×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Free Radicals May Not Be Cause of Aging

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the with-very-few-exceptions-not-a-human-being dept.

Canada 371

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have uncovered strong new evidence that that wildly-accepted mitochondrial free radical theory of aging (MFRTA) is wrong. MFRTA suggests that free radicals cause oxidative damage, which in turn leads to the aging process. This new evidence shows that high levels of Reactive Oxidative species are rather a biological signal used to combat aging then the process itself. This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

371 comments

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34607782)

Well...

"This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."/quote?

Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607848)

Ya, scientists, pshaw. They're so full of it!

This is why we need to institute mandatory human experimentation!

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608508)

But organic is the way to go! If it's natural, it's good for you

Why do so many people think this is the case? That something manufactured is "not as good" as something natural. I'm sure there are as many cases where this is true as there are where this is false. Yet look at how organic foods have been taking off... I'd rather eat food that was kept bug-free by pesticides, and used fertilizer to make the plants grow to their maximum extent, and had preservatives added to keep the fruit at its tip-top freshness. (I know some organic food companies just add "organic" as a label that doesn't mean anything, but most organic producers follow some (if not all) of those rules.) Oh well... I guess people can eat what they choose, no matter what their rationale may be.

Re:Well... (4, Informative)

Dasuraga (1147871) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608670)

I dunno about most people, but I'll buy organic sometimes because it's usually indicative of a more sustainable farming process. I couldn't care less about the "all natural" part, but I do care about promoting intelligent usage of the (limited) resources on the planet.

Then again I'll be dead before it becomes a problem so what do I care.

Re:Well... (1, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607874)

Well...

"This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."/quote?

Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach

I stopped doing that decades ago after I grew up and couldn't be forced to eat them. Now I look at my friends who are vegetarians, and am shocked at how old they look compared to my mostly meat-eating self.

Re:Well... (2)

bstender (1279452) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608076)

i took the exact opposite strategy decades ago and became, for want of a better word, Godlike. I smell great too. (that's what all the gorgeous women tell me anyway)

Re:Well... (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608170)

Oh yeah? Well, I stopped eating all together, and became like the entire Pantheon all rolled up into one ball of pure awesomeness. The merest hint of a waft of my scent drives all the most beautiful women crazy. Try it.

Re:Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608148)

Take up smoking and you'll look even younger. It releases tons of free radicals.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608182)

Clearly your subjective experience and apparent pat-on-the-back cynicism for bucking the trend makes for great science!

Brilliant job, young man! Go back to FOX news...

Re:Well... (2, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608188)

I completely understand vegetarian and vegan philosophy, although I'm not interested in participating. But I have noticed the same thing, that all the vegetarians I know are all pasty white and sickly looking, although there are obviously exceptions. Not sure if that is because of the lack of meat, or if just pasty and sickly people are more likely to give up meat. I won't eat veal, and *hate* the way we currently raise animals for meat, but I'm pretty sure we evolved to eat critters. They're tasty, too.

Re:Well... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608394)

I have noticed the same thing, that all the vegetarians I know are all pasty white and sickly looking

And wrinkly. Why are friends younger than me balding and getting wrinkles? They need some animal protein.

Eating vegetables != being vegetarian (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608432)

If vegetables are good for your health it does not mean meat is bad.

I eat both neat and vegetables, when people try to guess my age they normally undershoot by ten to fifteen years.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608620)

We all look younger when we view ourselves in a mirror..

Really? (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607996)

I always got the sense that the antioxidant craze was healthwashing run amok. Every time I've looked into it there seem to be as many detriments as benefits. From what I've read, oxidation plays a role in so many different processes isn't it unclear whether its good or bad as a whole?

Re:Well... (4, Informative)

Niedi (1335165) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608098)

A lot of proteins in these worms really are, but still, it's insane to jump at these conclusions so quickly...

The article here also has a link to a paper of him from 2009 which seems to be about mice, but then again it's in a low-impact-factor journal. Since his findings would be of great interest for a broad audience this might be a sign of shabby/incomplete research (interesting enough for a big paper but not good enough)...

