For the Good of Mankind
"need to have such large amounts from red wine that you'd probably kill off your liver and be drunk most of the time"
I am willing to risk my liver if it saves even one life. Now where do I sign up for the red wine?
Rosie.
Saddening news from US researchers who have demonstrated that quaffing red wine doesn't confer some of the alleged benefits attributed to the tipple, specifically the ability of the antioxidant resveratrol to "reduce deaths, cardiovascular disease or cancer". Resveratrol is found in red plonk, dark chocolate and some berries, …
Dietary and Medical advice oscillates from one peer-reviewed, journal-published finding to the EXACT OPPOSITE peer-reviewed, journal-publish finding with a period of about ten years. This is a disappointing truth.
Google 'Trouble at the Lab' (in The Economist) for an explanation of what's behind the fact that about half of all such studies are reaching incorrect conclusions.
It's sad: The Death of (reliable) Science - at least in these under-performing fields.
"Dietary and Medical advice oscillates from one peer-reviewed, journal-published finding to the EXACT OPPOSITE peer-reviewed, journal-publish finding with a period of about ten years. This is a disappointing truth."
Erm, no.
It's called "Science" -- it ain't Gospel, you know.
@Jeffypoooh
It actually reminds me of a dilbert from the other day
http://www.dilbert.com/2014-05-09/
Where the CEO would represent the 'results' from a scientific journel, and wally would just be somebody who read it.
Another example of this scientific method is from Foamy (illwillpress) going on about statistics.
Quoted as best I can remember
"70% of all accidents occur at home. Well no shit, it's not like I spend most of my life there. OH WAIT. Of those accidents, most occur in the kitchen. Sure, electric appliances, water, tiled floors, burning hot surfaces I can see why. The second most accident prone location is the bathroom, hmm once again lots of water, tiled floor, some moron using a hairdryer while still in the tub."
I've also found this kind of method used quite often in many health studies. For instance a lot of the heart disease related to vegan vs meat eating diets do not take into account the activity levels of the individuals. Where most vegans I know of are very health conscious (and preachy) and exercise regularly, while most people who eat lots of meat are the average lay about most of the day, office job, etc.
Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent there.
Basically what I was getting at is that most scientific studies are set out to prove something (often a waste of money) and the scientific method used on the study will generally lean in favour of the result they seek to get out of it. It's very rarely I'll read a paper (that's become popular) which has an unbiased viewpoint, which is why when performing a study it's always best to get multiple references from multiple papers if you want to prove a point one way or another.
And after that, have a look at "How Doctors Think" by Jerome Groopman, a rather, erm, sobering account of mis (missed?) diagnoses in tracking down and curing a problem that he had.
Confirmation bias, "that's the way it's always been", etc. (or, here, in the case of flip-flopping studies, change'll do ya good, as in spare change, lotsa money...).
They've done the same with coffee, diets (I like Garfield's "Diet is DIE with a T"...), vitamins, and over-the-counter supplements. All lining their pockets while picking ours....
(Yep, I'd like some cheese to go with my whine....).
I'd have some red, then white,...darn, no blue wine (yuck...curacao might not be a good idea afterwards :) )..
"Dietary and Medical advice oscillates from one peer-reviewed, journal-published finding to the EXACT OPPOSITE peer-reviewed, journal-publish finding with a period of about ten years. This is a disappointing truth."
Strange, the original study that found benefits of *some* of the chemicals in wine also mentioned that consumption of wine at levels that would have therapeutic impact would also incur levels of alcohol that would erase all of the benefits, excessively so.
Research that is now around(ish) a decade old, but those few words ignored by the sensationalistic press.
The original research papers themselves don't make such extravagant claims. Their purpose is not to sell advertising space, as is the purpose of newspapers, tv, and the web. That is why all those are devoted to dividing every thing in the universe into things that kill you, and things that save your life. With many things apparently on both lists.
The John Hopkins findings may not quite mark the end of the resveratrol story, however. A 2013 Australian study indicated it activates an anti-ageing protein, although to get the benefits direct from the source you'd "need to have such large amounts from red wine that you'd probably kill off your liver and be drunk most of the time", as Oz genetics professor David Sinclair explained. ®
So if it's still (partially) OK, wouldn't that make it a near myth?
