LiveLongAgeWell

For those of you with dreams of life extension, there was good news last week. It has been known for many years (since the 1930s), from fruit fly, worm, and mice studies, that long-term calorie restriction extends  life spans in many of these animals. Some mice, who from birth have been fed 30% fewer calories than normal mice, have had their life spans increased by up to 30- or 40%. But before you go on a radical diet (or worse, put your kids on such a diet), be aware that many strains of mice and rats do WORSE on such a diet. Still, the fact that many animals aged so much better has tickled the fancy of anti-aging researchers.

A big step up from rodent studies, and before human trials, is primate research. Monkey studies are very expensive to carry out, and life span research, as you might imagine, take many years to complete. Still, twenty years ago, a long-term rhesus study was started at the University of Wisconsin, and now there are preliminary results supporting the value of calorie restriction in suppressing diseases. The rate of tumors and cardiovascular disease was cut by half for the calorie-restricted monkeys, and none of the these monkeys developed any signs of diabetes (which affected about 40% of the normally-fed monkeys). Further, the calorie-restricted monkeys had less muscle and brain shrinkage, and also looked younger than the normally-fed group.

Identical ages; one on right fed long-term low calorie diet.

Since these monkeys normally live about 27 years (and up to 40 in some cases), this 20-year-old study is only about half-way completed, and life span comparisons will take some time yet. But (and here’s your chance again to be part of a research study if you live in the Eastern United States), the so-called CALERIE study is beginning in several U.S. medical centers, which attempts to see if a 25% reduced calorie diet (of course nutritionally balanced) will show positive changes in humans.

Scientists don’t know why calorie-restriction diets might work. Of course if we have lower cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, fewer cancers, less diabetes and so forth, it’s not so hard to imagine a longer life span, but other factors are also suspected. It is thought that semi-starvation shuts off some of our genes that are directed towards reproduction, and turns on genes that promote better maintenance of our current bodies (our organism senses there is not enough food to share with other, new people, so to best preserve the species, our bodies work harder to preserve our own bodies).

Realistically, a calorie-restricted diet on a long-term basis is not easy to maintain, so many biotech researchers are trying to mimic this semi-starvation effect through medication. Many of the efforts involve resveratrol, an “anti-aging” component found in red wine. This sort of medication would have an incredible market potential as you can imagine, and I believe that within ten years we will a FDA-approved pill we can take that will replicate this semi-starved state.

But for now, I think anyone interested in trying a severely calorie-restricted diet should talk to their regular physician, as well as to an endocrinologist and a nutritionist to see if it’s a good idea, as there are risks. These potential, yet unknown risks and a constant feeling of deprivation might not be worth it, and you might well wait for more human trial results or some proven pill to be released. Failing that, there are studies showing that periodic short fasts—by stressing your body much as exercise stresses your muscles, yet makes you stronger—might offer some of the same benefits. It may be that some form of alternate-day fasting may be as good as full-time calorie restriction. Again, talk it over with your doctors, and if you decide to try something like this, get regular blood tests and physical exam monitoring to see how you are doing.

Finally…..I want to mention to my subscribers that only about 1/2 of the LLAW posts are sent out (I know there is too much mail)…but if you care to read other posts, on other topics, you need to go the the LLAW website itself. Thanks for your interest.

For a long time scientists have suspected that the progressive, degenerative neurological disease Parkinson’s can be triggered by exposure to pesticides. Animal studies have shown exposure to the common pesticides paraquat and maneb will damage the brain’s dopamine producing neurons, and a lack of dopamine in the brain can lead to the rigidity and tremors seen human Parkinson’s disease.

A recent report from UCLA studied people in California’s agricultural Central Valley who lived close to crops exposed to the pesticides paraquat and maneb (and a matched “control group” who lived far away from the treated crop fields) and found that the people living close by had a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s. Those pesticides are commonly used on a number of vegetables including soybeans, potatoes, lettuce, and corn. This is another reason to seriously consider buying organic when you can. Especially if you have a worrisome family history for any neurological problems, the cost difference should be well worthwhile. On the positive side, keep in mind, as mentioned in a previous post, that caffeinated coffee seems to markedly decrease the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

And, while the UCLA study was only directed at the association between pesticides and Parkinson’s disease, I suspect further research will show an association between chronic pesticide exposure and other neurologic disorders….it seems logical that if pesticides cause damage in the dopamine-producing neurons, that they also cause damage elsewhere in the nervous system, and increase the risk of other degenerative neural disorders. Maybe dementia, or the tremor commonly seen in many (not all) older people…for example the little shake when some grab a cup of coffee…that is harmless but serves as one marker indicating that yes, this person seems to be getting “old”.