Can't say more before I'm on a computer with access to the journal to actually read it though.

Re:Well... (1)

Niedi (1335165) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608322)

Sorry, I forgot to insert the quote-tag in my post. The comment was meant as a response to

Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach

Re:Well... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608334)

Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach

      People taking coumadin shouldn't be eating too much broccoli and spinach anyway, you insensitive clod!

Well obviously. (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607806)

I mean, how can anything with the word free right there as part of it's name be bad for you?
Like, free porn, or free t-shirts and free guns. So obvious.

Re:Well obviously. (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608020)

You forgot, free as in beer

Re:Well obviously. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608310)

The radicals aren't free as in beer: you have to pay for them when you buy foods "high in free radicals". They are free as in speech, though, in that you don't need permission from the grocery store to pass them on when you are done with them. The bacteria at the sewage plant thank you.

Free radicals have their limitations (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34607820)

Well it's not surprising at all to hear this about free radicals. We all know that libre radicals have a better chance at it.

Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34607822)

One more data point in the quest to end aging. Just like there are no male or female carbon atoms, there are no 10 year old or 40 year old carbon atoms. They're all the same, act the same, always, everywhere. So why is there aging? IMO, it's all about enzymes. We have enzymes that handle the more toxic by-products of the process of life. If we didn't, we wouldn't live long enough to reproduce. Things like AGE molecules [wikipedia.org] seem to accumulate in the human body.

These molecules are harmless enough in short time scales so there's no pressure to get rid of them. However, they accumulate and eventually gum up the works so to speak.

When can we start seeing attempts to cleave these AGE molecules in-vivo in humans? I want to live longer. Just like some people want to see other planets, I want to see more time.

Yeah, it was too good to be true... (4, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607844)

If free radicals were responsible for (a large part) of aging then blueberry farmers would routinely live to be more than 100. Blueberries supposedly have the highest amount of anti-oxidants (by weight? volume? serving size?) of any food.

Too bad, I love blueberries.

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607896)

Actually, the Acai Berries has twice the amount of Anti-oxidants than blueberries.

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607962)

Black coffee, espresso in particular, is also very high in anti-oxidants. Too bad all that coffee wont help...

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

fain0v (257098) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608520)

Actually, the Acai Berries has twice the amount of Anti-oxidants than blueberries.

Maybe fresh ones do, but reducing agents disappear over time, especially in a plastic bottle on a shelf.

Occam's razor... (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608136)

If ANY diet made you live significantly longer we'd have noticed by now.

Same goes for exercise regimes, eg. If running five miles a day made you live longer we'd have noticed.

We can point to plenty of things that make your life shorter, eg. smoking, eating nothing but junk food, but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.

Re:Occam's razor... (2)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608264)

It is pretty widely understood that a calorie-restricted diet (something like 30% fewer calories than the RDA, for humans) makes *any* animal live significantly longer and with fewer health problems. It's worked for everything it's been tested on. There have been some short-term studies on humans, but I'm not sure if there are any long-term ones.

But 'eat so much less that you're always hungry' is not an acceptable diet plan. We all just want to eat something *extra*, or take a pill, to fix it. I know I can't do the calorie-restricted thing.

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608284)

This doesn't apply to people that are starving or otherwise malnourished. This is assuming a *balanced* calorie restricted diet. You still need the fats, proteins, carbs, vitamins, minerals. Just fewer calories.

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608314)

Interesting theory. I have had problems maintaining a normal weight all my life, I'm generally very very thin. One time I took a medication that made me gain a lot of weight and I felt a whole lot better with that extra weight. I felt healthy and my workouts were much more effective.

There are a number of very thin my people in my family and they all lived a pretty long time (over 95) but I certainly felt a lot healthier at a higher "normal" weight.

Re:Occam's razor... (5, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608638)

I don't know all the answers to salorie restriction but it's been known about since 1934. Nearly 80 years is enough time to find out if it works in humans but I'm not aware of any practitioners living extra-long lives (and there's been plenty of people who tried it...)

