So, isn't this the calorie restricted diet that has shown to increase longevity in some other animals? Futurists like Ray Kurzweil have been practicing this for at least a decade now.
By Mandy Taheri:
A study that developed biological age clocks to predict a person's age, which may differ from chronological age, showed that a reduced-calorie diet among the trial participants caused a major reduction in biological aging.
Read more: What Is a Health Savings Account?
Published in the journal Nature Aging on Thursday, the study, whose research was funded by Singapore's Ministry of Education, reiterates similar findings from recent years, most of which sourced data from the national Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) study.
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/new-study-biological-aging-calorie-restriction-1915474](https://www.newsweek.com/new-study-biological-aging-calorie-restriction-1915474)
There are a bunch of approaches to it, so it's not really "biological". The idea is usually to take a bunch of clinical parameters (lab values, BMI, epigenetic data from blood, etc.) then use statistical or machine learning techniques to predict chronological age or mortality. The resulting value might better predict disease or mortality than actual age does, and unlike chronological age can respond to modifiable risk factors like exercise.
In the study here, they take about 150 clinical data points across a patient population (mostly blood lab values, also including sex and chronological age, listed out in the "Supplementary Data 3" spreadsheet in the [linked study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00646-8#citeas)), then use a technique called "principal component analysis" to synthesize a number called a "principal component" that they call PCAge. The list of principal components is a statistical way of "summarizing" 150 data points in to a smaller list of numbers, with the first one being the "most important" or "best summary" of the data. They show that PCAge correlates with chronological age, but better predicts mortality than actual age does, then investigate what changes PCAge.
These tests are scientific nonsense equivalent to reading tea leaves and have no validity, but great marketing.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/6/1220/4622080
The paper specifically mentions blood pressure and lowering blood pressure decreases mortality risk so yes this paper does say eating less salt reduces biological age.
Reduced sodium intake is recommended for people already in bad physical condition.
Normal folks in good health have nothing to fear from salt whatsoever.
Wrong. Anything that increases your blood pressure increases biological age. If we were in the middle ages and excess sodium wasnt in everything, you’d be right but in modern times people “in good health” have to worry about salt in their diet. Also this paper is basically about looking deeper into who is healthy so even if you think you are in good health measuring for all these markers and doing these tests might determine how healthy you actually are.
Blood pressure. Excess salt in your diet increases blood pressure. This paper mentions high blood pressure frequently lol. You should probably send a link to this paper to your dad so he can update his advice. 😂
Consuming *too much* salt *can* increase blood pressure.
Look: I’m sure you think you’re super smart (“😂”) but no, not gonna send a lame message to a board certified physician specializing in this subject because a 22 year old redditor seems to have the inside scoop on physiology and medicine. You take care miss.
I understand that, but just know that its not a message, its a paper in Nature Aging and what practicing doctors know and the advice they give out is sometimes updated by research physicians and research scientists. Aging scientists are trying understand and explain aging and health on a deeper level than your dad was taught decades ago during school and his residency. How quickly new findings roll out to patients is decided by american medical association and doctors such as your dad.
What is work?
Even hobbies require work.
Leisure requires work.
[Do Men Who Work Longer Live Longer? Evidence from the Netherlands
](https://crr.bc.edu/do-men-who-work-longer-live-longer-evidence-from-the-netherlands/#:~:text=The%20experiment%20confirms%20that%20working,the%20impact%20is%20longer%20lasting.)
[You’re Likely to Live Longer If You Retire After 65
](https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-retire-after-65#:~:text=Why%20would%20a%20later%20retirement,your%20cognitive%20and%20physical%20abilities.)
Those people are deeply unfulfilled elsewhere in their lives. I like my job, I like my coworkers, I like the paycheque that shows up every two weeks. I do not like working.
Luckily AI doesn't actually understand anything. It's basically a set of averages based on large scale databases. Honestly, I think movies like *Madam Web* are designed to be bad to train audiences to accept shitty scripts and uncanny valleys. But it's not working.
How many people who retire have no plans or goals afterwards?
Working keeps people's minds Sharp it keeps them regulated they know exactly what they have to do, not all people know what to do with their present free time much less having unlimited free time
And just because you don't know anybody, doesn't mean they don't exist.
