
62. Re:Occam's razor... by DKush · 2010-12-20 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  A tortoise is not a mammal.
63. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-20 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, so you don't have a link to the previous research. Too bad. There is no evidence of a 'desire to exercise' gene. If you found one, that would be interesting.
  
  --
  Qxe4
64. Re:Occam's razor... by Chris+Burke · 2010-12-20 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I would certainly hope that chart is missing all non-mammals.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
65. Re:Occam's razor... by Joce640k · 2010-12-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'll believe it when I see it.
  For now I'll stick to my original assertion that there's enough different diets and cultures in the world for any miracle lifestyle to have shown itself by now.
  Semi-starvation has been the norm for a lot of people for much of human history.
  
  --
  No sig today...
66. Re:Occam's razor... by CAIMLAS · 2010-12-20 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Which diet is "this diet" that you're referring to?
  I am significantly healthier than I was when I took in significant carbs. Now, I'm eating primarily meats and veggies. If I do get sick, it's usually a sniffle. I should note I've got 3 children, and I think they have a total of maybe 5 colds a year on the same diet.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
67. Re:Occam's razor... by phantomfive · 2010-12-21 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  Now that is quite interesting if it's true. Thanks for the good research.
  
  --
  Qxe4
So is the opposite true? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:21 · Score: 0

"This new evidence shows that high levels of Reactive Oxidative species are rather a biological signal used to combat aging then the process itself"
So does eating healthy with a lot of antioxidants actually make you age faster?
1. Re:So is the opposite true? by HiThere · 2010-12-19 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  That was my first question too. The answer appears to be "No".
  What they're claiming is that the evidence seems to indicate that the hypothesis that aging is caused by free radicals is false. This doesn't mean that free radicals are beneficial. (Sometimes they are beneficial. E.g., they are known to sometimes be one of the defenses used invading bacteria. This, however, doesn't mean that they are more generally beneficial.)
  The suggestion was made that the purpose of the free-radicals is to activate the cell's stress repair mechanism. This seems a bit dubious to me, but evolution often doesn't design things in the most straight-forward way. So I can't just say "That's too silly to believe" as is my immediate desire.
  Basically they're saying is "The evidence refutes the idea that free-radicals cause aging. We don't know why the are created. And we don't know what causes aging. Does anyone have any good ideas?"
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
2. Re:So is the opposite true? by haruchai · 2010-12-19 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think so. Natural foods in the human diet have always had high levels of antioxidants. Also, it's too early to put much stock in this study - they got some results with genetically modified worms that wasn't repeatable with unmodified ones.
  The recommendations for healthy living are still the same - eat a variety of foods ( a good mix of colors in fruits and veggies is a good idea ), avoid processed foods when possible, don't smoke, don't eat too much meat, don't stuff yourself, drink adequate amounts of clean water, get some regular strenous exercise and regular sleep, alcohol in moderation
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
3. Re:So is the opposite true? by haruchai · 2010-12-19 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  (followup to my healthy living tips) and DON'T eat tofu. That crap isn't good for you, ESPECIALLY if you're male. You're better off eating meat or find other sources of vegetable protein, say hemp, beans, or salba.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Real Culprit by oldhack · 2010-12-19 05:23 · Score: 2

Free radicals don't cause aging, staring at Perl code does. Drives you to drink and makes you lose hair, too.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:Real Culprit by dzfoo · 2010-12-20 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Only for people with a genetic pre-disposition to a low tolerance of Perl. Those of us raised on a balanced diet of Perl and 3rd generation languages, find it distasteful and even harmful to stare at JavaScript code for too long.
  -dZ.
  
  --
  Carol vs. Ghost
  ...Can you save Christmas?
Aging is probably in the telomeres by St.Creed · 2010-12-19 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

As shown by this research: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html
Rather straightforward, isn't it? Why *does* a cell die, anyway? As long as it can grow and replicate, it shouldn't. Except for the telomere TTL-signal. Once we intervene in that, I think aging could be reduced or slowed drastically. I doubt there is much risk of cancer: cancer is when cells don't respond to normal apoptosis signals and keep growing. While removing the TTL-signal could be risky, I'm confident that cells with only the Time To Live removed could still respond normally to other signals. And while cancer *may* be lethal, aging is *always* lethal.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
1. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, just like lobsters have no specific lifespan, they just keep going.
2. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by mangu · 2010-12-19 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt there is much risk of cancer: cancer is when cells don't respond to normal apoptosis signals and keep growing.
  You don't need to remove the TTL, just reset it every fifty years or so.
  A drug that restores the telomeres in each cell could be applied when needed, and then the telomeres would be shortened again at each cell division in the normal way.
3. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Cell death is not the only reason you can get aging effects. Loss of structure in organs, with otherwise perfectly healthy cells will result in unhealthy processes. Skin wrinkling, for instance, does not in principle require cell death, just deformation of the connective tissue there. Brain function is another: neurons aren't reproducing all that much, but the overall structure of the brain changes somehow.
4. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by base3 · 2010-12-19 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  And would have the advantage of having to be bought every fifty years or so. I welcome our immortal pharmaceutical overlords :).
  