If you plot a graph of size vs. lifespan in mammals it forms a fairly straight line. See here [senescence.info]. Humans already live much longer than the graph predicts (we're the dot marked "HS" on that graph) and we're not sure why. Maybe there's a connection. Maybe that's why calorie restriction doesn't work on humans because we're already a long way above the line.

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608458)

it's very simple. you live longer if, in your bloodline, children are consistently conceived at old age. and that's about it...

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608506)

we know of at least one that extends life,on of them is called calorie restriction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Mortality [wikipedia.org]
But it seems to be awful to be in starvation everyday for the rest of your long life.

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608598)

Whether a calorie restricted diet would make me live longer or not, I know it would seem like longer!

Re:Occam's razor... (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608706)

There's no evidence that it works in humans.

It's been known about for a long time and there have been plenty of practitioners. None have lived exceptionally long lives AFAIK.

What studies seem to suggest is that the long-term adverse effects of calorie restriction eventually catch up with the benefits and cancel them out. ie. Symptoms of aging are delayed a bit but when they arrive they're much worse.

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608600)

We can point to plenty of things that make your life shorter, eg. smoking, eating nothing but junk food, but I'm fairly sure that if you're living a reasonable lifestyle then genetics completely dominates. After that it's probably as much down to happiness as anything else.

And avoid setting off the chain reaction that'll trip a systemic collapse and kill you. Seriously, I have some elderly in my family that seem to hang on by the thread of their lives but they do it year in and year out as long as a gentle breeze doesn't knock them off their feet. Others have seemed far more healthy, but then they get hit with a bad case of the flu that a 60 year old would recover from, a 40 year old would just be off his feet a few days but an 80 year old starts getting all sorts of other problems that pile up. That sort of thing can easily be the difference between living to 70 or 80 or 90. That's just good advice for staying alive though, it won't improve the human life span.

Re:Occam's razor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608612)

We have noticed that Japanese live longer than most everyone. ;)

Re:Occam's razor... (1)

kcitren (72383) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608668)

Caloric restriction is effective at increasing lifespans [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction].

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608146)

First of all, there are a huge variety of antioxidatns. It's really stupid to compare catechins, which are hydrosoluble, and curcuminoids, which are liposoluble. Both are antioxidants, but are not comparable.

Second: this study does not disprove the usefulness of antioxidants for preserving DNA integrity. OTOH, there are studies with evidence that anti-oxidants are effective in this sense.

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608178)

...then blueberry farmers would routinely live to be more than 100

Not quite, since what the supermarket calls blueberry is not necessarily what we are talking about. The most commonly sold one is vaccinium corymbosum, which has big fruits, but not a lot of the anthocyanins that are supposed to be good for you (they are white inside, not blue all through).

Anyway, there is evidence to suggest that aging is related to the shortening of telomeres; this is really a rather old idea, but apparently it has been gaining in strengths recently. In my view, ageing is just one of many life-style related decays that we are slowly learning to counteract - and with some success. Haven't you noticed how people not so many years agou used to look quite old and frail already in their sixties, but now we are no longer surprised to find that people in their seventies are still physically active and mentally alert? It is all about finding the right balance - what to eat and what not to eat, what to do and what not; gobbling up unlimited quantities of "superfoods" is neither pleasant nor good for you.

Old people always 'look' old (4, Insightful)

woolio (927141) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608554)

Haven't you noticed how people not so many years agou used to look quite old and frail already in their sixties, but now we are no longer surprised to find that people in their seventies are still physically active and mentally alert?

Yes. Then I realize that old people haven't changed... When I was 10, people in their 40s looked aged, people in their 60s looked very old and frail, and people in their 80s looked like something from a horror movie.

Now that I'm in my 30s, I find people in their 40s don't look so old. And people in their 60s don't look all that much different with the exception of some white/grey hair and a few more blemishes on their skin.

