Fewer calories for a longer life

No Gravatar

Contrary to a previous post that suggested Dieting May Shorten Your Life, CNN now suggests that Fewer calories equals a longer life — At least in monkeys

Cutting daily calorie intake by 30 percent may put the brakes on the aging process, have beneficial effects on the brain, and result in a longer life span, according to a new 20-year study of monkeys published in the journal Science. Calorie restriction needs to be done carefully in order not to turn into malnutrition, say experts. The study confirms in primates what’s long been known in other species, including mice, worms, and flies. And it’s no surprise to the humans who have taken the animal research to heart and adopted calorie restriction as a means to a (hopefully) longer and healthier life.

In the study of 76 adult rhesus monkeys (a species that shares many similarities with humans), only 13 percent of the calorie-restricted animals died during the 20-year period, compared with 37 percent of monkeys allowed to eat their usual diet. (The study began with 30 monkeys; an additional 46 were added in 1994.)

This is hardly surprising news to Brian M. Delaney, coauthor of “The Longevity Diet: Discover Calorie Restriction–the Only Proven Way to Slow the Aging Process and Maintain Peak Vitality“. He has been eating 20 percent fewer calories than most people of his size and stature since 1992. Delaney is president of the nonprofit Calorie Restriction Society, which had 2,000 members in 2007 and thousands more on mailing lists.

How to square these two conflicting theories is not at all clear. Perhaps you should have a reduced diet all through until you reach a designated senior age, then ease off a little to ensure your body has the resiliance to handle whatever health hazards life may throw at you.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Too Many Seniors In British Columbia

No Gravatar

To be fair, the president and CEO of the Conference Board of Canada,  Anne Golden, did not quite say that but you might read that message into the way the Conference Board  findings were presented at an economic conference in Vancouver.  The headline reads: Aging population to lower B.C.’s economic performance: Conference Board.

B.C.’s population is expected to age significantly over the next 20 years. The share of the population aged 65 and over was 14 per cent last year and it is going to grow to be 25 per cent of this province by 2030.  As B.C.’s population ages, economic growth in the province is expected to slow significantly.

B.C. will have one of the oldest populations in the country. As a result, there will be a consistent slowing in labour force growth [and] this, in turn, will steadily lower B.C.’s economic performance.  It is predicted that the province will face a labour shortage of 160,000 workers by the year 2015.

The fallacy in what is being said is that it is very arbitrary to assume that someone over 65 is automatically different from someone who is say 60.  With a healthier  population living longer, seniors will continue to be productive and the challenge is to make sure that this contributes to the provincial economic performance.

The other suggestions from the Conference Board are useful but they should not just write off all those seniors and assume they are a burden.  They can indeed be productive longer and that must be facilitated.  Such changing work habits must be factored into the way findings like this are presented.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Search the Internet for related articles:
Loading