Sign me up for antioxidant testing....Paris volunteers too....
(Then that would be "plaster of Paris"....)
...of miracle supplements. So what are the things that do mitigate the effects of aging? It's 2014, we (the species) have been studying the body and what does and does not affect it for a long time now with ever better tools.
But all I see are debunks.
Surely we have found some things that we can take which do help? So what are they? Surely there has to be more to fending off the years than just eating less and running. What cheap fixes actually do work?
In my experience, those struggling with their weight tend to be following the "eat less, move more" approach.
For those following the "low carb, high fat" approach, I don't think I've ever met a single follower who had a weight problem.
And there's the (in)convenient aspect that it's not just anecdotes backing this up; the science does too.
I guess the moral of the story is that when it comes to peer-reviewed science, the populist finding beats the scientific finding the majority of the time.
Very easy... Match calorie intake to daily need. Make said calorie intake of a decent quality. Find a hobby that includes full-body exercising ( no...running is not full-body exercise, it's a warming-up).
And hit your body with the occasional shock of Bad Habit and/or Guilty Pleasure, because life should be about fun too.
Exercise, don't smoke, cut down on sugar, red and processed meat, don't drink to excess, eat plenty of non-starchy veg, fruit and oily fish (but keep calories low). Avoid exposure to too much UV or carcinogenic chemicals. All those should increase your chances of living to your genetically-determined upper age-limit.
Really, this finding is only really bad news for companies selling resveratrol.
I think everyone has kind of missed my point. I'm looking for a pill of some sort.
We have decades of modern scientific research. Surely some of these wonder drugs have held up as actually having a positive effect. Surely someone has decladed 'X declines with age, let's make a supplement containing X' which actually works. Everything I read is just "this thing doesn't actually work". Where are the reports showing things that actually do? What should I be taking?
You'll eventually find out that what all this scientific studying and debunking has shown is that, in the end, there's no such thing as a quick fix. It's like building something. You can't just wave a magic wand and expect a finished result lickety-split. You have to do it the hard way: one brick at a time.
"I think everyone has kind of missed my point. I'm looking for a pill of some sort."
srsly.. you're either trolling, or seriously deluded into thinking there can, or should, be something like that...
Logically, that magical pill should take away the need to excercise *at all*. If it were possible, it'd be standard fare at the ISS, to mention one particular place where it *would* be useful, however expensive it would turn out to be.
Meanwhile, can I interest you in the first volume of my quintology "How to Do Things Easy" , and should I invest in advertising space at the Reg?
Biology is complicated. Aging is just a high complex system beginning to fail. The idea that we can reverse it with "a pill" is as laughable, if not more so, as the idea that Nixon's war on cancer was likely to win.
As said, lifestyle modification is important. Picking your parents correctly helps too. And enjoy life - it'll help you to live longer, and if you die early anyway at least you'll have enjoyed what you got.
EDIT: and don't smoke. Seriously, I look after dying 50-60 year old smokers and 80-90 year old nonsmokers. It's pretty depressing, and I can't even vent my fury as the patient tends to have enough to contend with (what with being busy dying) to cope with a rant about their death hopefully being less important than the financial wellbeing of tobacco companies.
So after doing all that and taking the fun out of life, what good is living long???? Rule of thumb: "No one gets out of this life alive. So enjoy it while you can."
I can only offer observation... sez those who know: "Bacon is bad for you".. My observation: Everyone I know over the age of 80 loves bacon and eats it daily. So who's right? Who's either had or having more fun?
Exercise, don't smoke, cut down on sugar, red and processed meat, don't drink to excess, eat plenty of non-starchy veg, fruit and oily fish (but keep calories low). Avoid exposure to too much UV or carcinogenic chemicals
You won't live any longer, it just feels like it...
Vic.
When you've clocked up a suitable number of years, you realise that the medical profession changes its mind and reverses it's advice on any given topic every decade or so. Unless some substance has a clearly demonstrable LD50 within an order of magnitude of the amount you could realistically ingest, the best advice is to ignore all the self-serving crap they put out. This has the added benefit that you'll worry less, be less stressed, and therefore probably outlive the worrying health fanatics.