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (2)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608194)

Seems like you need to read the /. post from a few days ago about the link between fertility and cell phones...

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608586)

Too bad, I love blueberries.

Then eat them! Blueberries are nutritious and delicious. Maybe they won't make you live forever; seriously though - what do people want from a damned fruit!

Re:Yeah, it was too good to be true... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608700)

"Too bad, I love blueberries."

Well,, you don't have to stop eating them. THIS JUST IN: Blueberries in high amounts cause cancer.

Wow! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607854)

Next they're going to tell us that asbestos actually cures lung cancer and we should sprinkle DDT on our cereal every morning to avoid shingles..

Re:Wow! (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 2 years ago | (#34607972)

With your asbestos example, I think the connection is pretty clear, the anti-aging connection was assumed in the case of anti-oxidants, with (apparently) little effort to investigate to confirm the hypothesis.

I never did really understand the claims for anti-oxidants, it was always a vague argument from anti-oxidant proponents and food product packages. I'm sure they're good, but when people just go overboard on anything, it's usually not a good thing.

Re:Wow! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608080)

I never did really understand the claims for anti-oxidants...

It's a classic case of marketing. Create a need for a useless by-product of some fat rendering process (or similar), or finding a profitable way of disposing toxic waste.

Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608002)

What would happen if they actually "cured aging". Would our system work if all the sudden people lived to 200 or 500 or... I would almost think, like that STNG episode where they all had to die at 60, maybe you would have to cap it a 100 or 150. If I could live to 100 as healthy as I am now (at 43) I would think that would be a pretty good life.

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608084)

That is an excellent point, and one I have thought about on more than one occasion, but for different reasons. What would happen to social welfare and retirement pensions when the average person was drawing on them for 100 years, instead of 10 years? Would you have to forego Social Security payments if you "took the cure for aging"? Would only rich people be able to afford it, and then create an oppressive voting block over time in a democracy? Would you eventually just get bored with life even while you are still healthy? What would happen 50 to 100 years down the line when the average age of a person was over 100? Would we have to restrict the number of births that a couple has, to prevent even greater overpopulation? Would prisoners serving life sentences be eligible for the same treatment? Do we only reserve it for persons deemed "worthy"? Who decides that? Could it be used as a weapon?

A "cure" for old age is very much a double edged sword and might bring more misery than joy, particularly if you are talking about average life spans jumping to 150 years or more.

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608150)

1. Social Security is already broke, it's not going to last much longer anyway. 2. Prices will come down over time. 3. The fertility rate in developed countries is already sub-replacement, it goes down with increasing wealth. 4. If you're healthy, there's a million things to do, places to go. 5. You decide if it's worth it to you.

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608272)

That's swell, but I don't think it so cut and dry. If extending the average age was gradual over time, then yes, there is no concern. I'm talking about a situation where we made an instant leap from 72 year average expectancy to double or better. I've given the situation more than a passing thought, and there are a lot of ramifications that aren't obvious at first glance. I don't know if such a "cure" is going to happen in my lifetime, if at all, but it is certainly possible. Globally, it has already doubled over the last 150 years. If it happened in a very rapid fashion, there is no end to the issues it would cause. Too many to even try to list.

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608532)

Some examples would be nice. For one thing, you wouldn't know the real life expectancy until people start dying. Not sure how instant that can be ...

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608484)

Social security will survive with at least 75% benefits through at least 2050 (and probably beyond-- once the boomers start dying off the pressure drops). It would be better than that if they removed the payments to children and other survivors and if they treated it as insurance against poverty and means tested it. They could basically cap it at the inflation adjusted median income. You do not get any social security that exceeds $60,000 when added to your other income.

But "what about me, I PAID all my life ! I want what's coming to me!!!!!" Well for one thing, most boomers paid about $120k. It's insane to pay them a $29,000 a year on their $120k investment. At current rates, that assumes their $120k has grown to about 1.2 million dollars. The benefits are too high (and I'm only 12 years away from early retirement so this hits me too).

Medicare is in serious trouble. It's bankrupt (not 75%) by 2020 (some say 2019).

