From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 11:16:25 MST
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Ramez Naam wrote:
> It's worth noting that the life extension from blocking the insulin
> receptor gene is less than the life extension from CR (18% vs.
> 30-40%). So it's quite possible that reduction of free radical damage
> and reduction of fat accumulation both extend life and do so in an
> additive manner.
Mez's and Reason's comments are both useful.
I think the critical point may lie in the purpose of fat cells
in the first place -- they buffer energy reserves. They would
seem to exist to keep the available energy supplies higher when
your stomach, intestine, etc. are empty and can contribute nothing
to keep you going (so you draw down on your fat reserves).
Having *no* fat reserves means your circulating glucose and fat
levels are going to drop at least some of the time meaning you
are going to effectively be in a partial CR state. Partial CR
means less free radicals means less double strand breaks means
less aging. (... and I know Joao may rake me over the coals for
extending the train of reasoning this far with so little scientific
evidence -- *but* there is a place in the extropic school of thought
for intuition based on personal experience... At least up until
the point that I claim I am descended from Aliens... :-)).
R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST