Living healthy to 160 – insulin and the genetics of longevity

Of the most remarkable discoveries of the last 15 years, discoveries that might well turn out to be the most remarkable of the 21st century, are those of the telomere—a little tail at the end of our DNA whose length tells us how long we have left to live, and of the enzyme telomerase—the specialised protein whose job it is to try to repair the telomeres so that the cells (and we) can live longer and, from an evolutionary perspective, increase the probability that we’ll have more babies. This and other research into the biology of ageing and the details relating to the transcription of DNA, and the expression or suppression of genes is truly amazingly fascinating. I will turn to this in time, but think it would be jumping the gun to do so now.

What is definitely one of the most remarkable discoveries of the 20th century pertains to the hormone insulin. I am not, however, here referring to the fact that its discovery revolutionised medicine by allowing the saving of countless diabetics from highly premature and painful deaths, usually preceded by torturous amputations of their feet or legs and all the of the horror and misery brought on by these seemingly barbaric and radically extreme measures. (And don’t for one second imagine that such amputations are a thing of the past: I know for a fact—heard directly from the mouth of a practicing orthopaedic surgeon—that amputations are the reality of his everyday, performing sometimes two in a single day.) I’m not either, at least this time, talking about insulin as the master metabolic hormone that regulates the storage into cells of nutrients circulating in the bloodstream. What I am referring to as one of the 20th century’s greatest discoveries in regards to insulin is that of its role in regulating the rate of ageing.

Something that is almost as remarkable is that we hardly ever hear or read about this. For me, that’s really strange. But whatever, I’m not going to hypothesise and speculate to come up with an explanation for why this is. Insulin as regulator of the rate of ageing is what we’ll look at in this article.

Why do mice live two years but bats fifty? Why do rats live three years, but squirrels fifteen. Why do some tortoises live hundreds of year? Why do the smallest dogs, like Chihuahuas, live about twenty years, while the largest, like Great Danes, live five to seven years only? And why do we, humans, live around 80 years, rarely making it to 90, and very rarely to 100 years of age? It is this line of questioning that triggered in the late 80’s and early 90’s a geneticist working in evolutionary biology to hypothesise, for the first time, that ageing could be genetically regulated, at least to a certain extent.

It was the discovery and subsequent realisation in evolutionary biology at that time, that a large number of fundamental cellular processes and mechanisms regulated by a variety of genetic expressions were common to widely different organisms. The realisation was that because all animal life must necessarily share a common ancestor, it is not only logical that the most fundamental functions of cells and especially of how genes express themselves under the influence of hormones essential for life could be the same, but that it should be, to a great extent, expected to be that way. And even though these considerations may seem obvious in retrospect, the fact is that there was only one person with this knowledge, asking these questions, and having the means to do something about seeking an answer to some. Cynthia Kenyon, Professor at UCSF, was this person.

The subject was quick to choose: the tine worm that Kenyon had already been studying for years, C. elegans, was perfect because it is simple but nonetheless a complex animal, and because it has a short natural lifespan of about 30 days. The first step was clearly defined: find at least one long-lived individual. What seems very surprising from our current vantage point it that she couldn’t readily find one: she couldn’t convince anyone to join with her in this endeavour. Everyone was at that time convinced that ageing was something that just happened: things just wore out and deteriorated with use and with time; nothing to do with genes. But how could this be if different species—some very physically similar—are witnessed to have such widely different lifespans? It just had to be genetic at some level, Kenyon thought. Eventually, after a few years of asking around and searching, she found a young PhD student that was up to it, and set out to find a long-lived mutant.

A number of months down the road a long-lived mutant was found and immediately identified as a ‘DAF-2 mutant’. This mutation made the DAF-2 gene—a gene responsible for the function of two kinds of hormone receptors on a cell’s membrane—less active. The next step was to artificially create a population of DAF-2 mutants and see how long they live, statistically speaking, compared to normal C. elegans. It was found that the genetically ‘damaged’ worms, the ones for which they had turned down the expression of the DAF-2 gene, lived twice as long: starting with exactly the same number of worms, it took 70 days for the last one of the mutants to die compared to 30 days in the normal population.

But an additional observation was made: the curve that traced the fraction of worms remaining was stretched by a factor of two from about the start of adulthood for the mutants. They had the same relatively short childhood but then for the remainder of their lives, for every day in the life of the normal worms, the mutants would live two days. The most impressive was that they were really half their chronologically equally aged cousins in all respects: external appearance, level of activity and reproduction.

To make your appreciate this point as much as you should, this observation with respect to not just the lifespan but notably the healthspan of C. elegans would translate in human terms in someone being 80 years old but looking and acting like a 40 year old in the sense that nobody could tell that they were not 40, let alone 80 years old. Just like Aragon in the The Lord of the Rings. This person would be like a 40 year old at 80, like a 60 year old at 120, and like an 80 year old person coming to the end of their life by the time they were 160! Can you even imagine that? Hard isn’t it. But this is exactly what Kenyon and her team were looking at in these experiments with these little worms.

Now they wanted to understand the effect of the DAF-2 gene, or rather, understand the effect of suppressing its expression in the DNA of each cell’s nucleus at different developmental stages. If it was turned off completely, the worms would die: clearly, DAF-2 expression, at least in C. elegans, is essential for life. If it was suppressed immediately after birth (hatching), the little worms would enter the Dauer state in which they don’t eat, don’t grow, don’t reproduce, and basically don’t move either: they just sit and wait. Wait for what? For better times!

This Dauer state is a remarkable evolutionary adaptation seem in some species that allows the individual to survive during periods of severe environmental stress such as lack of food or water, but also high UV radiation or chemical exposure, for example, for long periods of time with respect to their normal lifespan in a very efficient kind of metabolic, physiological and reproductive hibernation. What’s really cool is that inducing worms out of the Dauer state, no matter how long they’ve been in it, they begin to live normally again, moving and eating, but also reproducing. So, in the Dauer state C. elegans literally stops ageing altogether and waits, suspending metabolic activities and physiological functions until conditions for reproduction and life become adequate once again.

celegansfasting

Taken from Worms live longer when they stop eating  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/2790633)

If DAF-2 expression was turned back up to normal, then they moved out of Dauer and resumed their development stages equivalent to childhood, teenage-hood, and then adulthood, but didn’t live any longer as adults. Finally, suppressing DAF-2 expression at the onset of adulthood resulted in the extended lifespan as originally observed. The conclusion was therefore clear: DAF-2 expression is essential for life and necessary for normal and healthy growth and development in immature individuals from birth until they reach maturity, and suppressing DAF-2 expression was only effective at extending both lifespan and healthspan in mature individuals.Going further, they now wanted to understand how DAF-2 suppression actually worked to extent healthspan: what were the actual mechanisms that made the worms live longer when DAF-2 expression was turned down. For this, Kenyon’s team needed to look at all of C. elegans’s 20000 genes and figure out how they affect each other. (Note that this is also more or less how many genes we have, but C. elegans has only 3 chromosomes and is also hermaphrodite.) The sequencing of the worm’s genome was done in 1998, and what was found after analysis was very interesting:

The DAF-2 gene activate a phosphorylation chain that attaches phosphate groups onto the DAF-16 transcription factor. In normal individuals the DAF-2 gene is expressed normally, the phosphorylation chain works unimpeded, and the DAF-16 transcription factor is inactivated. In the mutants, the DAF-2 gene expression is suppressed, and as a consequence, the DAF-16 transcription factor is not inactivated and instead accumulates in the nucleus. There, DAF-16 encodes what Kenyon’s team showed to be the genetic key to health and longevity they were looking for from the start of this now decade long pursuit: the FOXO gene.

What does FOXO do? It promotes the expression of other genes, at least four other genes: one responsible for manufacturing antioxidants to neutralise free radicals the largest amount of which are produced by the mitochondria as they make energy for the cell, a second responsible for manufacturing ‘chaperons’ whose role as specialised proteins is to transport other proteins and in particular to bring damaged ones to the cell’s garbage collector and recycling facility to promote the replacement of those damaged proteins by new and well-functioning ones; a third responsible for manufacturing antimicrobial molecules that increase the cell’s resistance to bacterial and viral invaders; and the fourth that improves metabolic functions and in particular fat transport (reduce) and utilisation (increase).