  --
  One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
5. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, aging was disallowed from causes of death on death certificates in, I think, 1956. People die from specific causes.
6. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  The question though -- is cancer more lethal than aging?
7. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by TheCount22 · 2010-12-19 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  That is not the whole story.Telomeres control how many times a cell can divide. The more times a cell the divides the more likely it is to contain an accumulation of defects eventually leading to either the death of the cell triggered by MDM2 and P53 or if this fails an increased likelihood of cancer.
  Simply increasing the counter of the number of times the cell can divide does not prevent cancer. In fact it could increase it! I would imagine that cells with lots of defect will survive for longer instead of being replaced by cells that have not divided as many times leading to an overall increase in occurrences of cancer.
  The ideal solution in my opinion would be to have a better control over this counter. P53 triggers cellular apoptosis (cell death) when telomeres run out. MDM2 triggers cellular apoptosis if P53 stops functioning. However if both mechanisms fail there is a high likelihood of cancer since these damaged cells can divide indefinitely. What would be more interesting is adding a new monitor X what would monitor MDM2 or P53 and add extra redundancy. Effectively changing the likelihood of getting cancer. Once this is done perhaps telomere extensions could make sense.
8. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by rrohbeck · 2010-12-19 12:28 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Except that preserving telomeres with drugs causes cancer, so there's a fine balance. The cell can only afford to live so long under normal DNA damage, so if you want to preserve it you have to make the whole chromosome more resilient. That sounds nontrivial.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
9. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Telomere shortening is an anti-cancer mechanism -- *not* a cause of "aging". The mechanism of telomere lengthening is tailored in long lived species to minimize the occurence of cancer. Normal mice have telomeres significantly longer than humans yet they live significantly shorter lifespans (3-4 years vs. 80-110+ years). The DePinho experiment is largely caca and was torn apart on the UCLA Gerotology Research Group Mailing list. DePinho made mice with short telomeres. This contributed to them aging more quickly, presumably due to exhaustion of their limited stem cell reserves. Turn telomerase back on (which is what his group did) and some of the symptoms of aging were reversed.
  But to claim that "aging" was reversed is naive. What was reversed was premature pathologies associated with aging. The discussion on the GRG list lead to a fierce debate as to whether this type of therapy would be wise in humans since it would likely lead to increased cancer rates. Sure, if you have a foolproof cure for all types of cancer it might be a useful way to extend healthspan/lifespan -- but before you have those cures available off the shelf you are playing Russian Roulette.
10. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by ChrisMaple · 2010-12-19 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Like many laws, this was overkill. Many older people have several body parts that are badly degraded, and the weakness of one part stresses other parts. At death the doctor or coroner has to choose something, and if there's nothing prominent he has to choose something bogus like "cardiac arrest", when "old age" would have been closer to the truth.
  It's not uncommon for a death certificate to say cause of death was A and B, caused by C and D, in turn caused by E and F. Why not just say "the old buzzard was 115, he just wore out"?
  Too much law is a curse.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
11. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  I used to work in this area, a long time ago.
  We have abundant examples of human cells that ignore the telomere TTL signal. They are classified into various groups based on lots of different criteria. The public calls them malignant cancer.
12. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by radtea · 2010-12-20 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think... I doubt... I'm confident...
  Now if your post only contained some information about things that were germane to the problem of aging, rather than to reports on your mental state, which is irrelevant to the problem of aging.
  The Pope thought the Sun moved around the Earth, and doubted Gallileo was correct, and was confident that heliocentric heresy would be proven wrong. All of those things are facts about the Pope, and have no place in any discussion of celestial mechanics.
  The Nature article is informative. The rest of your post may as well contain information about your height, weight and hair colour, as they are as relevant to the question of aging as information about your mental state.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
13. Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres by oh_my_080980980 · 2010-12-20 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  "And while cancer *may* be lethal, aging is *always* lethal."
  
  You're an idiot.
  
  Cancer versus aging, which would you rather die from?
  
  Seriously, you are an idiot. Everyone would rather die do to old age since YOU ARE OLD WHEN YOU DIE!
  
  Aging does not kill you prematurely!!
  
  And yes you run the risk of cancer when you fuck with cellular division.
  
  I'm confident you a fucking idiot who should be involved with stage 1 testing of this type of treatment!
Hey! by Goaway · 2010-12-19 05:36 · Score: 1

Hey! Scientists! Stop ruining nonsensical old X-Files episodes!
Eating vegetables != being vegetarian by mangu · 2010-12-19 05:51 · Score: 2

If vegetables are good for your health it does not mean meat is bad.
I eat both neat and vegetables, when people try to guess my age they normally undershoot by ten to fifteen years.
1. Re:Eating vegetables != being vegetarian by ColdWetDog · 2010-12-19 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  .. when people try to guess my age they normally undershoot by ten to fifteen years.
  You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Eating vegetables != being vegetarian by chromozone · 2010-12-19 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  I was just thinking of this last night. I'm over 40 and just got into PC gaming. It seems odd at times, but blowing past zombies in L4D with the characters bellowing "hell yeah that's what I'm talkin about!" is too hard to pass up now.
Come on by SuperKendall · 2010-12-19 05:51 · Score: 1

"Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have uncovered strong new evidence that that wildly-accepted mitochondrial free radical theory of aging (MFRTA) is wrong.
Next you'll be telling us midiclorians aren't responsible for our force powers either!

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wild Acceptance by kbolino · 2010-12-19 05:53 · Score: 5, Funny

What makes a theory "wildly accepted"? Does it mean there are a bunch of scientists who gather spontaneously at impromptu bonfires and ululate their heathen belief in a carnal fashion?
1. Re:Wild Acceptance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  It means the animal kingdom agrees.
2. Re:Wild Acceptance by Pyrus.mg · 2010-12-19 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Never believe a new theory until someone has cast doubt on the studies casting doubt on the new theory.
3. Re:Wild Acceptance by szilagyi · 2010-12-20 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh, sounds fun. When is that?
  I'll be happy to host. I'm agriculturally zoned and can light bonfires without attracting 5-0.
4. Re:Wild Acceptance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Well mostly it means that drug companies have started pimping it as the latest cure-all.
  I think I'd prefer the carnal display.
Think of the 30's when Cigs CURED... by WindBourne · 2010-12-19 05:54 · Score: 1

coughs, colds, fever, and yes, even Cancer. Scientists (mostly on payrolls) claimed all of the above. Part of it was a correlation == causation. Another part was executives telling them what to say.
Now, we have scientists that had found a correlation between aging and radicals. So, they used stats rather than hard proof to claim it. Why? Because SO MANY are in a hurry to be at the top of the heap.
Are radicals associated with aging? It would appear to be. Are radicals the cause of aging? Well, that needs to be researched rather than being declared as such.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Only if you're a mutant by srussia · 2010-12-19 06:01 · Score: 1