"the medical profession" - I can't let this pass. Most doctors are well aware of the insanity claimed as "now proven" by the popular press. There are some researchers who work on this, and are hopeful that their work will demonstrate a magic bullet - but they exist because the prize is so good, not because it is likely. They are heavily biased towrads the belief that they will be successful - you'd need to be to have a career of failures.
So once you've changed doctors for "health columnists or other opinionated fool" we'll agree wholehearted. Oh, and added the word "dietary" to "any given topic" - I believe that smoking was still considered harmful a few decades ago and the advice hasn't changed.
Well red wine and choccy are still good for me. Check.
But they're not sure which component of them it is.
Conclusion: The same compound in red wine and dark choccy that makes you live longer, is also present in belgian buns and bacon.
No one can disprove me! So I've got at least ten years excuse to get noshing on that lot, before the killjoys can tell me it's bad for me.
Would it be pushing the point to try and claim the same health benefits for M&S Percy Pigs?
This post has been deleted by its author
Just donate money each year to the SENS foundation. They are working on repairing the (seven) classes of damage caused by metabolism and not repaired by the body.
David Sinclair and others working on Resveratrol are seeking ways to slow the rate at which metabolism causes this damage. But as metabolism is fairly insanely complicated and no where near fully understood at present, all metabolic interventions have failed so far. In fact Glaxo bought David Sinclairs company for around $750 million dollars, but have got nothing out of it (unfortunately).
A lot of the metabolic interventions that work in mice and and nematode worms seem to be related to caloric restriction, which doesn't appear to work in longer lived animals like primates (why bother when a 6 month famine is not 50% of you wild lifetime?).
The SENS damage repair approaches have not yet had much experimental evidence in mice (apart from the removal of senescent cells in a mouse progeria model). But these studies are, or soon will be getting underway.
If you are interested in reading more on this topic I would recomend:
www.fightaging.org
www.sens.org
It's pretty clear that calorie restriction works to prolong life in all animals. (I'm unclear if this extends to plants.)
It's just that it is challenging to do, and as pointed out would need to be prolonged. Just because something is hard doesn't stop it from working. And if you look at the extremely long-lived, they do tend to have been slender throughout their life.
Somehow it's no coincidence that many bars, cocktail lounges,etc. are named "The Office", "The Clinic",
"The Gym" or some variant thereof...
"Hi Hon, I have to stop at The Clinic on the way from The Office"....
oops, he didn't figure that she'd be, erm, working out at "The Gym"......:)
Cheers....here's to more research, flavinoids or not.... (flavor-nerds?)
"studies have shown that consumption of red wine, dark chocolate and berries does reduce inflammation in some people and still appears to protect the heart".
That's good...
you'd "need to have such large amounts from red wine that you'd probably kill off your liver and be drunk most of the time"
So what's the bad news?
I am so disappointed that Resveratrol will do nothing for me, fortunately the bottle of Cune Rioca I have just opened seems to be helping to lift my spirits.
Cune comes from the area just inland of Valencia; as far as I know there are no claims for it having miraculous properties but I can vouch for the fact that I have never opened a bottle of it that didn't cheer me up.
This is interesting because a recent story on 60 Minutes regarding the study of those living to be very old in retirement communities in the US showed that moderate consumption, up to two drinks per day, of any kind of alcohol was a common thread amongst those who live to very advanced ages; that and exercise - so drink up and go for a run!
"I don't want to die and I really don't want to die of cancer! Isn't there something I can do? Some medicine I can take? Anything? I'm desperate! "
"No need to go to such lengths, just eat fruits and vegetables"
"Ummm, err, anything. . Is there anything? "
"Fruits, vegetables!"
"Seriously, anything? "
Given a family history of gut cancers (pancreas, liver, stomach etc) in the female line of mum's family, mum religiously followed all the advice she was given to prevent same. She spent her 71st birthday whilst doing the trek to Everest Base Camp (that was after walking the Hume & Hovell Track in a week (440km) as a warm up) , 2 days after her 72nd birthday leukemia killed her (3 months from diagnosis to coffin). No amount of fruit (she only ate organic meat, or chicken or fish - no more than 100g a day, 3 times a week - exactly as recommended) or exercise (she cycled 200km a week until her final illness (2 100km circuits)and did overnight hikes at least once a month) will stop you dying.