Exercise and aging (was: Re: multivitamin question)

[Guest guest]

Please note the change in subject above. We’re no longer talking about multivitamins.

Back to exercise: Well we very recently put this post into our files (under CRON SCIENCE called “Exercise and Aging”). At the time of this post (December), we were all taken aback by the findings:

http://tinyurl.com/ygjgclm

On 3/17/10 8:41 PM, " perspect1111 " <perspect1111@...> wrote:

Hi JR:

Well, just to take issue with one part of your post ..... the part which said:

" If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be 'locomotively robust' now.. (I ran 5 miles today .... "

As you so eloquently (!) say, you may be wrong. Of course, we know that there isn't enough information for us to be confident of the facts about this at this stage. You might be right too! The same, of course, applies also to my opinions about this. But, given that reservation, here is my opinion, which is different from yours, based on what I think we know:

Periodically you say something like " I ran five miles today. " I do not know how often you run five miles, but here is some analysis of the likely (possible?) effects if someone were to run five miles every day:

Let's suppose that in order to maintain what is considered to be an appropriate body mass (BMI, or other, better, measure of body mass) a male individual, without exercise, finds he needs to consume 1800 calories daily. If that individual additionally were to run five miles daily that would mean he would have to consume, very approximately, an additional 580 calories just to 'fund' the additional physical activity and maintain the desired weight.

Now an increase of 580 calories - on top of the 'exercise-free' 1800 - represents a 32% increase in caloric intake. We all here are aware what an increase in caloric intake of this magnitude would do to the lifespans of the animals tested in CR experiments - mice, fruit flies, rats, etc.. It would reduce their average and maximum lifespans by, very roughly, 32%.

The exercising individual would certainly be much fitter than someone getting by with just the minimum amount of exercise definitely required to maintain health. But, as I like to quote, as Dr. Henry , cardiologist, said: " Fitness has absolutely nothing to do with health. " Source: his book: 'The Exercise Myth'.

So, I would like to suggest to you, that by running five miles a day one would likely die much fitter, at a 32% younger age.

What is more, the study I referenced had found that the experimental mice had been able to maintain their levels of 'locomotive robustness', with no diminution, into old age without the need for additional exercise. So their findings do not agree with your statement that: " If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be 'locomotively robust' now.... " . This study suggests that in order to be 'locomotively robust' in old age one needs to take the right supplements.

Of course the research I referenced will have to be confirmed by other investigators, be shown to apply also to humans, and hopefully be more specific about which supplements were responsible for the observed effects.

Lots of qualifications (!) as I know you will be quick to pick up on! But I am just trying to make sense of the incomplete knowledge we have about these things. I am not persuaded that LOTS of exercise is either necessary or desirable. Years ago I used to jog about ten miles a week. But I no longer do so because I no longer believe it to be beneficial.

" Just my take " . We all have to draw our own conclusions based on our own interpretation of the incomplete evidence. But the (inverse) relationship between caloric intake and lifespan is one of the more strongly supported propositions discussed here.

Rodney.

> >

> > Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is

> > apparently of enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper

> > referenced in Al's post below just being one of the most recent.

> >

> > The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and

> > apparently found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early

> > stage which are responsible for the benefits.

> >

> > So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing

> > about supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they

> > are not already consuming.

> >

> > It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot

> > longer because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively

> > robust' until very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in

> > humans, I might be able to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to

> > play a full round of golf on my 100th birthday, without a cart, and

> > carrying a few of my favorite clubs.

> >

> > Ha!

> >

> > But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these

> > supplements one might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity involved?

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

>