It is these four genetically regulated cellular protection and repair mechanisms, the cumulative combined effects of all these increased expressions of antioxidants, chaperons, antimicrobials and metabolic efficiency—all of them at the cellular level—that allow the lucky DAF-2 suppressed mutants to live twice as long twice as healthy. Remarkable!

Now that all the cards about how the long-lived mutants actually live twice as long as expected under normal conditions are laid on the table, and that there is only one detail I left out of the story up to this point, tell me: can you guess what are the two sister hormones to which the cell’s sensitivity through the activity of its receptors for them are controlled by the DAF-2 gene? It’s a trick question because I told you half the answer in the introduction: The DAF-2 gene encodes the hormone receptors for both insulin and the primary form of insuline-like growth factor IGF-1. Surprised? It isn’t surprising, really. In fact, it all makes perfect sense:

Insulin and IGF-1 promote growth; nutrient absorption and cellular growth and reproduction are essential for life and thus common to all living organisms, including the more primitive of them like yeasts; growth in immature individuals is fundamental for health and for ensuring they reach maturity; but growth in adults, in mature individuals, just means ageing, and the more insulin and IGF-1 there is, the faster the rate of cellular damage and deterioration, the more genetic mutations from errors in transcription, the more pronounced the deterioration of the brain and the heart, of the arteries and the veins, of the muscles, the bones and the joints, and obviously, the faster the rate of ageing. Because what is ageing if it is not the word we use to describe the sum total, the multiple negative consequences, the end result of all of these deteriorations in these vital organs and systems but also everywhere else throughout the organism, all of it starting at the cellular level, in the nucleus of every cell.

About the necessity of insulin for normal growth, you should definitely not think that these observations impliy we should stimulate insulin secretion in the young in order to ensure proper growth. Totally not! The body knows exactly when and how much insulin is needed at any given time. In fact, any additional stimulation of insulin promoted by eating simple and starchy carbs actually deregulates the proper balance of hormones that the body is trying to maintain. This deregulation from a sugar laden diet in children is the very reason for many wide spread health problems in our youth most important of which is childhood obesity and the metabolic and physiological stresses this brings on. So, leave it to mother nature to know how to regulate the concentration of insulin in the bloodstream. Do not disrupt the delicate biochemical balance by ingesting refined carbohydrates: it’s the last thing anyone needs for good health and long life.

The first results were so interesting that several other groups joined in this research into the genetics of ageing. Not as much as one would think, but at least a handful of other groups began to apply and expand the techniques to other species. Unsurprisingly, the same effects, although with different magnitudes, were seen in these very different species, from an evolutionary standpoint: fruit flies and mice. In addition, the connection was made with lifespan-extending experiments using calorie-restriction, which have also been carried out on mice and other animals (we’ll look into this another time). And beyond the work around DAF-2, DAF-16 and FOXO, Kenyon’s group investigated other ways to influence lifespan and found two more.

The first was by disabling some of the little worm’s sensory neurones of which there are very few, making it easy to test and determine the influence they have separately and in combinations. They tested smell and taste neurones, found that disabling some would extend lifespan while disabling others didn’t. They also found that disabling different combinations of smell and taste neurones could have nulling effects. The second was playing with the TOR gene expression. For now, however, we will leave it at that.

As the fact that it is rare and relatively hard to come by this work without actually looking for it, there is something else I find very hard to comprehend. In Kenyon’s various lectures on this work, there is usually a mention of the biotech company she founded called Elixir Pharmaceuticals and how they aim to find one or more drugs that can suppress DAF-2 expression in humans without causing negative side-effects in order to extend lifespan and healthspan as was done in C. elegans with genetic manipulation. That’s fine, and does make sense to a certain extent, especially if we can find not chemical drugs but natural plant-derived compounds that have this effect on us.

The thing that doesn’t make sense and that is hard to understand from the naive perspective of the honest scientist looking for the simplest possible solution to a problem of inferring something we don’t know from information that relates to what we want to know: in this case this mean the simplest way to make the best use of this information and apply what we have learnt from these two and half decades of research in a way that we know would be beneficial in promoting a longer and healthier lifespan in humans without risks through the introduction of foreign substances in our body. Because they haven’t, here I offer my attempt to do this.