OK, now here comes a link that will make the cost of your subscription to LLAW worthwhile (hehe…drDave just wanted a little chuckle to himself there)—it’s my favorite list of veggies and fruits with the highest pesticide content, with lower pesticide alternatives (if you don’t or can’t buy organic)…print and consult this list.  You just might live longer and better!

http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/pesticide-residues.cfm

To finish the week…vitamin D and the racial health gap

You probably know that in the U.S. at least, African-American individuals suffer from a greater incidence of many health disorders, and at an earlier age, such as colon and breast cancer, and more aggressive forms of prostate cancer, and there are various theories why. Now it’s been found that darker-skinned individuals have lower levels of vitamin D, and perhaps that’s  one of the major reasons for the health gap.

Darker-skinned people, and people who live farther from the equator—especially during the winter—can easily suffer from low vitamin D levels, and more and more data is showing how important vitamin D is for our health (click on the “Pick A Topic” cloud on the LLAW right sidebar, and you’ll find a number of posts about vitamin D). While the current recommendation for D is from 200 to 600 units a day, most likely in a year or so these will be raised, maybe to 1000 units per day. Check out and click on Pick A Topic to see more about the vitamin that probably deserves so much praise. Keep posted here for the latest updates. Have a great weekend!

p.s. If you want to read even more about vitamin D this weekend (or whenever), check out this non-profit source:

http://www.vitamindsociety.org/about.php

I chuckled to myself as I sat down to write this Part III of “mind drugs”, because I just read an article in today’s online New York Times about how caffeinated coffee—conclusively shown to be a performance enhancer in many sports—is the only supplement that truly enhances athletic performance that is not banned by anti-doping regulations. Caffeine is a mind drug as well as a body drug, but somehow—probably because it is ubiquitous, accepted everywhere—it would be too hard to regulate out of sports competitions, yet those who use it have a clear edge over those who do not.

In the post two days ago I addressed some safety concerns regarding mind drugs (known otherwise as “cognitive enhancers”), including the risk of addiction. Beyond safety issues, others object to cognitive enhancers because they are not “natural” for the brain, and further, that use is not moral as they give some people an unfair advantage.

The first issue regarding “natural” I don’t believe has credence. Much of what is done today in medicine—to people and by people—is not “natural”, and the pace of what is acceptable yet unnatural seems to be accelerating. I suspect only the most religiously orthodox today would protest contraceptive pills or condoms (not natural), though I know many who might be squeamish about Viagra or breast implants as unnatural, but they might well accept kidney transplants or in vitro fertilization; certainly far from natural. I think it’s very difficult to condemn anything in medicine today as unnatural.

The issue regarding morality and cognitive enhancers is a thornier topic, but it seems that over time, more mainstream scientists and doctors are saying yes, it’s fine for otherwise normal people to take a prescription drug that enhances one’s brain function temporarily by helping them think more clearly and delaying their need for sleep.

The moral question brings us back to coffee. Caffeine enhances calcium release from muscles, which allows those athletes who take it before competition (in pill form or as coffee) to run faster and longer—and as it also acts on the brain—with less sense of fatigue. Those who use it get at least a five percent performance boost over non-users.

Cognitive enhancers such as modafinal (Provigil), our model drug for this mini-series, likely improves the test-taking performance of those who take it before, say, a college-entrance exam, or a police qualification test (consider the comment from last post). There is no way to blood-test and know who took it versus those who did not. Is this mental-doping moral? Certainly it is less of an issue if everyone has equal chance to take an enhancer beforehand, but many would choose not to for a number of reasons: moral or fear of short term side effects or addiction or the possibility of long term brain damage. Modern medicine and advanced pharmaceuticals are presenting us ever more with these dilemmas, running faster than our answers.

Next….Indecisive Medical “Experts”, Dr. Oz, And Real Age®

A LLAW reader several days ago mentioned that it sounded like I advocated use of “mind drugs” to enhance mental performance (post: the new drug war…move over marijuana). I told her that I didn’t either advocate or vilify their use, but the subject deserves our consideration. All of us interested in potential advances in better aging will be increasingly exposed to—perhaps seduced by—the possibility that a prescription drug might boost mental performance and diminish the need or desire to sleep. Some have exclaimed: welcome…the age of cosmetic neurology is almost here!

