Table of Contents Show
While the average lifespan has already increased significantly, researchers are seeking ways to further extend it. Rather than focusing on technologies that allow people to live to 100 or more, they are more concerned with finding methods that can improve the quality of life in old age by maintaining physical and mental health.
Petr Fedichev, the founder of the biotechnology company Gero, has published several studies in international scientific journals on the topic of extending life. His research indicates that age-related diseases, which become more likely to occur at an exponential rate every eight years, are a major challenge for humanity at the current stage of scientific development.
Fedichev explains that even if a single age-related disease were completely eliminated, the effect on lifespan would be minimal. He uses the example of a hypothetical pill that cures all forms of cancer in a single day, stating that such a pill would only increase life expectancy by a few years. This is due to the fact that individuals who avoid cancer may still be at risk for other age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, that are currently untreatable. This phenomenon is known as the Toeber paradox in demography.
It is true that scientists, including Petr Fedichev, are researching ways to extend the human lifespan. However, the best way for individuals to increase their chances of living a longer, healthier life is to maintain a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise and a balanced diet. These may seem like basic recommendations, but scientific research has shown their effectiveness in promoting overall health and well-being. In the meantime, while we wait for the development of biotechnologies that may further extend lifespan, it is important to focus on taking care of ourselves and our bodies. Some scientists have made more exotic recommendations for extending the active phase of life, which have been reported on by Forbes and other outlets.
On the Benefits of Suffering
We have already given examples of situations in which a little stress, such as dietary restriction, leads to increased longevity. Another well-known example is exercise, which results in a complex effect on the body related to hypoxia (decreased oxygen levels during exercise), depletion of nutritional reserves, and micro-damage of muscles (that very pleasant pain after a good workout). Here are a few more variations.
One of the fundamental types of stress for animals is temperature change. The human body does not have a mercury thermometer, and it uses a chaperone system (a family of specialized proteins) responsible for maintaining the shape of protein molecules to measure cell temperature. If the temperature rises, the protein risks irreversibly losing its shape (this process is called protein denaturation and is familiar to us from our childhood, as it occurs in a chicken egg during cooking). As long as it is possible, chaperones resist denaturation, and if it is not possible, other components of the cell – proteasomes – destroy protein molecules that have lost their shape and function.
A change in temperature activates chaperones and related mechanisms, which leads to a decrease in the number of damaged protein molecules and, as we discussed earlier, reduces the burden on all other damage repair systems.
The choice between cold and heat as a health stressor is far from obvious. Science knows that the Finnish sauna or Japanese practice of hot baths is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. But cold not only helps get rid of damaged molecules, but it can also increase the number and quality of mitochondria, especially in adipose tissue cells. That’s why Professor David Sinclair, a leading researcher on aging at Harvard University, recommends sleeping in low temperatures, using thin blankets, and diving into a cold pool up to neck level for at least 20 seconds after working out (just in case, let’s clarify that this method has contraindications).
The link between stress and longevity is so fundamental that some of the observations look anecdotal. A recent study (not yet published) led by Ben-Gurion University gerontologist Vadim Freifeld analyzed the effect of natural radiation exposure on longevity and cancer risk. In all, the study used medical histories and mortality statistics for hundreds of millions of Americans living in more than 3,000 counties across the country. It turned out that, within reasonable limits related to variations in natural radiation background, cancer risks were reduced when the annual dose was increased (almost doubling in conditions meeting 0.25 rem per year). The effect of increasing life expectancy at the “upper limit” of natural background variation is approximately 2.5 years.
Intermittent Fasting
We often discuss what we should or should not eat to stay healthy. Equally interesting is the question of how much to eat and when. The fact is that mankind, despite the occasional news report about crop failures somewhere in distant lands, lives under conditions where mass starvation is virtually impossible. Worse, a large proportion of the world’s inhabitants, and certainly the readers of this book, live in a world where there is far more food than is needed to meet reasonable physiological needs.
The situation is unique to our species. As a result of natural selection, the human body is “optimized” to survive in the absence of the necessary amount of food. That’s why almost all animals are able to increase their lifespan in response to starvation (read: another kind of stress, which is healthier rather than deadlier). A little caloric restriction has worked wonders in laboratory animal studies: rodents have increased longevity, reduced inflammatory markers, and slowed the age-related loss of muscle mass.
Apply this uncomplicated rule in reverse and you realize that aging must accelerate in citizens who can’t restrain themselves from eating. Don’t blame yourself: how can an animal whose genetic memory tells you that every period of abundance is followed by a hungry winter and you have to stock up on food and build up your fat supply?!