We have, thanks to Kenyon and others, understood in great detail how lifespan in complex organisms can be, to a great extent, genetically regulated, and which genes, transcription factors and mechanisms are involved in the process of regulating the rate of ageing in conjunction with the propensity for developing age-related degenerative diseases. In the final analysis, the main players are the DAF-2 gene that tunes up or down the sensitivity of insulin and IGF-1 receptors, the DAF-16 transcription factor that encodes the FOXO gene but is made inactive by the expression of DAF-2, and the star FOXO longevity gene that promotes the expression other genes responsible for stimulating the cell’s most powerful protection and repair mechanisms.

We have, from many decades of research on calorie-restriction and fasting in animals including humans (and which we’ll explore elsewhere), understood that this is an extremely effective way to extent both lifespan and healthspan and basically eliminate the occurrence of age-related degenerative diseases by greatly increase resistance to health disorders of all kinds. Some key observations on calorie-restricted animals include their very low blood levels of sugar, insulin and IGF-1, high metabolic efficiency and ability to utilise fat demonstrated by low blood levels of triglycerides, and their remarkably younger appearance with increased energy and activity levels.

And finally, we have, from more than a century of observations and research, concluded that diabetics, whose condition is characterised by very high levels of blood glucose, insulin and triglycerides, are plagued by a several-fold increase in rates of cancer, stroke, heart disease, kidney disease, arthritis, Alzheimer’s and dementia, basically all the age-related degenerative diseases known to us, and in addition, also a several fold increase in their rate of ageing based on the spectrum of blood markers used for this purpose, their appearance, but also on the length of their telomeres.

Is it not, therefore, obvious from these observations that high blood sugar, high insulin and high triglycerides are hallmarks of accelerated ageing and a propensity for degenerative diseases, while low blood sugar, low insulin and low triglycerides are instead necessarily related to extended lifespan, extended healthspan and increased resistance to all disease conditions including those categorised as degenerative, and this, independently of the actual mechanisms involved?

Is it not, therefore, plausible from these observations that the genetic mechanisms relating to the function of the DAF-2 gene, DAF-16 transcription factor and FOXO gene in conferring to the DAF-2 mutants twice as long a life can, in fact, be activated and enhanced epigenetically by creating an environment in the organism that is conducive to it: simply by keeping blood sugar, insulin and triglycerides as low as possible? In other words, isn’t it plausible from these observations that by manipulating the biochemistry to ensure that blood sugar, insulin and triglycerides are throughout the day and night as low as possible depending on the organisms requirements, that this will actually translate into the activation of the FOXO gene to enhance protection and repair at the cellular level and thus extend lifespan and healthspan?

And what is, not only the easiest and simplest, but also the most effective way to do this? It is to eliminate insulin-stimulating carbohydrates—sugars and starches—from the diet completely. This, within 24-48 hours, will allow sugar levels to drop to a functional minimum. The low blood sugar will allow the pancreas to reduce production and insulin levels to drop bit by bit. Lowered insulin will eventually allow the cells to start using the fat circulating in the blood, and in time, increase in efficiency, thereby dropping triglyceride levels lower and lower.

Why is it you think that Kenyon never mentions this anywhere? Do you think that this has simply not occurred to her? I honestly don’t know. But if there is a single thing to remember it is this: insulin is necessary for life; in the immature individual, insulin regulates growth; in the mature individual, insulin regulates the rate of ageing and the propensity for degenerative diseases. Hence, if you are a mature individual, and by this I mean full grown, and if you want to live long and healthy, the very first thing you need to do is to keep the concentration of insulin circulating in your blood as low as possible. Everything else that we can do to extend healthspan and lifespan is secondary to this.

Did you enjoy this article? Share with your friends and help more people.

20 thoughts on “Living healthy to 160 – insulin and the genetics of longevity

    • Hi Harry: that’s an excellent question and thanks for asking. I didn’t even know this was the case because I haven’t read much about all-meat diets, but I suspected it. I would think the main reason is that protein that is not needed for tissue repair and building is converted to glucose. If you eat a lot of protein in general or even a large amount in a single sitting, because the body cannot use more than about 30-50 grams per meal, the excess will be converted to glucose. This is a well-known effect of eating high protein diets that has been understood in the context of research into nutritional ketosis: eating more than a particular amount of insulin-stimulating carbs OR more than a certain amount of protein in a single sitting will push the body out of nutritional ketosis. So, this would be my guess.