TFA doesn't say how these worms were genetically modified.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:Only if you're a mutant by fishexe · 2010-12-19 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  TFA doesn't say how these worms were genetically modified.
  In fact, TFA gives the impression they weren't even. It references genetic modification off the bat but then goes on to say the difference between experimental and control groups was exposure to the toxin (or lack thereof). Unless they mean that the toxin was the agent of genetic modification, TFA just doesn't make sense.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Old people always 'look' old by woolio · 2010-12-19 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Haven't you noticed how people not so many years agou used to look quite old and frail already in their sixties, but now we are no longer surprised to find that people in their seventies are still physically active and mentally alert?
Yes. Then I realize that old people haven't changed... When I was 10, people in their 40s looked aged, people in their 60s looked very old and frail, and people in their 80s looked like something from a horror movie.
Now that I'm in my 30s, I find people in their 40s don't look so old. And people in their 60s don't look all that much different with the exception of some white/grey hair and a few more blemishes on their skin.
1. Re:Old people always 'look' old by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  It's because you are getting older. Not because people are younger longer.
2. Re:Old people always 'look' old by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with you, I recall how old a 40 year old person looked when I was a child. Today things have changed, as matter of fact it is now accepted that age 60 is the "new" 40. People are now starting new careers at age 60. I think if we do everything in moderation it can translate into improved life span and wellbeing.
3. Re:Old people always 'look' old by Ol+Olsoc · 2010-12-20 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of a related point regarding the anti aging crowd and your observation. - The problem with living longer is that it is all at the wrong end of the time line. I'd be all for living to 150, but want those extra 80 years to be between 20 and 30.
  Instead the gains all come at the ragged old end of existence. Even now, we see people living a lot longer than they used to - very often in a nursing home. Now that's some fun stuff. And I've seen some of these folks who are starving themselves to live longer. The all look like those Prisoner of war photos from the American civil war. An extra 80 years with all the youth and charm of a cadaver? No thanks.
  Live well, Eat well, Drink well - all in moderation. Laugh and love as much as you can - immoderately. It really doesn't take much money, and it doesn't take living to 150.
  
  --
  Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
"wildly-accepted"? by Covalent · 2010-12-19 06:50 · Score: 1

Apparently not accepted for humans in captivity...good news for those of you still living in mom's basement.

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
1. Re:"wildly-accepted"? by couchslug · 2010-12-19 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Apparently not accepted for humans in captivity...good news for those of you still living in mom's basement."
  That's not captivity, that's sweet, nay, exquisite, voluntary submission.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
High Opinion of the Man on the Street by fishexe · 2010-12-19 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

from TFA:

'If you ask most people on the street what causes aging, many would say free radicals, but it's a complex story.'
—Dr. Siegfried Hekimi, McGill University
I'm pretty sure if you asked most people on the street what causes aging, a handful would say free radicals, while most would say time or God. Then if you followed up by asking them, "Don't you think it could be free radicals?" their answer would be "WTF are free radicals?"

--
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
1. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you asked James Moore, he'd tell you it's radical extremists.
2. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by hamisht · 2010-12-19 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  What causes ageing is having too many birthdays...
3. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by lennier · 2010-12-19 13:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Miss Moneypenny: Have you got a mission, James?
  James Bond: Yes. I am to eliminate all free radicals.
  Miss Moneypenny: Ooh. Do be careful.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
4. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  In point of fact the actual causes of aging are the mechanisms of evolution, esp. the declining force of natural selection. It is next to impossible to evolve an organism which lives indefinitely because random "accidents" will kill off long-lived organisms leading to no mechanism for Nature to evolve longevity determinant genes.
  The secondary cause is "genome architectures" and the fact that Nature does not have available the concept of "do overs". It is stuck with designs that "mostly work". The poorest of these is energy production via the mitochondria that produces free radicals which in turn damage the DNA and DNA repair processes (~150 genes in higher organisms) which do a very good but still not perfect job repairing DNA damage (mutations) which do occur. The worst two genes are WRN and DCLRE1C (Artemis) which in the process of repairing DNA double strand breaks (necessary for cell replication and/or long term cell functioning) *will* intentionally remove bases from the DNA (exonuclease activity) thus slowly corrupting the genome in each cell. After sufficient corruption the cell becomes dysfunctional (senescent) or may die or may turn into cancer. The net result of these processes is aging and subsequently death.
  The only way to ultimately defeat this is to redesign genomes which have significantly more redundancy (age more slowly) and better energy production and DNA repair processes. Alternatively one can use nanorobots known as chromallocytes which could repair the DNA corruption in situ. But those are currently unavailable and likely to remain so until researchers and investors get very serious about robust molecular nanotechnology. There are people who know what needs to be done and can envision paths to get there. But in the current environment (disbelief of feasibility in large part) there is no serious effort towards making it real.
5. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by Creedo · 2010-12-20 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think the proper answer is: Not Dying.
  
  --
  All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
6. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by Chris+Burke · 2010-12-20 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  But Not Dying is a major cause of death!
  Did you know that fully 100% of all animals that have ever died, was not dying prior to that? It's true! Even the healthiest of persons will eventually succumb to the accumulated effects of Not Dying.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
7. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by fishexe · 2010-12-20 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Man, I think we should all just give up and die right now.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
8. Re:High Opinion of the Man on the Street by bar-agent · 2010-12-20 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  Then if you followed up by asking them, "Don't you think it could be free radicals?" their answer would be "WTF are free radicals?"
  You know, like Julian Assange used to be. Bam!
  
  --
  i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Are antioxidants really what make vegetables good? by fain0v · 2010-12-19 07:04 · Score: 1

I have thought about this problem for a long time now. Does the oxidative damage occur first causing aging or does aging lead a reduction in the cell's ability to combat oxidative stress?
A lab at the University of Michigan has done some great work on this, but the still have not quite answered the question.
http://www.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu/labs/jakob/scerevisiae.html
My opinion for a long time follows the article. I don't think that antioxidants from foods prevent DNA damage. I think that fruits and vegetables actually have compounds that are potentially carcinogens, and your body's oxidative stress response is upregulated by these. Yeast cells that are challenged with a low does of an oxidant are better able to handle a higher dose of oxidant than cells that were not. It's akin to whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Bruce Ames who invented the ames test to determine the mutagenic potential of compounds has published articles about how natural carcinogens are just as common as synthetic ones. Plants produce many of their own pesticides which have been shown to be carcinogens. I would highly recommend reading about this for any of you are into organic food choices.
So, fruits and vegetables help us live longer, but possibly by exactly the opposite reason that everyone believes.
Free Full Article by reverseengineer · 2010-12-19 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

