14 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Here is the skinny on this week's show: There are some loud critics out there who complain that the Institute is too focused on the damage theory of aging. Some have said it is just Aubrey De Grey's religious followers. This is manifestly untrue, but the impression persists. This week's guest is a proponent of the programmed theory of aging. It is your chance to get an important viewpoint on aging from outside the SENS envelope (although I know most of you do anyway). Dr. Mitteldorf also has some very interesting ideas on health and nutrition.

You can read more at his homepage: http://mathforum.org/~josh/

Sunday Evening Update Link

Attached Files

•  josh_m.jpg   6.03KB   6 downloads

[Shepard]

Here is a clip from his CR-II talk:

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]

Q: You've mentioned inhibiting apoptosis as a method of increasing longevity. Have there been any discoveries in the past couple of years to influence your thinking on that? Also, have there been any other developments that make you think we're closer to figuring out the root of the aging cascade?

[Mind]

Thanks for the background info Shepard. For those of you who cannot be there live, I would once again appreciate any detailed questions about the program vs. damage theory (or evolutionary biology) here in the forum. I am a novice in those topics so I am worried my questions will not get to the heart of the matter, although I'll give it a good shot.

[Brainbox]

My question:

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]

Good question Brainbox! I will certainly ask that one since it has driven a lot of discussion recently.

[Shepard]

Q: You've mentioned that when a population grows to three times the size of it's predator or prey population, it drives the growing population to extinction. Is there any deeper significance to this number, and what does this mean for long-term human continuation if aging is arrested and population explodes?

[Mind]

Any last questions welcome. I am interested for him to elaborate on this:

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]

Q: Have you noticed the scientific community shifting further in one direction or the other (damage or evolutionarily-driven) regarding the cause of aging in the past decade?

[Mind]

Direct link to the interview here.

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]

I'd like to see a conversation between De Vany and Mitteldorf. At the CR-IV conference, De Vany mentioned that Mitteldorf's ideas on aging appealed to him. Yet, De Vany looks to evolution to base the ideal diet on, and Mitteldorf discounted that philosophy in the interview.

[Mind]

I asked Mitteldorf about basing diet decisions on evolution of the species (brainbox question). He didn't believe it was the best strategy because he is fairly certain that aging has been programmed into us by evolution. Thus the evolutionary diet, while perhaps being beneficial in many regards, is not the best for longevity because we would be playing right into our "aging program".

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]

He's also vegetarian, or at least avoids meat as per his website. The reasoning provided was because of the caloric density of meat, not necessarily anything specific about meat.

[brokenportal]

This was another excellent show as usual Mind, thanks, very informative. If anybody can name some good leads on how we can support research into the program theory of aging then please do let us know.

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.

[Anthony]

Excellent interview...If we ever get him on again, it might be worthwhile to discuss this potential paradigm shift in more detail. For instance, does he envision the drift theory as a tenative move away from the damage theory and towards programmed aging? To me the drift the drift theorists are attempting to hold on to many of the tenets of the damage theory (and especially the disposable soma theory) while at the same time positing a programmed form of aging. Their 'untinentional programming' idea might be a bridge to this supposed paradigm shift or it might not be one. It would be interesting to get his take on it. It would also be interesting to see how he thinks menopause fits in to his schema. Does he believe that it helps to validate the programmed aging motif? Oh well, things to ask next time perhaps:)