Rotifers may reveal the secret of elongating life(economist.com)
economist.com
Rotifers may reveal the secret of elongating life
http://www.economist.com/node/17144833?story_id=17144833&fsrc=rss
3 comments
Lamarckian evolution doesn't exist... except as specifically evolved via Darwinian evolution. Its fairly well known that starvation can make even a human's grandchildren smaller on average, so it shouldn't be surprising that other starvation related metabolic effects can be passed on too.
I'm curious what the mechanism is, though. From the perspective of a complete layperson - does this mean that the genome is modified based on acquired characteristics? Or are there other mechanism to carry the signal?
The Wikipedia article on epigenetics goes over some mechanisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
But do you call that living?
(Really, as a human being, would you want to pursue that lifestyle?)
(Really, as a human being, would you want to pursue that lifestyle?)
Sure - you don't have to do bare-minimum survival dieting. Caloric restriction to levels between 10-25% less than the average seems to deliver fairly substantial benefits. I eat very lightly by accident rather than by design; I enjoy my food and eat out frequently, I just don't eat as often as others and stop as soon as I begin to feel full. I tend to avoid fatty meat (don't like the texture) and skip dessert (don't like too much sugar), but that's probably offset by frequently consuming a beer at mealtimes. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
Or do you mean the reproducing without sex bit?
Or do you mean the reproducing without sex bit?
The groups shown to have the highest percentage of 100+ in age (with active lifestyles, not crippled) include a more "restricted" diet. Mostly in the sense of eating small portions until nearly full and no gorging.
Only one factor, but interesting.
(Other factors: large amounts of low-intensity activities walking, gardening, not exercising 1 hour a day), mostly plant-based diet(not necessarily vegetarian), and very strong community and a feeling of fulfillment or goal in life "why do you wake up in the morning").
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100....
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100....
I've heard claims that caloric restriction only works in the lab because the average lab animal is fed plenty and sits doing nothing. Under those circumstances, yes, most animals live longer when fed less ... die(still chasing the link down...).
Anyway, articles I've read describe caloric restrictionists as going from average build to barely underweight. I am currently barely underweight with my unrestricted diet. It seems pretty clear that any further reductions would be unhealthy in my case. But I think that pretty well shows that the generalizations about caloric restriction are over-broad.
Looking at it with that lense, the original article is one experiment concerning markers for markers for something that's arguable, the very common product of biological science: an experiment that settles nothing except if its taken with a thousand others (and maybe then not).
I wonder why the thing is in the economist with some crazily optimistic headline...
Anyway, articles I've read describe caloric restrictionists as going from average build to barely underweight. I am currently barely underweight with my unrestricted diet. It seems pretty clear that any further reductions would be unhealthy in my case. But I think that pretty well shows that the generalizations about caloric restriction are over-broad.
Looking at it with that lense, the original article is one experiment concerning markers for markers for something that's arguable, the very common product of biological science: an experiment that settles nothing except if its taken with a thousand others (and maybe then not).
I wonder why the thing is in the economist with some crazily optimistic headline...