The relevant journal article is available for free right now here.
One thing that should be pointed out is that this article is in the January 2010 issue, and was initially published online in September 2009, so this isn't breaking news, though it looks like research may have continued in the same lab following this paper- there's no reference t paraquat in the paper, for instance. Another, which is touched on in the news article is that the scientists involved do not dispute that reactive oxygen species can have deleterious effects on living organisms- just that aging is not a process of mitochondria being injured by ROS. Their conclusion spells it out:

It is difficult to doubt that mitochondria play a key role in the aging process [67, 68]. However, although it is well documented that irreversible oxidative damage accumulates during aging [69], it seems that the MFRTA’s core statement that postulates that aging is triggered by the detrimental action of ROS produced during normal metabolism is simply wrong. It is not yet clear whether aging has a single cause or whether such a notion is misguided. In any case, the correlation between the presence of oxidative damage and the aged phenotype simply does not imply causation. Oxidative stress might be the consequence of aging, if aging indeed has some discrete cause, or causes, distinct from oxidative stress [40]. Alternatively, oxidative stress might result from the failure of one particular maintenance system of the organism and thus participate in causing aging, but no more, as is often proposed in multicausal or unifying theories of aging [3–6]. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that it could not be beneficial to health to counteract the deleterious effects induced by ROS, at least in pathological situations. However, any intervention will nonetheless have to be very critically evaluated as clearly revealed by the antioxidant supplementation trials and in light of the increasing number of studies showing the crucial roles of ROS in cellular signaling.

--
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Where's the 150 year old humans? by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 07:23 · Score: 2

80+ isn't very old for humans (in fact it's the average in many countries these days...)
A miracle diet for humans would have to do a lot better than that. eg. Calorie restriction in mice makes them live twice as long.
Even a 25% increase in human lifespan would mean people could make it to 150 but that's simply not happening. Not with any known diet or lifestyle.
Given the vast range of lifestyles/diets all over the world you'd think we'd be able to measure something if diets/lifestyles really made much of a difference.
There's no shortage of people looking for a miracle diet/lifestyle so I'm sticking with Occam's razor for now.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Where's the 150 year old humans? by radtea · 2010-12-20 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  A miracle diet for humans would have to do a lot better than that. eg. Calorie restriction in mice makes them live twice as long.
  Sure, but mice will die from a dirty look. So will most other mammals.
  Humans are ridiculously long-lived, as others have already pointed out here. The average mammal lives about a billion of its own heartbeats. Humans live twice that.
  There are pretty obvious evolutionary reasons for that, although every time I say that I get people saying, "Huh, wut?" so I'll spell it out: grandparents are the transmitters of culture amongst humans, and culture has been an important force in hominid evolution for probably something like a million years. Even chimps and bonobos have something akin to culture.
  Culture is instilled in children between birth and adolescence, during which time most of them are simply not paying attention to the processes that are shaping them. As such, they have no clue how it's done when they have kids of their own. But having a few old folks around, who have lived twice as long as would otherwise be evolutionarily useful, is sufficient to supply all the information required.
  Ergo, long-lived proto-humans had opportunities to pass knowledge down across generations that were vastly greater than their shorter-lived cousins, and we were selected for astonishingly long lives.
  Data suggest that the maximum mean lifespan of humans is about 96 years, and we are pushing up close to that limit today. It is doubtful that without some significant genetic intervention we will be able to alter that limit, nor is it entirely clear why we would want to. Epicurus said, "For a wise man one lifetime is enough, and a fool wouldn't know what to do with eternity."
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Aging is probably NOT in the telomeres by realxmp · 2010-12-19 07:41 · Score: 4, Informative

You don't need to remove the TTL, just reset it every fifty years or so.
A drug that restores the telomeres in each cell could be applied when needed, and then the telomeres would be shortened again at each cell division in the normal way.
There exists such a chemical, it's an enzyme it's called telomerase and it is actually active in a significant proportion of cells in the body. Either way the situation is far more nucanced than just the telomeres.
1. Re:Aging is probably NOT in the telomeres by St.Creed · 2010-12-19 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  There exists such a chemical, it's an enzyme it's called telomerase and it is actually active in a significant proportion of cells in the body. Either way the situation is far more nucanced than just the telomeres.
  Awwww come ON! I could really use an Elixir of Eternal Youth! Don't give me nuances, give me my elixir! :)
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
2. Re:Aging is probably NOT in the telomeres by randyleepublic · 2010-12-19 18:33 · Score: 0
  
  >> it is actually active in a significant proportion of cells in the body. Um, no. It is blocked in almost all of our cells. Only the germ cells have active telomerase. But we're working on that. www.sierrasci.com
  
  --
  Social Credit would solve everything...
3. Re:Aging is probably NOT in the telomeres by Chris+Burke · 2010-12-20 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Awwww come ON! I could really use an Elixir of Eternal Youth! Don't give me nuances, give me my elixir! :)
  Not going to happen.
  Elixir of Eternal Youth is a non-trademarkable phrase. It's also too wordy and old-timey sounding. Who says "Elixir" any more except RPG nerds? Plus it could be interpreted as making a specific claim of "eternal youth", opening the company up to a lawsuit in 50 years if it turns out to only be "significantly longer youth".
  Naw, they'll have something punchy, not actually English, but implying what they'd never actually promise. Infini-life, or ForevaYung, or something like that. I don't know, I'm not a marketer.
  Oh, and it'd be better if it was a pill. :)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
4. Re:Aging is probably NOT in the telomeres by bindo · 2010-12-20 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  germ cells.
  AND
  cancer cells.
  Which is a good sign for the usefulness of telomerase for single cells.
  And an obvious problem if instead you want to use it for whole organisms.
  Most of the stuff we know helps cells live longer, cancer already knew. And its using it.
  which makes it a little complicated to go from the lab to a pill that makes you live longer.
Wildly accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:45 · Score: 0

