Sunday Evening Update, January 25th, 6pm E...
Mind 21 Jan 2009
You can read more at his homepage: http://mathforum.org/~josh/
Sunday Evening Update Link
Attached Files
Shepard 22 Jan 2009
http://video.google....h...a=N&tab=wv#
And direct links to some of his writings:
http://www.mathforum...h/bydesign.html
http://en.wikipedia....lution_of_aging
http://www.mathforum...h/humanist.html
http://www.mathforum...Epidemics-f.doc
http://www.mathforum...sh/4OwnSake.pdf
http://www.mathforum...LogiSen-EER.pdf
http://www.mathforum...h/evol-cr3.html
Edited by shepard, 22 January 2009 - 06:50 PM.
Shepard 22 Jan 2009
Mind 22 Jan 2009
Brainbox 24 Jan 2009
Does it make sense to try to deduce our current genetic diet prevalence through archaeology? Does there exist any proof or reasonable high level of correlation between our current dietary requirements and the diet lifestyle the average human did use more than 500 years ago?
What can we learn from this knowledge or presumptuous thinking?
What (alternative) ways do exist to predict our current individual or regional dietary requirements and prevalences?
Edited by Brainbox, 24 January 2009 - 05:02 PM.
Mind 25 Jan 2009
Shepard 25 Jan 2009
Mind 25 Jan 2009
Established medical advice has counseled a low fat diet for about 50 years now. But this consensus is changing. I believe that the evidence favors a low-carb diet, which implies higher fat, and that the medical community is slowly coming around. Gary Taubes has been a persistent advocate for this position, and has a new book (9/07) on the subject.
A related controversy concerns cholesterol and heart attacks. Taubes also argues that ‘bad cholesterol’ isn’t really bad, and that the medical obsession with lowering cholesterol is driven by pharmaceutical profits. NYTimes Op-Ed
The reason I find the low-carb position compelling is that the insulin metabolism is the strongest regulator we know for the rate of aging. Insulin is secreted (from the pancreas) to keep blood sugar down, but it also has other effects: it signals the body to store fat, and it signals the brain in a way that makes us age more rapidly (studies in mice and in humans). This is closely related to the reason that caloric restriction extends life span.
Which nicely dovetails with some of the questions already listed.
Shepard 25 Jan 2009
Mind 26 Jan 2009
5 items of evidence he gave for the programmed theory of aging.
1. CR and other interventions that alter gene expression induce longevity.
2. Several master genes that regulate length of life (telomeres, clock-1, etc...)
3. Aging IS a significant cause of death in wild populations (previously it was thought that animals died of other factors before dying of aging, and thus evolution would not have selected for aging)
4. Additive Genetic Variance indicates aging is programmed/evolved.
5. Forgot number 5 and my notes are not the greatest. Has to do with aging as a side effect and pleiotropy.
Shepard 26 Jan 2009
Mind 26 Jan 2009
He is on the low-carb bandwagon. Not because of evolutionary (paleo-diet) reasoning, but through current empirical evidence, basically carbs=aging because of the insulin/IGF metabolic pathway. He said in the interview that the insulin/IGF pathway is the most significant dietary driver of aging (pro aging).
Shepard 26 Jan 2009
brokenportal 27 Jan 2009
The best thing I can think of off the top of my head is to be sure we support the NIA in general. The money may not get to a project like that in particular, but added support will help increase its odds. Gavrilov and Sven just posted some information on a great opportunity to do just that. There is a bill on the floor of congress to get the NIH 3.9 billion dollars for the year. http://www.imminst.o...o...c=27335&hl= Please go support that right away, and let us all know what other ways we may go about supporting the program theory of aging.