In a recent journal Nature, seven prominent scientists argued that these drugs should be legal and more available for otherwise normal, healthy people who simply want a mental boost (“cognitive enhancement”). They stated

cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society, and a proper societal response will involve making enhancements available while managing their risks.

Among those in-the-know, the main player in this field of pharmaceutical grade cognitive enhancements is modafinil (trade name Provigil). I haven’t taken it so I can’t speak from experience, but My Experience With Smart Drugs is a London journalist’s story about his use of the medication over several weeks. His report is glowingly positive. He wrote that he accomplished significantly more focused work while taking modafinil, and seemingly without side effects. He only stopped the drug after he became concerned about potential long-term brain damage.

Until recently, most user reports about modafinil have been positive, or at least neutral, with no significant side effects noted. Lately though, there has been somewhat of a backlash against the drug, and a National Institute on Drug Abuse study published in the March 18 Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated, by using PET brain tomography scans, that modafinil increased brain dopamine levels. The conclusion was the drug carries a significant addiction risk, similar to cocaine. The authors noted, however “reports of modafinil abuse are rare and much less frequent than those for stimulant drugs” [such as Ritalin]. They also mentioned a significant blood pressure and heart rate increase with the drug.

But the big fear with modafinil is what was voiced by the London journalist: are there long-term deleterious brain effects? No one knows, especially since researchers are uncertain how the drug actually works, making the whole adventure rather more scary. Might it increase the risk of dementia and, by making thinking “easier” in the short term, thereby making the brain lazy and less creative?  (Brain function, similar to that for muscles, improves through synapse creation which is stimulated by mental effort.)

And indeed, could use prove to be physically or psychologically addicting?  From experience with other drugs, often serious side effects, such as addiction, only show up years later. Valium, for example—passed out almost indiscriminately during the 60s—only years later was discovered to be addictive, leaving a wake of angry patients who, after years of free use, were forced (to try) to wean off.

Next post…brief wrap-up on cognitive enhancement drugs.

Move over marijuana. Bye-bye cocaine. See you later anabolic steroids…The world is entering a new drug war, and the first big shot was not fired in the streets of border town Mexico, but in the prominent medical journal Nature, and this report, like a bomb, has produced a flurry of counterattacks from both sides.

Although the biggest causes of death worldwide are cardiovascular, infectious, and cancer-related, the push for new pharmaceuticals from many companies will not be cures for those top three killers, but will focus on three other areas: appetite/weight control, sleep, and memory. Some experts believe that in ten years, we will be able to, with the right drugs (if we can afford), fine-tune our weight, exact sleep duration, and memory functions as easily as we now tune-out commercials on our digital video Tivos.

In the drug underground—somewhere in that murky space between the legal and the actionable—a quiet revolution has been brewing in the use of so-called “smart drugs”. In the past few decades doctors have used amphetamine derivatives, like the ever-more popular Ritalin, to treat the ever-more established diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). But Ritalin was just one of the first to tinker with attention and wakefulness, and in 1998, the first good drug treatment for narcolepsy (the uncontrollable desire to fall asleep at most any time) was released.

Modafinil (commercially known as Provigil) proved to be a wonderful advance for narcoleptics, and, as often happens with new drugs with brain effects, it was tested illegally in the underground of clubs and college campuses, and found to be very effective in keeping even normal people awake and functioning seemingly at a high level for long periods of time. The American military, which long relied on amphetamine-type drugs, soon adopted modafinil as the drug of choice for special op soldiers who needed to stay awake for days at a time. Many college students found modafinil as an especially effective study aid, and one survey estimated that on some U.S. campuses, 25% of students have used modafinil or similar.

But the use of this drug in many cases has been, at best, “off-label”; that is, used for problems not FDA approved, or illegal, especially by students who obtain pills diverted from friends with legitimate prescriptions. And a growing controversy: should these drugs, especially Provigil, be released for general use, to be taken by anyone who wants an extra edge? Advocates claim it’s safe, non-addicting, and that wider release would be good for society.

