Brap!! Ouroboros points us to research aimed at creating beer that is high in resveratrol.
Yeast has taught us a great deal about the mechanisms of aging. But what about using yeast to fight the aging process itself?
A group of young scientists is trying to genetically engineer brewer’s yeast to make resveratrol, an antioxidant compound that activates sirtuins and may or may not extend mammalian lifespan (link):
Eins, zwei, g’suffa!
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Googling is good for geriatrics.
A team of US researchers has found that searching the internet stimulates brain activity in the elderly and middle-aged and may help keep their minds sharp.
And:
The UCLA scientists found that searching the web triggers key centres in the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning and may help stimulate and possibly improve brain function.
“The study results are encouraging, that emerging computerised technologies may have physiological effects and potential benefits for middle-aged and older adults,” said Dr Gary Small, the principal investigator of the study.
“Internet searching engages complicated brain activity, which may help exercise and improve brain function,” said Small, a professor at UCLA’s Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behaviour.
So does it matter what you Google for? Does looking for the latest in longevity research differ from searching for celeb gossip or political pap?
You’d hope so.
Anyway, keep Googling.
In Killer Carbs: Scientist Finds Key To Overeating As We Age, Science Daily reports on research that shows that carbs appear to kill off the cells that suppress appetite.
A Monash University scientist has discovered key appetite control cells in the human brain degenerate over time, causing increased hunger and potentially weight-gain as we grow older. The research by Dr Zane Andrews, a neuroendocrinologist with Monash University’s Department of Physiology, has been published in Nature.
And:
“The more carbs and sugars you eat, the more your appetite-control cells are damaged, and potentially you consume more,” Dr Andrews said.
Dr Andrews said the attack on appetite suppressing cells creates a cellular imbalance between our need to eat and the message to the brain to stop eating.
“People in the age group of 25 to 50 are most at risk. The neurons that tell people in the crucial age range not to over-eat are being killed-off.
Photo by rachel is coconut&lime.
Sage Crossroads has a slew of podcasts recently that all delve into the Biomarkers of Aging. Here’s a list:
Via FightAging!
Slate gives us a glimpse of new research on how fat cells work:
The authors of the study showed that by the time we end adolescence, our number of adipocytes has been set. Heavy people begin adulthood with more fat cells, and lighter people with fewer, and the numbers won’t change as we age or as we become more obese or leaner. The only thing that does change, if we gain or lose weight, is how plump with fat each cell becomes. Meanwhile, however, even though the total adipocyte number remains constant, the cells themselves don’t just sit there getting bigger and smaller. Instead, they constantly turn over. Whether you are heavy or lean, losing weight or gaining it, the same rule applies—every year about 10 percent of your body’s fat cells die, and they are replaced by the same number of new ones.
This would appear to help explain why fat children become fat adults, and the importance of good diet early on.
As one who is dubious about governments’ ability to deliver useful outcomes, it was interesting to read Jake Halpern’s Slate article Should the government pay you to lose weight?. A somewhat portly mayor in the Italian Alps decided to pay constituents to loose weight and keep it off:
Buonanno made an official proclamation in which he promised to pay his fellow townspeople cash to slim down. Townsmen would receive 50 euros (about $74) if they lost 9 pounds in a month; townswomen would get that same amount for shedding 7 pounds. What’s more, if participants managed to keep the weight off for five solid months, they each stood to gain an additional 200 euros ($295).
Apparently what looks like a stunt may actually work:
Could the answer to this problem really be paying people to eat less and exercise more? According to Dr. Eric Finkelstein, author of the forthcoming book The Fattening of America, the answer is most definitely yes. This fall, Finkelstein published a study involving 207 overweight or obese people who wanted to lose weight. They were randomly broken into three groups. One group was offered $14 for every 1 percent reduction in body weight over the course of three months; another group was offered just $7; and a control group nothing at all.
On average, members of the $14 group lost 5 pounds, members of the $7 group lost 3 pounds, and members of the control group lost just 2. Finkelstein says that the most persuasive data concerned the participants who shed 5 percent of their body weight, which is generally considered to be the threshold for real health benefits. The members of the $14 group were four times more likely to hit this marker than the control group. The beauty of this, insists Finkelstein, is that it is so cost-effective for insurers or employers. “If people aren’t losing weight and hitting their targets, then you’re not paying,” he says. “You are only paying for success.”
Apparently money talks to the stomach as well.
Science Daily reports on a Buck Institute study that says nematodes doped up on lithium live a lot longer — 46% longer.
In the study, scientists discovered that longevity was increased in the worms when the lithium “turned down” the activity of a gene that modulates the basic structure of chromosomes.
And:
“Understanding the genetic impact of lithium may allow us to engineer a therapy that has the same lifespan extending benefits,” said Lithgow. “One of the larger questions is whether the lifespan extending benefits of the drug are directly related to the fact that lithium protects neurons.” The process of normal aging in humans is intrinsically linked to the onset of neurodegenerative disease.
“Obesogenic environment” is not a term I’d heard, but it certainly fits. It has to do with that public health issue of our town planning not promoting healthy lifestyles, by encouraging people to do things like walk and cycle.
Individuals cannot take all the blame if they are obese - modern society adds pressure to put on weight, according to a new British report.
The study by government think-tank Foresight called for greater help to counter the “‘obesogenic’ environment” by designing towns and cities to promote walking and cycling and encouraging people to buy healthier food.
And:
“There is compelling evidence that humans are predisposed to put on weight by their biology,” the report said.
“Although personal responsibility plays a crucial part in weight gain, human biology is being overwhelmed by the effects of today’s ‘obesogenic’ environment, with its abundance of energy-dense food, motorised transport and sedentary lifestyles.
“As a result, the people of the UK are inexorably becoming heavier simply by living in the Britain of today.”
Not just Britain. Not by a long shot.
If you didn’t make it to the Singularity Summit, all is not lost - you can listen to the audios.
Speakers include Ray Kurzweil (a dialog), Peter Theil (Financial Markets and the Singularity), Eliezer Yudkowsky (Introducing the “Singularity”: Three Major Schools of Thought), Paul Saffo (Machines of Loving Grace: Anticipating Advanced AI) and many others.
Via Boing Boing.
Mary at CRON Diary has a rave about researching wellness.
You cannot really do double blind controlled studies on wellness. Wellness is about maintaining a balanced and highly functioning body. It’s not about taking a sick person and giving them a vitamin to see if they get well, which seems to be the way most studies are conducted on vitamins. You can’t do a wellness placebo. There will be no “gold standard”. Wellness research is going to have to be about population studies and actually understanding the details of how the human body works through tools like microarray testing. Doctors and researchers that continue to devalue wellness because there is no “valid” research just don’t get it.
She proposes a HIN, the opposite of the NIH, to fund “research by people who have ideas that are not aligned with conventional medical thinking - like the one on an infectious basis for rheumatoid arthritis.”
Works for me.