How about widely accepted?
Several mistakes in that: by Hartree · 2010-12-19 07:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Glad to know that primitive peoples who don't use those kinds of oils are so healthy and age so well...
FYI, coconut oil is not totally saturated (IV 14 or so). Even in its ultrahardened (by hydrogenation) form, it can still undergo oxidative breakdown and form peroxides in one of the early steps. It admittedly does so at a slower rate than highly unsaturated oils.
How do I know? I worked in a quality control lab that measured the iodine value (a measure of saturation) and the peroxide value (a measure of oxidative deterioration) in coconut oils among many others.
Both butterfat (IV 30 or so) and lamb fat (IV also around 30) are not completely saturated. They also undergo oxidative decay of this sort.
Essentially no natural source oil is completely saturated. The only ones I've seen that were have been chemically prepared synthetics (Captex 300 comes to mind)
FYI number 2: The coconut oil is deodorized as well. It also is sometimes hardened with hydrogenation depending on the application.
My facility was set up for kosher processing and we didn't do animal based oils. But many processed animal fats are also deodorized with high temperature steam just like plant oils.
There are a whole range of other questionable things in your post beyond the lack of knowledge of oil chemistry.
There are many well known reasons for accelerated aging of skin in some people. Over exposure to sun. Smoking. Genetics, etc.
1. Re:Several mistakes in that: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Actually there is some evidence that primitive people DID age well.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Diet_and_nutrition
  Obviously other factors have an impact on life expectancy, such as higher infant mortality.
  Eating anything that came from your science experiments would be a mistake. Food processors are overconfident about their impact on food that is sent out for human consumption. The actions food processors take, given amount of uncertainty in nutrition "science", are negligent at best.
  The parent poster said nothing about processed animal fats. We are not evolved to be eating deodorized, processed food.
The secret to my youthful skin? L'Oreal Pies. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 07:51 · Score: 0

And wrinkly. Why are friends younger than me balding and getting wrinkles?
For the former? Maybe they're genetically predisposed to it in a way that you aren't?

For the latter? Maybe they smoke and you don't? Maybe you intensively moisturise and they don't? Maybe you ate loads of crap (when they didn't) and ballooned massively in weight as you got older, smoothing out the wrinkles?

Who knows. It's pretty stupid to automatically assume it's because they're vegetarians.
Unnatural cholesterol? by Hartree · 2010-12-19 07:57 · Score: 1

As opposed to the cholesterol that your own body makes, for example?
Where are you coming up with this unnatural cholesterol in the diet?
Just who is expensively synthesizing cholesterol and adding it to foods? (As opposed to cheaply getting it from its many many natural sources.)
The real problem with fats and oils: by Hartree · 2010-12-19 08:06 · Score: 1

The big problem in the diet of developed countries with oils is not the source of them.
The widely agreed problem with oils in the developed world diet is: "Too much."
They all have similar chemistry and mostly differ in the specific balance of different fatty acids that make them up and in some of the trace chemicals that come along with them.
You may quibble about the type of fats and oils, but you'll get pretty broad agreement that we eat too much fat and oil. And rotund sort that I am, I'm a poster child for it.
The problem is, they tend to taste so good, and humans are poor at abstaining or limiting things which taste good.
1. Re:The real problem with fats and oils: by CAIMLAS · 2010-12-20 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'd argue that about 60% of my diet (by calories) consists of fatty meats and dairy; 30% would be vegetibles, with 10% being non-grain starches.
  I am on the upper end of "underweight". Sure, I'm still young, but you will be hard pressed to find someone getting fat and unhealthy eating well prepared, wholesome meats and veggies as their primary source of food intake. It's the processed, irradiated, and 'enhanced' foods which cause problems, as well as excessive grain intake.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
2. Re:The real problem with fats and oils: by Hartree · 2010-12-21 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  You've likely got good genetics working in your favor.
  It's not just about getting fat. High fat diets tend to be correlated with slightly higher rates of cancers of the colon etc. Some of this is likely that the fats are a concentrated source of calories, and tend to push out some of the higher fiber foods that have lower calorie density. (That's my own guess, take it for what it's worth.)
  Another odd, but not heavily supported data point is the study that noted a weight gain trend in lab animals on controlled diets during the same period that we've had the weight trend in the developed world. Could that be an environmentatl factor? Sure. Needs a lot more looking at.
  But a lot of the fat often gets combined with high glycemic index carbs, like in potato chips.
  The problem with putting all of the blame on particular food processing is that a lot of the problems showed up at least partly before some of the moves to those. Example, the big move to hydrogenated fats in fast food and the like was in the 80s. Yes, Crisco and others were around, but there were a lot of animal source fats and naturally highly saturated oils that were used (the tropicals). We moved away from them on the advice of CSPI and others. Then it turned out that trans fats generated by hydrogenation may be worse.
  As to irradiation, up until fairly recently such a low percentage of food was irradiated blaming current food related problems on it is pretty sketchy at best.
  I've lived through enough reversals in food guidance to figure that the best advice is moderation in all of it. Eat a balanced diet, and get regular exercise and you've got most of the benefit right there.
  The food industry takes a lot of rap, but very little credit for the demonstrable improvements in food. Take a look at the rates of food poisoning and stomach cancer in the early 1900s. There have been dramatic drops in them. Natural toxins from bacteria and other food spoiling organisms aren't just accidently bad like some modern additives, they have evolved specifically to be very damaging to life forms other than the ones that made them.
  Some of that improvement is due to refrigeration and better packaging. Some of that is due to the very preservatives that get such a bad rap. Often the "natural" preservatives have problems of their own. Salting something highly is one example. If you've got the genetics for salt saving (sodium retention) it's a big factor in high blood pressure, a known killer.
  But, a lot of the idea that by modifying diet in relatively small ways, you can get great effects is wishfull thinking. Some things are known to work. Caloric restriction works, at least if you're a mouse or a lot of other species. It's not so clear in humans.
  On the plus side for your approach, the paleo diet is the latest fad among the transhumanists and others. So in some years we'll probably have some good diet on low grain diets.
Then what? by dwinks616 · 2010-12-19 08:51 · Score: 1

This new evidence shows that high levels of Reactive Oxidative species are rather a biological signal used to combat aging then the process itself.