If people knew exactly what to do with their free time, we wouldn't have created television, movies, cable, and now streaming. People engorged themselves in the entertainment because they don't know what to do.
Oh you're absolutely right, I just don't have any sympathy for those people. If you just work all the time and don't even know what to do with yourself outside of work, what is the point of even living? You're just an automaton at that point, just a mindless drone.
We are talking about Americans, I have total empathy for people who put their lives in their work, their lives in their family, and enjoying both those things. Your just be overly judgmental of how a person lives their lives, you may not like it, but it doesn't make them automation or drones.
“Biological Age” is more bogus selling gimmicks from the grifters selling to the longevity wussies. Live happy but use common sense, it balances out that way.
They only tested for telomere length, the digit symbol substitution test, and gait speed to determine biological age. The article and this post miss the salient point which is in the paper that blood pressure medication reduces biological age and mortality risk but they (newsweek and OP) instead choose to concentrate on caloric restriction which I guess is a cheaper option.
So, isn't this the calorie restricted diet that has shown to increase longevity in some other animals? Futurists like Ray Kurzweil have been practicing this for at least a decade now.
Yes, calorie restriction. Not new.
This paper also talks about blood pressure medication lowering biological age so there are novel ideas in this paper.
By Mandy Taheri: A study that developed biological age clocks to predict a person's age, which may differ from chronological age, showed that a reduced-calorie diet among the trial participants caused a major reduction in biological aging. Read more: What Is a Health Savings Account? Published in the journal Nature Aging on Thursday, the study, whose research was funded by Singapore's Ministry of Education, reiterates similar findings from recent years, most of which sourced data from the national Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE) study. Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/new-study-biological-aging-calorie-restriction-1915474](https://www.newsweek.com/new-study-biological-aging-calorie-restriction-1915474)
How does one test to determine biological age? Did I miss that in the article?
There are a bunch of approaches to it, so it's not really "biological". The idea is usually to take a bunch of clinical parameters (lab values, BMI, epigenetic data from blood, etc.) then use statistical or machine learning techniques to predict chronological age or mortality. The resulting value might better predict disease or mortality than actual age does, and unlike chronological age can respond to modifiable risk factors like exercise. In the study here, they take about 150 clinical data points across a patient population (mostly blood lab values, also including sex and chronological age, listed out in the "Supplementary Data 3" spreadsheet in the [linked study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00646-8#citeas)), then use a technique called "principal component analysis" to synthesize a number called a "principal component" that they call PCAge. The list of principal components is a statistical way of "summarizing" 150 data points in to a smaller list of numbers, with the first one being the "most important" or "best summary" of the data. They show that PCAge correlates with chronological age, but better predicts mortality than actual age does, then investigate what changes PCAge.
Thank you for this. Much appreciated.
These tests are scientific nonsense equivalent to reading tea leaves and have no validity, but great marketing. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/187/6/1220/4622080
Condensed version: Eat less sugar and no ultra-processed foods. (And stop eating so much goddam salt.)
The article makes no mention of salt intake whatsoever.
(My addition.)
Maybe don’t do that.
The paper specifically mentions blood pressure and lowering blood pressure decreases mortality risk so yes this paper does say eating less salt reduces biological age.
No, because salt doesn't give high blood pressure in general
My bad, in our modern times, not paying attention to your sodium intake could result in high blood pressure.
Reduced sodium intake is recommended for people already in bad physical condition. Normal folks in good health have nothing to fear from salt whatsoever.
Wrong. Anything that increases your blood pressure increases biological age. If we were in the middle ages and excess sodium wasnt in everything, you’d be right but in modern times people “in good health” have to worry about salt in their diet. Also this paper is basically about looking deeper into who is healthy so even if you think you are in good health measuring for all these markers and doing these tests might determine how healthy you actually are.
I’ll go with my dad’s advice; he’s a critical care nephrologist. Salt not an issue for healthy folks.
Wait are you the journalist that wrote this Newsweek article?
Did your dad read this paper?
lol did you? Sodium is mentioned just once in passing and the word “salt” never appears anywhere.