This call for liberalization of mind-enhancing drugs such as Provigil has been a minority opinion, considered highly questionable by the majority of experts who fear wider release would result in abuse, brain damage, addiction, or injustice (the argument is only the well-off could afford regular use, and the rich already enjoy many advantages). So imagine the uproar when seven high power scientists from Harvard, Stanford, and the Universities of Oxford, California, and Pennsylvania published this recent report in Nature saying, basically, free these drugs for wider use…it’s our right, and will be good, even advance, mankind. The article is very readable; you may or not agree with it, but I suggest it to you. Next week, more on mind drugs.

I am trying to drink at least two cups of coffee these days. It helps wake me up and gives me a boost in the afternoon. Plus I enjoy it as a health drink—it’s full of antioxidants. Still, I find many people still carry (unnecessary) guilt about drinking coffee, so as new research about health and coffee comes forward, I will present it in this LLAW blog, be it positive or negative. The news, though, has been overwhelmingly favorable.

Here’s another report—this from the latest Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease—that should make coffee drinkers feel good, and if you don’t drink, you might consider it because this research is more confirmation that coffee seems to help keep your brain functioning well.

How does coffee help the brain? We don’t know but here are three theories: coffee decreases the risk of developing diabetes, which has been associated with dementia. Second, Alzheimer’s disease is marked by a build-up of “amyloid” plaques—basically sticky brain “junk” that blocks function—and caffeine apparently decreases the formation of these plaques. Finally, coffee’s antioxidant effect might be brain protective.

This Scandinavian study—part of the Finnish Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE) Study—followed 1,400 men and women for more than 21 years, a very long time as research goes, and the result was that those who drank three to five cups per day were 65% less likely to develop dementia than those who didn’t drink coffee or drank less than two cups. The researchers tried to ensure that this difference between coffee drinkers and non-drinkers wasn’t the result of some other factor, for example, that the coffee drinker group had lower blood pressure or cholesterol than the non-drinking group.

Still, since this wasn’t a prospective clinical trial, the researchers can’t be certain that they looked at all factors involved. So there could be something else besides coffee that improved brain function. As a hypothetical example, maybe the coffee drinkers were a more sociable group, and they got out and mixed with more people and that’s what preserved their brains, not the coffee.

But this CAIDE study is one of several that have suggested drinking coffee is a very good way to preserve brain function, and for me, I’m sticking to my two or three cups of caffeinated coffee per day.

There’s a good chance many of you will be traveling and spending time with relatives during the coming days, giving you a great opportunity to make a last minute gift. It’s something inexpensive, valuable, and doesn’t even require shopping.

I was inspired by several recent reports showing that computer use by middle-aged and older people—either for general web searching or strategic video games—is good for the brain. It only makes sense, and hence the booming industry devoted to computer games and programs for baby boomers (and older) to keep brains young and flexible.

Think for a moment of those older folks you know who are truly computer-proficient. Most likely they also have active, flexible, competent minds and attitudes.

I’m not suggesting you buy some anti-aging brain program. Rather, for your relatives who already have a computer but don’t know its potential, show them how to really use it. Plenty of adults own computers, but their competence level is stuck at email. Maybe they manage some basic (aol usually) navigation, but using it as the wonderful people-connecting, information gathering, brain-expanding tool that it is, doesn’t happen. They may lack computer savviness, but often it’s a lack of confidence; some even think they might break something.

Now since you, dear blog reader, likely have a decent command of computers, I suggest the gift of your knowledge and time. Gift wrap a small card granting a couple hours of your undivided attention as computer tutor. Set a time and do it. Collect your patience, sit with them preferably at their own computer, and have them first demonstrate what they can do. Then, again patiently, help them expand.

Find topics that interest them and see that they can search and bookmark (you might bookmark LiveLongAgeWell, which has plenty of interesting, safe links on the sidebar). Or show them how to find recipes, or poetry, or sport scores, or shop, or pay bills. Demonstrate that many books can be found online, free.

Check their software versions and anti-virus software, and see they know how to update. Since there are online financial predators, check their firewalls. Teach them how to stay safe, not to click on suspicious links, and about phishing. If they are more adventuresome, demonstrate social networking—help them connect with lost friends. There is so much to learn that this gift can be renewed for many occasions over many years…You can’t do it all at once.

Not only will all this be good for the brain, but will help them keep current and yes, younger, as computer-competence becomes ever more necessary to connect with modern life.

