Even if caloric restriction is not connected to longevity, you should still keep at it

It’s one of the the greatest success stories in nutrition science. Caloric restriction is a much studied phenomenon that is said to lead to longevity and good health. This has been tested time and time again in mice and other creatures. Caloric restriction, or CR, was known even in the medieval times when people thought it could kill tumors. Modern science was aware of it in the 19th century and the modern CR research was institutionalized in the 1960’s. The boom of the “Longevity Diet” began in 2004 when the researchers at Washington universtity at St. Louis confirmed in a long term study on mice, that caloric restriction does indeed increase health and lifespan. The mechanism of why this is, was not discovered.

Up to today, we were all amazed. Now, after the latest research report in Nature, it seems we are back at square one, exactly where the legendary Gilgamesh left us three thousand years since. Well, it’s worth noting that the latest research is still to be debated within the science community and the new findings offer loads of questions about the mechanisms of aging.

Longevity and (radical) life extension is an integral part of the Transhuman worldview. In the 21st century especially such figures like Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurtzweil have been the prominent proponents of life extension. As modern medicine pushes the barriers of molecular and DNA research even further, life extension or even relative immortality seems to be looming just behind the horizon. However, the effects of caloric restriction has been the only confirmed way to keep the body in good shape in comparison to a non-CR diet. Even the well known BBC Horizon series produced an hour long documentary about the topic.

The argument for CR for the past decades has been this: if the body receives 10-40 percent less calories than is required, it will remain in good health for a longer period of time. Research conducted on mice and primates seems to give strong backing to the speculation that it applies to humans as well. So far long term research on humans has not been possible, since such research projects have been around only for a few decades – and the human quinea pigs are still thriving.

However, the new findings from a 25 year experiment with rhesus monkeys that were fed 30 percent less calories than the control group seems to cast doubts on the caloric restriction basic premise. The indication is, that the “eat lesser calories” does not switch the body to a longevity mode but the key factors in longevity would be more about the genes and the quality of calories consumed. And if you read this carefully, it implies only that the amount of calories consumed does not correlate with longevity. What the research seems to imply is that caloric restriction is connected with longevity on a less utopian way: if you have a high quality diet with little or no “bad substances”, you will lose weight and you don’t put too much strain on your body.

Good news for those who are on CR and for those who are not. It would, in my opinion as a layman, justify two things. First, people who are not on a CR regime could benefit much for having a CR-type diet, and that could be much easier to accomplish than a rigorous CR program. Second, people on a severe CR program, such as eating only 60 percent of the calories needed, can now shift to a more modest CR and begin consuming 80 or even 100 percent the calories needed. The key point in the research seems to be that what you eat affects your health.

Sounds trivial doesn’t it?

Well, it is. If you look up your national eating recommendations, you will likely get similar instructions. We all know what eating healthy means and I am not in a position to give any advice.

Now, the challenge that this research poses is mostly about genes. If your genetic makeup is a major player in your expected lifespan, you should try to even the odds with good nutrition and at least modest exercise. There really is no reason what so ever to allow your body to deteriorate because of fatty foods and sugery substances. Laissez faire eating means you are letting go of your self control and your life. If you are one of the lucky ones who come from a family saturated with 100 year old’s there is even a greater incentive for a healthier diet. Wouldn’t it be great to live for a century and remain in relative health?

Those extra decades also increase your change of being able to use future medical technologies to combat aging and increase well being even beyond that 100 year marker. This is of course highly speculative but looking at the medical progress we as a humanity have had in the past 100 years, it would seem like a safe bet.

By getting your self in shape and being aware of all the possibilities in life, there are many more pressing matters on earth you should focus on. Between healthy lunches you could try to figure out who our species is going to survive with nature going down the drain and increasing economic instability is threatening the very institutions our society (and medical science) is grounded on. By adopting a healthy and life centered worldview, you are more likely to be an answer to the collective problems we face every day. Now, if you really are in this for the long haul, you might consider getting in step with life and humanity by joining a new movement. Here is the Facebook group for the International Longevity Party. Join. Do it now. We need people just like you – and your friends too.

Article notes: “Cognitive Enhancement in Education”

Buchanan, Allen (2011) “Cognitive Enhancement in Education” in Theory and Research in Education 2011 9: 145.

A short but well structured article about how and why Biomedical Cognitive Enhancements (BCE’s) are going to be used to enhance education. The author, Allen Buchanan, is by no means a new name in the transhuman related pantheon of writers. He has authored two books I look forward to reading: Beyond Humanity and Better than Human.

In this article Buchanan focuses on cognitive enhancement. He argues, that this is already done with coffine and nicotine and there is no real obstacle that in the future there would be a selection of ever more powerful cognition enhancing drugs. Buchanan gives four aims for education: 1) promote individual flourishing, 2) equip a person to fulfill the role of citizen, 3) help people to become economically independent and a contributor to society and 4) to promote general social well-being by enabling skills and knowledge that make more complex cooperation possible.

With these four points Buchanan continues on to make the case for the use of BCE’s. He argues, that there is a clear continuity from the four aims of education to the use of cognitive enhancement. According to Buchanan there neither exist any relevant issues, that would speak against the use of BCE:s.

He argues, that the biggest obstacles in using BCE’s have to do with not knowing enough about them. Buchanan argues, that our concept of “natural” has a lot to do with a “pre-Darwin” concept, where all that is natural is good and pure. Also, what he calls biotechnological exceptionalism, we attribute too much contingency on the “new” biotechnology.

Probably the most controversial point in the authors vision has to do with the idea of using cognitive enhancement technologies as part of a mandatory policy. He argues that:

In a society in which the better off will predictably utilize BCE, harnessing BCE to the public educational enterprise would have two significant advantages. First, it would avoid the risks […] where thousands of people are taking prescription drugs in order to enhance their cognitive performance without medical supervision […] Second, it would ensure that access to CBE is not limited to the well-off and create the opportunity for using CBE to reduce rather than to exacerbate unfair inequalities in natural endowments. (Buchanan 2011, 161.)

This was a short introduction to the article and I’m not sure if it makes a fair point about the whole. Still, it raises some difficult questions I need to answer. Here Buchanan talks about ‘enhancement’. I found this article by doing a search with the term ‘enhancement’ in the Sage Journals. Part of my problem in looking at the “concept” (notice the quotations I have started to use) of transhuman technology is that the very central concept of “enhancement” is as broad as it is high.

Very often in STS literature medical technology and technology are separated. With nanotechnology we see a change towards a more hybrid view of technology but generally medical and non-medical technology are different. I suppose this has to do with the history of these particular technologies but I also believe there are different social worlds at play too. The medical technology is part of the medical institution that is run by doctors and the technology sector belongs to the institutions of technology, run by engineers and research scientists. This is just a thought, but it can be that the way these institutions construct ‘technology’ (or the “artifact”) are different.

But, now for the next article…