Then the process itself what? Doesn't seem like the author of this statement made it through the second half of third grade where the difference between "then" and "than" is taught...
1. Re:Then what? by Skidborg · 2010-12-19 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  There's a meme here somewhere but I can't put my finger on it.
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Exercise and free radicals by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 09:07 · Score: 0

If ANY diet made you live significantly longer we'd have noticed by now.
Same goes for exercise regimes, eg. If running five miles a day made you live longer we'd have noticed.
We can point to plenty of things that make your life shorter, eg. smoking, eating nothing but junk food, but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.
Actually, diet is very important to your health and eating correctly DOES make you live longer than someone eating fries everyday.
Secondly, exercise DOES make you live longer simply by reducing obesity, making your body function properly, etc....
What is interesting with the article is that exercise does significantly INCREASE the levels of free radicals in your blood stream. It is a well known fact that these free radicals are "good for you" - many experts called them "special free radicals" and is not well understood why they were counter to the "known science" about free radicals and their negative effects. These free radicals formed during exercise are responsible for increasing capabilities of your muscles, including heart muscle and arteries. Taking antioxidants immediately after aerobic exercise almost completely negates the positives associated with the exercise.
These worm experiments may finally start to unlock the importance of free radicals in your system.
1. Re:Exercise and free radicals by Joce640k · 2010-12-19 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  We can point to plenty of things that make your life shorter, eg. eating nothing but junk food...
  Actually, diet is very important to your health and eating correctly DOES make you live longer than someone eating fries everyday.
  Isn't that what I said?
  
  --
  No sig today...
They call that a patent by chronoss2010 · 2010-12-19 09:14 · Score: 0

ya know like forever and then some
Just admit you don't really know what it is by Steeltoe · 2010-12-19 10:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Organic food is almost all grown the exact same was as regular food: on large, industrial farms, in large volumes, for a profit. The only difference is that the expense of Organic food comes from the limited supply (due to demand as well as a higher rate of spoilage), while the expense of normal food comes from making it better, cheaper, and safer.
Are you trolling, or just ignorant? Most people don't know what organic food is, but if you're going to make an argument about it, why not educate yourself on the subject first rather than just spout your own prejudices for everyone on the internet to read?
Food quality has been on a steady decline. Poisons and hormone-mimickers in food are steadily going up while nutrients like minerals and vitamins are going down. Read the studies about it and wonder why this is so, all while buying cheaper food in larger quantities. The long list doesn't end there however, the earth itself is being drained of nutrients due to unhealthy mono-culture and non-stop farming each and every year. For many farmers, this is more important, so there is a big shift today to organic farming, just because of the higher sustainable development factor. If we destroy the earth, famine is not too far away. If we destroy nature or cut outself out from it too much, we may have to turn to genetic engineering to be able to sustain healthy bodies, always fighting new unknown diseases, not a very pleasant prospect except for the medical industry.
Organic farming can be many different ways, with the more extreme end being biodynamic farming. It is true that you can have large farms producing roughly the same yield as "modern farms", at least if you compare nutrients. Many people have the opinion that you can eat less of organic foods, and still feel satiated. So less yield does not necessarily mean less food.
This clockwork-universe mentality that everything to food and life is about proteins, minerals, vitamins, and this obsession of getting rid of dirt and bugs, is well, an hypothesis without basis in nature. Many people believe that there is more to food than what we can measure in its quantities. Life is certainly about more than its parts. If you lack this understanding, you've been living in the city for too long. It's clouding your judgement, so time to take a break off media and city, find some new fresh perspectives in nature.
Why Organic? (Quite interesting introduction)
http://journeytoforever.org/garden_organic.html
Top 10 Reasons for Organic Farming (Showing that the soil and environment is given more importance)
http://www.organic.org/articles/showarticle/article-206
Btw, IANAF (I Am Not A Farmer), however, I know there is alot to organic farming and sustainable development, than our prejudices. Currently living outside major cities, and it does bring a different perspective to life than endless visits to cafes and caffe lattes.
Before you condemn something, at least give it a fair shot first, hmm?

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
1. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  If you want to sell it to me, explain it in scientific terms. Much of what you tell me and what is in these links is emotional terms. I am a biologist. I am a chemist. Explain it to me. What is the mechanism of action of pesticide A on the human body?
2. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by ChrisMaple · 2010-12-19 15:18 · Score: 2
  
  Many people believe that there is more to food than what we can measure in its quantities.
  Many people believe in god, too. Many believe in Santa Claus. Belief has no causal relation to reality.
  "Alot" is not a word.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
3. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by NoSig · 2010-12-19 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Are you trolling, or just ignorant? Most people don't know what organic food is, but if you're going to make an argument about it, why not educate yourself on the subject first rather than just spout your own prejudices for everyone on the internet to read?
  It's funny, I almost always find that people who start with a line like that are actually unwittingly talking about themselves, and you live up to that more than most. There, I've now offered about as much of a substantive argument as you have (yes, I saw your links).
4. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Steeltoe · 2010-12-19 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Are you a biologist all the time? Chemist all the time?
  If you can't communicate with other people in "emotional terms", ie. plain language, then you're a nerd, out of touch with fellow human beings.
  I said I'm not an expert on farming, and if you'd like me to do your homework, I'm sorry, you're probably more qualified for that than me. But only if you're willing.
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
5. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Steeltoe · 2010-12-19 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  News for you:
  Peer reviewed papers != Reality
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
6. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Steeltoe · 2010-12-19 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  I know I am not an expert in this. I was just offering my opinion, and I don't see any refutations yet.
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
7. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  This clockwork-universe mentality that everything to food and life is about proteins, minerals, vitamins, and this obsession of getting rid of dirt and bugs, is well, an hypothesis without basis in nature. Many people believe that there is more to food than what we can measure in its quantities. Life is certainly about more than its parts. If you lack this understanding, you've been living in the city for too long. It's clouding your judgement, so time to take a break off media and city, find some new fresh perspectives in nature.
  What, organic farming is a religion now?
8. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Genda · 2010-12-19 21:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Awesome!
  I'm an engineer, amateur scientist, and advocate for organic farming.
  Many of the chemicals used in pesticides (pyrethroids, organophosphates, carbamates, etc.) have been clearly determined to be: Human Carcinogens, Mutagens, Abortives, Hormone Analogs, Irritants and Toxins (particularly Neurotoxins.) As a chemist and biologist, I'm certain you can understand just how bloody difficult it is to make a chemical that kills one class of invertebrates (Insecta), and has virtually no impact whatsoever on any other class. I'd be more than happy to sit down and discuss absorption, uptake, metabolism, cytotoxicity, the most common effects and their biological mechanism of any of these chemicals. I would also be happy to talk about their impact and biological pathways on micro and macrofauna including Fish, Bird, Reptile, and Mammalian species (and let's not forget Homo Sapiens.) Though a quick look at the impact of these chemicals on a wide variety of species (eg. DDT on the Brown Pelican and Peregrine Falcon), and the statistical information surrounding the dramatic increase of Cancer, Miscarriage, Birth Defect, Neurological Disease and Negative Childhood Epidemiology among farm workers (age, sex, race, and economically normalized for fair comparison), should provide sufficient evidence to make any open minded scientists more than a wee bit uncomfortable with spraying these chemical all over the scenery and particularly the watershed for much of this country.
  This is not emotional. This is simple science. Like the mistaken agricultural misuse of antibiotics to increase animal health and yield, in fact producing nothing more than super-colonies of antibiotic resistant bacteria for miles surrounding such farms. You speak of emotion. There is an equally emotion-based use of the magic of modern chemistry to solve problems whose solutions themselves become the new problems. Case in point, this is as much a magical thinking, superstitious problem as any "Being afraid of chemicals." There are thousands of places on the planet, where the trade-off in human suffering demands extraordinary measures. Killing off a plague of malarial mosquitoes immediately jumps to mind. Using the chemical equivalent of an atom bomb to make you fruit prettier however, seems to me, a poor use of this technology. Let's "Right Size" our chemical arsenal, and save the extreme solution for the extreme circumstances.
9. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Genda · 2010-12-19 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Arguably, any twit who chooses a path based on superstition or magical thinking has just rendered that path a religion... which isn't to say that there aren't some religions that occasionally rise above magical thinking (I find Zen a rather enlightened way of seeing things.) However, I also find that mental health demands one regularly distinguishes oneself from one's point of view, or all too soon, you don't have one, it has you.
10. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by ThePromenader · 2010-12-20 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Peer reviewed" is a vague term - especially when those choosing the 'peers' who publish 'new findings' are the very same who are funding/cheering for the (special-interest) group doing the research. I have more faith in the term "scientific consensus" (meaning 'the majority of ~all~ scientists) - and I say 'faith' because, unless we ourselves already have the scientific knowledge necessary to correctly analyze the scientific findings, there is a certain element of that in any decision we make about the validity of any scientific 'truth'. In short, for me, 'scientific consensus' == 'as close to truth as we (as humans) can come, to date'.
  
  --
  
  No, no sig. Really.
  
  ThePromenader
11. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by ShakaUVM · 2010-12-20 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  >>the earth itself is being drained of nutrients due to unhealthy mono-culture and non-stop farming each and every year.
  Don't worry. I'm sure that when all the materia has been drained out of the earth, gaia herself will arise and summon a meteor to strike down the unholy Shinra-Corp farmers.
12. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Abcd1234 · 2010-12-20 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  This clockwork-universe mentality that everything to food and life is about proteins, minerals, vitamins, and this obsession of getting rid of dirt and bugs, is well, an hypothesis without basis in nature. Many people believe that there is more to food than what we can measure in its quantities.
  Jesus christ almighty... talk about complete bullshit.
  While you delved a bit into idiocy earlier on ("Many people have the opinion that you can eat less of organic foods, and still feel satiated."... ROFL... many people believe in fucking aliens, too, and they're also idiots), but then you had to delve into pseudo-science bullshit, didn't you?
  Are you gonna start going on about the benefits of crystals and Chi, next?
  Please...
  It's a damn shame, too. While I think the "organic" thing is, by and large, utter bullshit, the idea of buying local and living sustainably *is* a good idea. Pity those solid, base principles get flooded out by the tons and tons of intellectual manure being spewed out by neo-hippies such as yourself.
13. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-20 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  How come the Amish, Mennonites type are always overlooked as organic farmers?
14. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by Steeltoe · 2010-12-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm very fond of the scientific method and principles myself. I also agree about funding and special interest groups. They generate alot of biased crap generally, I guess it's human nature, at least it's nothing new. However, when done right, nothing beats scientific results hands down. There is alot of superstition, which can even be harmful, and many "non-intuitive" answers to be gotten from science.
  However, I've had experiences which have taught me that 1000 scientists can be wrong, and that basing my life on scientific consensus means the lowest common denominator. So not always what I'd like to do.
  I'm also the creative and investigative type of people. I guess, at some point, we need to just make our own decisions, and basing everything in my life on scientific papers, would just make it impossible for me to be who I am. Many great experiences that I've had, I would be without, and if that were so, I would much rather not live. They were that important to me.
  I'd rather not go into details, because it's personal, and very few people on /. can relate to out of the ordinary experiences (which are not delusions btw). To each their own I guess.
  
  --
  http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
15. Re:Just admit you don't really know what it is by ThePromenader · 2010-12-20 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  "1000 scientists can be wrong"
  What I love about science (and true scientists) is that you will also have 1000 scientists who will ~admit~ that they are wrong, should a better answer come along.
  Science is the polar opposite of anything biased or faith-based (itself biased): science is drawing conclusions from fact, not selecting (and twisting) only the facts that best fit predetermined 'points of view'.
  People who 'question science' (or try to 'equate' faith with it) make me want to pull my (someone's) hair/teeth/fingernails out one by one - and the airwaves are so full of biased bloviators these days.
  
  --
  
  No, no sig. Really.
  