Imagine if print newspapers and magazines go the way of film cameras, and most reading goes online—those who are computer-comfortable will be way ahead.  And for people who become disabled or home bound, those who can navigate a computer will still have much of the world available. So consider this gift, this year. I’ve done it. It can work for you as well as for your student, and might even make the two of you closer…Next post Monday…Happy Holidays!

Pop Quiz! At what age does the typical person’s brain begin to “shrink”? At 20…30…or 35?

The correct answer is 20, and that might cause you some concern, and indeed, until about ten years ago, most neuroscientists believed that once you entered young adulthood, your brain inevitably began going downhill, with no potential for new brain cell growth. But fortunately, it’s clear now that your brain, even though it does shrink in size over time, can retain most of its functional capacity, and even form new cells.

It turns out the shrinking brain issue is really not such a problem after all, because if we treat our brains right, the loss in brain volume can be compensated by new connections (called synapses) between brain cells, and in many cases these synapses—the connections—are more important than the number of brain cells. At least in some areas of the brain, new tissue can be formed. This ability of the brain to change and develop in positive ways is called brain plasticity (“plastic” as in the ability to re-shape itself as needed).

One of the best ways to age better is to encourage this brain plasticity, which is done by: 1) maximizing physical health; and 2) continuing to exercise our brains after age 20! You undoubtedly know the classic advice to “do crossword puzzles”, but there are so many other activities that you can do that are just as good. You can have a wonderfully functioning brain in your 80s without doing one crossword puzzle, ever.

But to keep a good brain, you need to exercise it or the new connections, the synapses, will not form well, and your brain will deteriorate just like muscles that sit unused. In LLAW, I will devote many posts regarding ways to keep our brains working well, and today I hope you read this Psychology Today blog post from Stanton Peele, Ph.D. Taking life seriously: How to preserve your mind, raise intellectual children, be a constructive citizen, and get laid more. He gives lots of ideas about how to stimulate your brain and improve your relationships at the same time.

Last week I wrote about how a major research study showed that vitamin C and E supplements were ineffective for reducing the risk of heart disease and cancer. In general, these two vitamins, particularly vitamin E, are falling out of favor in the medical literature. But several others, particularly vitamins D and B12, are gaining more positive reviews in recent research. An interesting study from Oxford University, published in the journal Neurology, showed that individuals with a higher B12 level in their blood had significantly less brain shrinkage as they got older, than people with a lower B12 blood level. (Brain size was measured by serial MRI scans.)

B12 in the diet comes only from animal sources such as meat, including chicken; fish; milk; and eggs. (Strict vegetarians—vegans—require B12 supplements.) Many nutritional experts believe that especially as people are eating less meat, there is a growing crisis of B12 deficiency, and that middle-agers and above need to pay much more attention to B12 intake, either through diet or supplements. I will take up supplements in a later post, but the concern about B12 deficiency is another great reason to regularly eat fish! Salmon in particular is rich in B12. (For much more detail on this vitamin, go to the Nutrition section in the LLAW right sidebar, then click Linus Pauling Institute>Vitamins>Vitamin B12.)

In the next week I will discuss some other ways to help prevent brain shrinkage, at any age, and not through diet or supplements.

We all have different levels of Internet savviness, but no matter what your comfort level with the computer, you might be happy to know that the very act of doing Internet searches may make our brains “stronger”. Neuroscientists have long known that our brains—just like our muscles—need to be stimulated and exercised to stay flexible and to grow new synapses (connections between brain cells). In general, the more the stimulation, the better our brains function as we get older.

A recent study from UCLA examined two different groups of middle-aged and older adults, aged 55 to 76.  One group was already Internet “savvy”, and the other group was not. The researchers had the two groups perform Google-type search activity while they were put through an MRI brain scan that measured their real-time brain function. The group that was already Internet savvy showed twice as much activity in parts of the brain responsible for complex reasoning and decision-making. The conclusion was that if you use the Internet regularly for searching tasks (as opposed to downloading music or watching videos for example), your brain may become more open to further stimulation.  And again, for our brains, the more stimulation the better.

This study was small and far from perfect, and over the next few years there will be many more studies of how computers affect our brains. Perhaps computer use over time actually rewires our brains to become more efficient. In the meantime though, you might use this study to encourage older family members and friends who perhaps could use more brain stimulation, to really push themselves to use their computers.