      Like

    • Thanks Marius: interesting read. Just to note that their keto subjects had insulin levels of 8 +/- 2, which for me is very high! I would consider well-adapted, steady state keto fasting insulin levels to be 1 to 3. There’s quite a bit of this kind of stuff in the book The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living by Volek and Phinney.

      Like

    • Very good! There are many excellent points to write about here. I will write an article about this stuff because it is very interesting but also complex and subtle. In fact, more subtle than the authors or these two pieces seem to appreciate. The bottom line is that our digestive system is that of an evolved vegetarian: it is much shorter than it is in our closest cousins the apes who eat mostly fibrous stuff, and it is much much shorter than that of any carnivore who eat no plant foods and therefore have extremely short intestines. Ours, has evolved a bulge at the very start of the intestine with a valve to control the flow; we call it stomach and its role it is to break down protein by secreting pepsin and HCl. Ours digestive system also has a very long intestine (compared to carnivores) in order to attempt to extract as much as it can from all the fibrous plant foods that we have evolved to eat. Three major causes of problems are: 1) if we eat two much meat WITH a lot of plant fibre and do not allow the system to clear it out before eating more of it (for us this takes 24-36 hours); 2) have a stomach that does not (anymore) secrete enough pepsin and HCl; and 3) have a pancreas that does not (anymore) secrete enough enzymes for digestion. You could read (again if you have already long ago) Why we should drink water before meals and Understand digestion for a refresher on this subject.

      Like

  1. Thank you for this fascinating insight into the discovery of telomeres, the research of Professor Kenyon and studies on animal lifespans. And, of course, for your perspective on how this all relates to us humans. I can’t wait to read Part II of this series.

    Longevity is a subject I’m really passionate about. (Surprisingly, I found out early in life that not many people are.) 20 years ago I bought my first book on anti-aging principles and strategies – Stopping the Clock – and read many more since then.

    A few days ago I was flipping through my daughter’s geography workbook and noticed it contained a section on life expectancy with charts for all countries and continents. I’m familiar with online resources on the subject but was positively surprised to see this in the materials for primary schools. I just wonder if there are any productive discussions happening in classrooms and if teachers are capable of going beyond the usual deterministic rationale when it comes to life expectancy.

    As it’s often the case, there are two main groups of experts with opposing views regarding the subject of longevity. The first group claims that in the “western world” life expectancy for a child born today is unlikely to exceed 90 years without major new scientific advances which would allow for changes in the processes of aging. And even if science (medicine?) succeeded in eliminating all aging-related degenerative diseases, that would, in their opinion, not increase an average human lifespan by more than 15 years or so.

    The other, much smaller, group of experts (which would include you), is more optimistic and predicts new and dramatic increases in human lifespan. Some of them believe that a major shift will happen already with a baby boom generation, the reason being their totally different mentality. Unlike previous generations “they always got what they wanted” and “are simply refusing to die and will somehow find a way to stay alive”.