  ThePromenader
then/than by HairyNevus · 2010-12-19 12:41 · Score: 1

"This new evidence shows that high levels of Reactive Oxidative species are rather a biological signal used to combat aging thAn the process itself." Come on, now. news for nerds shouldn't make such basic grammar mistakes. Learn to edit, timothy

--
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
Um, this is old news by scurvyj · 2010-12-19 12:58 · Score: 0

Apart from the fact everyone was pretty sure that both this and the ridiculous "DNA Damage" theories were wrong, this has been splatted out of existence in the last week or so - we now know thanks to the mice experiments that Telomere shearing is the primary ageing mechanism, period. There are other mechanisms, and studying the evolutionary scenarios for Senessence (ageing) is absolutely fascinating - but this hippy crap about free rads was never really a contender.
No magic bullet here: by Hartree · 2010-12-19 13:09 · Score: 1

The studies on paleo diet have been very mixed as yet.
There are people who still eat that sort of diet with little or no processed fats in bush areas of the world still. Though you get claims of long life, it's anecdotal and more often bragging than reality.
The myth of the healthy savage has been around for quite some while, and it crops up repeatedly with relatively little to back it up.
On the other hand, there is good evidence that modern diet has some real downsides especially when combined with being sedentary. We just don't know all the details and combinations yet.
Mom Nature rarely uses single biochemical pathways when several interlinked ones will do. It makes figuring out the straight of it very difficult.
Telomeres are demonstrably not the whole story: by Hartree · 2010-12-19 13:31 · Score: 1

The mice that you mention were already telomerase deficient. Putting it back helped some.
The mice had a switchable expression of telomerase. When it was off, they had poor development and some of the symptoms of aging at the cellular level. When it was turned back on, they got better.
This is interesting, but not some magic bullet. It was a bit like showing that mice who can't produce insulin are diabetic, and then when insulin is switched back on, they get better. It doesn't tell you how to cure diabetes.
Humans age differently than mice. Besides, the mice in the study will still get old and die.
There are a lot of other factors in what is a very tangled complex process of aging that varies from one type of creature to another.
Eat to Live by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 14:54 · Score: 0

Eat less calories by eating more fibers/nutrients with more vegetables and fruits: http://www.drfuhrman.com/
He suggests: Health = Nutrients / Calories
So more oxidants will increase the biological sign by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 14:59 · Score: 0

So more oxidants will increase the biological signal used to combat aging ?
Cure diabetes (type 2) with diet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 15:09 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object
On no! The conspiracy to silence magic bullets: by Hartree · 2010-12-19 15:39 · Score: 1

When someone tells me that the big car companies are supressing the 200 mpg carburetor that will work on a 2 ton vehicle, I call bullshit just on the basis of physics.
When someone tells me that this carburetor is already easily available to play with like a simple change in diet, and yet no one is demonstrably using it successfully. I call bullshit again.
Can diet improve insulin response in type 2 diabetes? Of course! That's why physicians always modify the diet as part of the therapy for it.
So can moderate exercise. Walking daily is a good thing (tm).
Does a magic diet cure it by itself. In a rare and atypical case, maybe. Not likely in most people.
I always wondered about those antioxidants by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 18:32 · Score: 0

I always wondered about those antioxidants, and wondered, what they are doing roaming around after dark, and worse, if they are roaming after dark, what about uncleoxidants? Surely if the antioxidants are out and roaming, the uncleoxidants are likely getting liquored at the poker game, and after the fight breaks out, they start singing and going on a pub crawl. The antioxidants are the least of your worries. Worse that spring break! Way way worse!
Time produces aging. by Nyder · 2010-12-19 20:20 · Score: 1

I might not be a scientist, but i'm pretty sure time causes aging.

--
Be seeing you...
I always thought ... by Ihlosi · 2010-12-19 21:25 · Score: 1

... "aging" was a process that happened by shortening of the telomeres with each cell division, as one of the natural defenses against uncontrolled cell growth (e.g. cancer).
Yep, the same thing that kills you around the age of 100 is probably one of the reasons why you're not all that likely to die of cancer at the age of 25.
1. Re:I always thought ... by reverseengineer · 2010-12-20 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly- telomeres play a direct role in the number of times DNA can be replicated, but that effect, while important, is separate from the cellular damage that appears to be associated with aging. The process by which our linear chromosomes are replicated fails to include a small length at the end, a problem that compounds itself with each replication. Telomeres are there as a buffer; they're just a repeated sequence of nucleotides (TTAGGG in vertebrates). And yes, after about 50 cell divisions (the Hayflick limit), telomeres are depleted in normal cells, and the cells are directed to commit suicide. As you note, this process helps limit replication of damaged cells; for cancer cells to thrive, they need a way to maintain telomeres. Which they can of course find, either by reactivating the enzyme telomerase or through a process known as ALT, but it does provide a major hurdle.
  This all being true, it has long been argued that human aging is far more complicated than "telomeres: old people don't have them." Humans don't age like a cell culture- in addition to maximum lifespan, the frailities of old age and diseases associated with aging are relevant topics. Aged cells usually have damage to their membranes, to their DNA, and to their mitochondria and other organelles. While direct intervention with our telomeres might be necessary to extend maximum human lifespan beyond 120 years, give or take, limiting accumulated cell damage could drastically improve quality of life. This is where the mitochondrial free radical theory of aging came in. The mitochondrion is a machine that hands off electrons from molecule to molecule in order to extract energy; sometimes the handoff fails and a reactive species like a free radical or a peroxide is created. These chemical species can definitely damage cells in measurable ways- peroxidation of cell membranes, oxidation of DNA bases- so it was a reasonable enough theory to suggest that antioxidants could scavenge these species, preventing damage and "slowing aging." However, as the article notes, it turns out that the situation is far more complicated than oxidation being an unmitigated danger, and that this sort of intervention may do more harm than good.
  
  --
  "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Not just Keys: by Hartree · 2010-12-20 11:44 · Score: 1

CSPI was a big part of the push for removing saturates in the 80s. Until they decided trans fats were worse than saturates, and then they reversed course. So, now we're going back to using more tropical oils.
1. Re:Not just Keys: by haruchai · 2010-12-20 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Everything old is new again. I've come to realize that all the things I've been doing to improve my health aren't very far removed from what my grandmother thought was healthy.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body