On the one hand, it is sinful to dramatize the situation when supermarkets are open 24 hours a day and there are always stock items available. As centuries of practice show, severe malnutrition is far more life-threatening than another candy bar. So far, average life expectancy and quality of life have increased along with the rise of fast-food places like McDonald’s or Burger King. The same argument actually works with regard to ecology: the increase in the number of cancer patients, which in the mass consciousness is clearly associated with “bad” ecology, is in reality the result of victories in the fight against cardiovascular disease.
Modern technology makes it possible for people suffering from chronic diseases to survive for a long time. The rising proportion of residents with obesity and related diseases in the wealthiest countries shows that the affluence of food allows us to live longer, just increases the number of sick people. But since our goal is disease-free longevity, we’ll have to look for a relatively painless way to eat less.
A growing body of evidence suggests that it’s worth paying attention to meal times as well. Humans are not nocturnal animals, our bodies are adapted to eat during the day and sleep at night, while evening or nighttime snacking increases the risk of obesity and diabetes.
Different regimens of interval fasting are being tested in experiments and clinical studies. Professor Walter Longo and his company L-Nutra propose restricting caloric intake for one week once a month and publish the results of clinical studies where the health of the subjects has improved on key biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk. According to recent publications, the effect is even stronger in people with metabolic syndrome or prediabetes.
An even more household-friendly strategy is to limit food for a while every 24 hours. A fashionable prescription has become the so-called 16/8 diet, under which people can eat whatever they want, but only eight hours a day. It’s not a big deal if we sleep about half of the remaining 16 hours. A typical recommendation is to eat in the morning and afternoon, such as from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and “starve” until the next breakfast. Clinical studies show that many patients experience weight loss, significantly improved insulin sensitivity, and lower insulin levels and blood pressure. The effect depends on the “dose”: in groups where the “window” for eating was 12 rather than eight hours, all the positive effects were noticeably lower. Perhaps most importantly, patients on interval fasting quickly became accustomed to the new lifestyle and noted a decrease in appetite.
For those for whom nighttime snacking is sacrosanct or eating by the hour seems difficult, you can use grandfather’s methods. One scientific study found (it involved dozens of people at once) that 30 days of fasting from – attention, that’s not a mistake – dawn to dusk, that is, during daylight hours, improves immune system function and also protects against metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes.
Curiously enough, eating after sunset is the norm in some Mediterranean countries, such as traditional communities in Greece. “There is no time in the morning, it is hot in the afternoon, only the evening is left for eating” – and yet the Greek islands are considered one of the “blue zones” of the planet, where the number of long-livers is higher than the population average.
Professor Robert Reece sums it up this way: “30% caloric restriction works fine in the laboratory. It’s not that difficult for the modern man – it’s about eating not three eclairs every time you have a choice, but only two!”
“A spoonful of tar in a barrel of honey”
The listed and indeed well-known recommendations on the level of physical activity, the composition, and quantity of food, or the abandonment of harmful habits and a reasonable duration of sleep constitute the basis of the modern concept of a healthy lifestyle. I present your disappointment: with the exception of many, albeit minor, clarifications, you have heard the same thing in school or from parents ten years ago. As much as I would like to become a popularizer of morning runs and hardening, I am forced to report a few sobering facts.
Firstly, even strict adherence to the rules of a healthy lifestyle reduces the risk of disease and premature death by half, that is, life expectancy can thus be increased by only a few years. But, as we remember, any such effect is quickly offset by an exponential increase in mortality as a result of aging.
Secondly, and this is very important to understand, all recommendations about healthy lifestyles are formed as a result of comprehending huge amounts of data – the lifestyles and habits of hundreds of thousands of people are analyzed. This means that the advice offered is useful for the average person on the planet, but not necessarily for you.
Lifestyle optimization is quite a difficult task, while its solution can add a person, according to various estimates, a maximum of 10-15 additional years of life. That’s why those who want to live at least 30 more years will need more radical ideas than salad ingredient recommendations. This is why biomedical technologies will have the final say in prolonging life.
What have we learned?
- All the efforts of a healthy lifestyle (rational diet, sufficient physical activity, reduction of chronic stress, and normalization of sleep) can add (and bad habits, respectively, take away) five, at best, 15 years of life.
- Caloric restriction, or interval fasting, is one of the most effective and easy-to-practice ways to improve health outcomes.
- The same lifestyle recommendations do not work for everyone. The future lies in objective quality control of lifestyle and a personalized approach.
Responses