Fertility rate is not down for hispanics and islamics in the 1st world. It's also not down for other subsets of the population (I know three strippers and all three had 4 or more children).

Picture the 1st world lifestyle as penicillin. Some parts of the population are resistant to it. Over time, they will grow to dominate the population (in the south USA, hispanics will be a majority by 2040).
Increased poverty also increases the birth rate. The wealth is not being shared equally by the top 2% any more. So the benefits of sacrificing having children are not as large as they were only 20 years ago.

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608266)

There would be tons of secondary problems come out of 'solving' the problem of aging too. For example a woman is born with all the eggs she will ovulate. Currently that's not an issue in most people as we tend to have kids around 20 or so years old, but as women push back childbirth in to the later part of their lives all kinds of issues start cropping up. Again, these issues can be over come with enough science, but as we all know that doesn't come cheap and will benefit the rich the most.

Also, I remember reading that some organ of the body seemed to follow a different aging process. I'll have to try to find that, who knows with all the medical bullshit that's written, it could have been conjecture I had read a story about.

Re:Maybe that's a good thing... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608412)

It would be one thing if you were healthy, 35, and live to 200 or 500. You would work and be productive. Birth control would be no more of a concern than it is now ( imo earth is already past the carrying capacity so it's just a question of critical failure in 35 years or 75 years.) Obviously, you'd need a strong tie between the immortality treatment and birth control (vasectomies for men, not sure what for women-everything we have now is invasive except iud/pill and those don't work for everyone)

OTH, if any people (say .1% per year) got a chronic illness and could not work or be productive then over 500 years, a huge portion of the population would be invalids.

Bad science and "nutrition science" (4, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608030)

More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation. That's just bad science.

And yet, it seems to be rather prevalent. Especially in the questionable science of nutrition, where any slightly new idea can lead to a fortune in book sales, diet plans, drug development, etc.

Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608174)

It's not biochemists writing diet plans, going on oprah or marketing fruit extracts to public. Where was the last drug candidate that was just anti-oxidants. You see where I'm going here?

Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608212)

Well to be fair, confusing cause and effect is terrifically easy in science, as is confusing correlation and causation. For the most part, science can only discover correlation, and assigning causation requires a sort of intellectual leap.

And all the fad diets and the industries built around them-- the problem there isn't "bad science". It's really a couple of bad things that happen regardless of how good the science is. First, you have bad news reporting. A single study comes out that suggests some small correlation between coffee and cancer, and then suddenly new outlets are reporting that coffee causes cancer, or coffee cures cancer, or whatever. That's not necessarily the scientists' fault.

The second problem is deceptive marketing by companies selling crap. It's not limited to food and diets. It happens all over, and they don't need scientific studies.

Re:Bad science and "nutrition science" (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608360)

More generally, scientists should not confuse cause and effect. Or even more generally: correlation for causation. That's just bad science.

And yet, it seems to be rather prevalent. Especially in the questionable science of nutrition, where any slightly new idea can lead to a fortune in book sales, diet plans, drug development, etc.

Has a scientist ever told you to eat more antioxidants so you'd live longer? My gut tells me scientists are smarter than the people you actually hear this stuff from.
It's one thing to say X seems to have effect on Y in your body, and another to say doing X will make you live longer.

CA:
It's like blaming mechanics for the notion that changing your oil more frequently makes your car last longer. If you actually ask one, they'd tell you plainly, more frequently != more betterer...

wildly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608054)

Shouldn't it be "widely" ?

some bodies age slowly, others quickly (-1, Troll)

nido (102070) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608088)

One of the main differences is how much polyunsaturated fatty acid is consumed. PUFAs are unstable, oxidize spontaneously when introduced to a human body, and generally wreck havoc in a warm-blooded mammalian systems (fish need these thin oils because they live in cold water). No amount of anti-oxidants is enough to counter the damage done by rancid oils. All seed oils are deodorized to hide rancidity.