    But is is enough, as you write in the concluding paragraph, to keep the concentration of insulin circulating in our blood as low as possible in order to radically extend life? 10,000 years ago humans did not eat refined carbohydrates, because there were none, so they must have had rock bottom levels of glucose in their blood at all times. However, they still didn’t live nearly as long as we do today, while tortoises and some other long-lived species were Methuselahs back then already as they are today.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you Bostjan for the comments and question. I will address these points directly or indirectly in other articles. But here are some facts on which I base myself to claim and believe that we can live significantly longer than 100 years:
      1) studies on centenarians cited by Rosedale show that people that live to this age in relatively good health (they’re not dying in a hospital for years on end kept alive by machines) tell us that such people are found in a wide range of places on Earth, in different societies with different social and cultural habits and, obviously, different diets. Some are active, some not. Some drink alcohol, others don’t. Some are careful about what they eat, some are not. Some even smoke, while others don’t. What is found to be at least one common element in all of these individuals is that they all have very low circulating levels of insulin. Some of them, because they don’t like sweet things and thus don’t eat any. Some because their diet doesn’t contain insulin-stimulating carbs, but many of them because they have some kind of genetic predisposition for having very low insulin levels. The point Rosedale makes is that we can all have very low levels of insulin by not eating anything that stimulates its secretion. And therefore, not doing anything else than this, it seems reasonable to conclude that everyone that keeps insulin really low should live to be 100 or thereabouts. Again, this is living to 100 without doing anything else than keeping insulin low, and there are tons of other things we can do to further increase health and therefore longevity.
      2) The few places in the world where the concentration of centenarians is highest have been investigated (it’s something like 5, I don’t remember exactly), and is was found that the common elements are that they all lived active, happy, stress-free and fulfilling lives, eat only unprocessed, nutrient-dense whole foods that they grow themselves using traditional (organic) methods, never have processed carbohydrates (no desserts, no sweets, fruit only in season), and generally eat a lot of vegetables and unprocessed or unpasteurised animal products from animals living outside. At least three of these 5 societies (Japanese islander, Sardinians, and Greek islanders) eat basically only vegetables and meat or fish (no sugars, no starches, no grains). So, again, the simple conclusion is that if you eat nutrient-dense, unprocessed, organically grown whole foods with lots of vegetables and healthy animal products, never eating processed foods (especially not processed carbs), then that’s enough for humans to make it quite normally to 100 years of age.
      3) There are tons of things we can do to ensure that all of our organs and systems function at their best that go beyond eating a traditionally healthy diet. All of them will help tremendously in prolonging health and life. I have written about some of these like the kidneys, the intestines, the stomach, the pancreas and liver, but I know I have to write more about that.
      4) There are many supplements that are also known to have amazing health-promoting and life-extending properties. Obviously, these will also help a great deal in prolonging health and life. I have written about B12 and Mg, which are two of these micronutrients that are essential for long life and that both actually play a role in the preservation and health of our genes and DNA. I will write about several more as I go through this series of articles on living to 160. Of course, nobody knows what can actually be done for sure simply because it’s never been done on humans, and, in fact, because it cannot be done in a controlled experiment. But, there are nonetheless quite a few people that are, as we are, doing this experiment on themselves. Therefore, we are bound to find out eventually, at leat within our own lifetime :), how long we can potentially live.

      Like

  2. Hi.
    Great paper, I enjoyed a lot. However, I would raise some question which I find important or, at least, interesting.

    To be honest, the first time I read the paper, I thought the idea raised ethic problems or maybe science fiction, but today, after meditating the issue some days, I think the opposite terms.
    First of all, the main idea of this paper would be that there might be one ore more genes regulating our natural age, and we can modify them to increase our age, that means, we would can regulate our aging.

    As far as I understood, roughly speaking, we can live 120 years, for instance, and we do not look like as a old person, what’s more, we looked 60 years younger. Over the history of humanity, we have increased our life expectancy gradually; for example during the middle age, the average age was about 40 years, whilst in 1955 this average was about 45 years. Today, that average is, more or less, about 80 years (always talking about “developed” world).
    How were we able to increase this average dramatically in only 50 years?. The answer is clear, of course, we have improve a lot our lifestyle. Today, anyone of us lives better that one King of any Castle in the Middle Age. Our food is better (in principle), we have more comfortable houses, ours jobs do nor require physical efforts, we have heating in our houses, and so on, and, over the years, we managed to live more, and better.

    What this paper (and Cynthia Kenyon) suggests would be to double our life expectancy immediately, without expecting years to adapt ourselves to this new “feature”. This is not bad, in principle. Why would we have to wait 50 or more years?. We have already modified our environment and now we are able to live more years, so I do not see any reason to do the same with our genes.
    But, Could we handle this new situation?. I think that nobody knows how those modifications could affect us, bringing new diseases, for example.

    I will keep thinking about this issue, meanwhile if you want to watch the Cynthia Kenyon Ted Talk, this might be interesting for you.

    Thank you very. Best regards.