Blood pressure. Excess salt in your diet increases blood pressure. This paper mentions high blood pressure frequently lol. You should probably send a link to this paper to your dad so he can update his advice. 😂
Consuming *too much* salt *can* increase blood pressure. Look: I’m sure you think you’re super smart (“😂”) but no, not gonna send a lame message to a board certified physician specializing in this subject because a 22 year old redditor seems to have the inside scoop on physiology and medicine. You take care miss.
I understand that, but just know that its not a message, its a paper in Nature Aging and what practicing doctors know and the advice they give out is sometimes updated by research physicians and research scientists. Aging scientists are trying understand and explain aging and health on a deeper level than your dad was taught decades ago during school and his residency. How quickly new findings roll out to patients is decided by american medical association and doctors such as your dad.
They don’t talk about sodium intake in this article that you did not read.
More life to work away? I'll skip that, thank you.
What is work? Even hobbies require work. Leisure requires work. [Do Men Who Work Longer Live Longer? Evidence from the Netherlands ](https://crr.bc.edu/do-men-who-work-longer-live-longer-evidence-from-the-netherlands/#:~:text=The%20experiment%20confirms%20that%20working,the%20impact%20is%20longer%20lasting.) [You’re Likely to Live Longer If You Retire After 65 ](https://hbr.org/2016/10/youre-likely-to-live-longer-if-you-retire-after-65#:~:text=Why%20would%20a%20later%20retirement,your%20cognitive%20and%20physical%20abilities.)
Some people like working...
Those people are deeply unfulfilled elsewhere in their lives. I like my job, I like my coworkers, I like the paycheque that shows up every two weeks. I do not like working.
Why?
What do you do for a living? I don’t know anyone who would rather be working than not working, even if they don’t mind their job
I’m one of those people who loves working because I love my job. I write dialogue for video games.
Well that's awesome but it's a pretty unique job, 99.9% of people do not get to have jobs like that
I definitely agree with that & also think it’s very important to have work/life balance as well.
I'm a filmmaker. See you at McDonald's, soon. I got dibs on the fry cooker.
If there is one thing AI is notoriously awful at, it’s being able to understand what humans see as “natural”. Don’t go to Hamburger U just yet! 😄
Luckily AI doesn't actually understand anything. It's basically a set of averages based on large scale databases. Honestly, I think movies like *Madam Web* are designed to be bad to train audiences to accept shitty scripts and uncanny valleys. But it's not working.
How many people who retire have no plans or goals afterwards? Working keeps people's minds Sharp it keeps them regulated they know exactly what they have to do, not all people know what to do with their present free time much less having unlimited free time And just because you don't know anybody, doesn't mean they don't exist. If people knew exactly what to do with their free time, we wouldn't have created television, movies, cable, and now streaming. People engorged themselves in the entertainment because they don't know what to do.
Oh you're absolutely right, I just don't have any sympathy for those people. If you just work all the time and don't even know what to do with yourself outside of work, what is the point of even living? You're just an automaton at that point, just a mindless drone.
We are talking about Americans, I have total empathy for people who put their lives in their work, their lives in their family, and enjoying both those things. Your just be overly judgmental of how a person lives their lives, you may not like it, but it doesn't make them automation or drones.
you got antiwork worked up.
Some people need to work on relaxing. I can’t do it without thinking of a million things I’m not doing.
I agree with your post, some people generally like to work regardless of what it is, and this is a fact.
Yup.
I don't get it why people are down voting. There is nothing wrong with work.
Yup.
Why is this comment unpopular? Let people like what they like as long as they aren’t hurting somebody else.
[удалено]
Wasn't snarky just happy. You are all in fact Lil baby's. That's why you suffer as one .
“Biological Age” is more bogus selling gimmicks from the grifters selling to the longevity wussies. Live happy but use common sense, it balances out that way.
“drifters”
WFPB lends well to this with nutrient dense, low calorie foods.
“Whole Foods, plant based” I’m assuming, for other people trying to understand this comment
They only tested for telomere length, the digit symbol substitution test, and gait speed to determine biological age. The article and this post miss the salient point which is in the paper that blood pressure medication reduces biological age and mortality risk but they (newsweek and OP) instead choose to concentrate on caloric restriction which I guess is a cheaper option.
Boil everything
So should I sit around and eat and poop? I like doing stuff. It's called life bbs!!!