My dad's wife is not aging gracefully. Her skin is wrinkled like someone 15 years older than she is. One of her regular dishes is fish fried in "vegetable" oil (corn/soy/rapeseed).

Safe oils are saturated, like butter, coconut oil, and lamb fat.

Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly (1)

flonker (526111) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608276)

So, what you are saying is, cholesterol is a good thing?

Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608496)

Cholesterol is necessary for proper cardiovascular and adrenal function. Most people synthesize enough so that they don't really need to eat a significant amount of cholesterol. However, some people's bodies do not synthesize enough cholesterol to remain healthy (folks with certain adrenal gland disorders for example - more specifically the liver may be functioning what would normally be adequate but due to the adrenal disorder supplemental cholesterol intake may be required to make the adrenal glands function - or go on a concoction of steroids with nasty side effects) and need to eat quite a bit.

So yes, cholesterol intake can be a good thing in some cases. Normally you need minimal cholesterol intake.

Re:some bodies age slowly, others quickly (2)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608632)

Normally, cholesterol intake does not correspond to serum cholesterol in any case, since your liver makes up the difference. It's not really something to worry about.

So is the opposite true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608190)

"This new evidence shows that high levels of Reactive Oxidative species are rather a biological signal used to combat aging then the process itself"

So does eating healthy with a lot of antioxidants actually make you age faster?

Real Culprit (2)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608206)

Free radicals don't cause aging, staring at Perl code does. Drives you to drink and makes you lose hair, too.

Aging is probably in the telomeres (5, Insightful)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608214)

As shown by this research: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html [nature.com]

Rather straightforward, isn't it? Why *does* a cell die, anyway? As long as it can grow and replicate, it shouldn't. Except for the telomere TTL-signal. Once we intervene in that, I think aging could be reduced or slowed drastically. I doubt there is much risk of cancer: cancer is when cells don't respond to normal apoptosis signals and keep growing. While removing the TTL-signal could be risky, I'm confident that cells with only the Time To Live removed could still respond normally to other signals. And while cancer *may* be lethal, aging is *always* lethal.

Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608336)

Yes, just like lobsters [wikipedia.org] have no specific lifespan, they just keep going.

Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608504)

I doubt there is much risk of cancer: cancer is when cells don't respond to normal apoptosis signals and keep growing.

You don't need to remove the TTL, just reset it every fifty years or so.

A drug that restores the telomeres in each cell could be applied when needed, and then the telomeres would be shortened again at each cell division in the normal way.

Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608610)

And would have the advantage of having to be bought every fifty years or so. I welcome our immortal pharmaceutical overlords :).

Re:Aging is probably in the telomeres (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608510)

Cell death is not the only reason you can get aging effects. Loss of structure in organs, with otherwise perfectly healthy cells will result in unhealthy processes. Skin wrinkling, for instance, does not in principle require cell death, just deformation of the connective tissue there. Brain function is another: neurons aren't reproducing all that much, but the overall structure of the brain changes somehow.

Come on (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608434)

"Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have uncovered strong new evidence that that wildly-accepted mitochondrial free radical theory of aging (MFRTA) is wrong.

Next you'll be telling us midiclorians aren't responsible for our force powers either!

Wild Acceptance (5, Funny)

kbolino (920292) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608442)

What makes a theory "wildly accepted"? Does it mean there are a bunch of scientists who gather spontaneously at impromptu bonfires and ululate their heathen belief in a carnal fashion?

Re:Wild Acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34608516)

It means the animal kingdom agrees.

Think of the 30's when Cigs CURED... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#34608448)

coughs, colds, fever, and yes, even Cancer. Scientists (mostly on payrolls) claimed all of the above. Part of it was a correlation == causation. Another part was executives telling them what to say.
Now, we have scientists that had found a correlation between aging and radicals. So, they used stats rather than hard proof to claim it. Why? Because SO MANY are in a hurry to be at the top of the heap.
Are radicals associated with aging? It would appear to be. Are radicals the cause of aging? Well, that needs to be researched rather than being declared as such.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...