Hacker News Reader

Comment by fasterik | Hacker News Reader

There is no sharp line between "slowing down aging" and common-sense things like diet, sleep, exercise, etc. It all exists on the same spectrum.

>simply getting them on to a nutritious diet would do far more for their quality of life and their lifespan than slowing down aging ever could.

That in itself is a scientific claim that needs to be supported by evidence. How are we going to get that evidence if we aren't doing the research? We also don't have a good definition of exactly what a "nutritious diet" is. The idea that we shouldn't be be investing in health and longevity research is anti-intellectual and short-sighted, in my opinion.

View on HN

> That in itself is a scientific claim that needs to be supported by evidence.

That experiment has been running for the entire human existence. Richer people live longer and better lives.

So you think we should extend humans life so they can spend more hours on the couch eating junk food?

30% of the worlds population is currently 'severly food insecure' (starving) [1].

Dont you think the priority first should be sorting out enough food for the existing population? When 100% of the world is fed properly and well, and we have surplus food, then maybe extending life should be come a scientific priority.

[1] - https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-h...

I'm not sure why you would infer from my post that I'm not in favor of solving world hunger or that I'm encouraging people to have unhealthy diets. My point is that figuring out how to solve food scarcity is a scientific problem, as is figuring out how to improve people's diets. Eating a healthier diet slows down the aging process and increases lifespan. There isn't a sharp distinction between the two problems, and we can make progress in both. The idea that we shouldn't be doing scientific research on one area until all problems are solved in another, especially when the areas are related, is deeply mistaken.

It doesn't need evidence because it's common knowledge. Protein = health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562018/

> Lifespan and metabolic health are influenced by dietary nutrients. Recent studies show that a reduced protein intake or low-protein/high-carbohydrate diet plays a critical role in longevity/metabolic health. Additionally, specific amino acids (AAs), including methionine or branched-chain AAs (BCAAs), are associated with the regulation of lifespan/ageing and metabolism through multiple mechanisms. Therefore, methionine or BCAAs restriction may lead to the benefits on longevity/metabolic health. Moreover, epidemiological studies show that a high intake of animal protein, particularly red meat, which contains high levels of methionine and BCAAs, may be related to the promotion of age-related diseases.

There are dozens of essential nutrients. You only need about 15% of your calories to come from protein. Protein = health is laughably simplistic and incomplete. Also, the only reason we know what protein is is because we did the scientific research in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com