    Jose David.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you Jose David. To be clear: nobody, as far as I am aware, claims to know how to extend human lifespan considerably to beyond 90-100 years, which we see in the longest lived people in various places in the world. Cynthia Kenyon and others’ work on lifespan in simple animals is one thing, and doing this in humans is quite another. Also to be perfectly clear: there is manipulation of genes that is in principle required; it is gene expression that is modified by the concentration of insulin. It is our own genes that, without being modified externally in any way, either promote the production of protective molecules that protect and repair the DNA and organelles in the cells or not. So, to be sure, there is really no ethical component involved here, as far as I am concerned.

      The other aspect of your comment is about the slow, gradual increase in lifespan that we see in modern societies and that we attribute to improved living conditions. This is true to a great extent. Is it also true that lifespan in all modern societies is greatly extended, artificially, I would say, by medical interventions and drugs. Just imagine how many more people would die if all hospitals, doctors and medications all of a sudden disappeared. Then, we would have a much better idea of the true life expectancy. I am certain that it would be at least 20 years less than we claim it to be now. What I’m talking about is not living longer as we do today, sick and diseased, taking 20 pills a day of various drugs, doing our daily dialysis for 15 years because our kidneys failed when we were 63 years old, having bypass surgery to save us from yet another heart attack, taking out the prostate or testicles or breasts in order to try to stay alive somewhat longer. What I’m talking about is living healthy without health problems, just normal, healthy, functional and happy. Naturally, this also means that we don’t cost anything to society, unlike what the current situation is, and where everyone beyond the age of 60 costs a fortune to everyone else because everyone is always sick from something.

      At the end of all this comes the question which is the subject of this article and is about how long we can or should rightly live. We don’t really know, but what we do know is that we should be living longer than we are, probably close to at least twice as long, for the plain and simple reason that almost everything we do, eat and drink makes us age faster in the sense that it promotes more damage and less repair of cells. So, the first thing we should do is just stop doing, eating and drinking the things that make us age faster and get sick, and we’ll be already much better off than we are. And in this regard, it seems that, based on a large body of research that includes Kenyon’s, insulin regulates growth in the young and the rate of ageing and degeneration in adults by suppressing proportionally to its concentration the expression of the genes that stimulate the production of molecules that protect and repair our cells. More insulin = less protection and less repair = more degeneration = faster ageing.

      And thanks for the link to her TEDD talk. Of course, you might have guessed that I watched it a couple of times, in addition to all her several other lectures on YouTube before writing this article :)

      Like

  3. Thank you Guillaume. It’s good to know we’re doing the best we can. I’d also love to hear your opinion on the work of some gerontologists such as, for example, Aubrey de Grey who don’t focus so much on nutrition and lifestyle as vehicles to a long and healthy life but are looking for scientific breakthroughs to “engineer” a human body into super-longevity. Their research seem to be well funded but is it promising or just science fiction?

    Like

  4. Kenyon does mention lowering carbohydrate intake. She gave an interview in which she said that she had eliminated all starches and sugar from her diet. I mention this in my book, Stop the Clock: The Optimal Anti-Aging Strategy.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Hello – great article.

    I’m hoping you can provide a reference. You mentioned that when daf-2 was turned off completely, the worms would die (see quote below). Do you have a reference for this / remember where it was mentioned? I’ve read a bunch of papers on the topic, vaguely remember seeing it or hearing it from C Kenyon, but cannot find it. Thanks very much.

    “Now they wanted to understand the effect of the DAF-2 gene, or rather, understand the effect of suppressing its expression in the DNA of each cell’s nucleus at different developmental stages. If it was turned off completely, the worms would die: clearly, DAF-2 expression, at least in C. elegans, is essential for life.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bi Bob: all the information I presented in this article comes from Cynthia Kenyon’s video lectures that you can watch on YouTube. Here is a playlist of 7 of her videos in which you will certainly find the reference you’re looking for:

      Like

      • Thanks very much for your reply. I actually watched the UCSF Part 1 video and at 32:55 she’s talking about turning daf-2 off, replete with a slide behind her that reads “daf-2 OFF,” and makes a caveat that, “if you turn it completely off, it’s likely that they die.” I don’t think she’s done the experiment, but seems that would be the case.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s