

Rotifers may reveal the secret of elongating life  - aarghh
http://www.economist.com/node/17144833?story_id=17144833&fsrc=rss

======
Symmetry
Lamarckian evolution doesn't exist... except as specifically evolved via
Darwinian evolution. Its fairly well known that starvation can make even a
human's grandchildren smaller on average, so it shouldn't be surprising that
other starvation related metabolic effects can be passed on too.

~~~
aarghh
I'm curious what the mechanism is, though. From the perspective of a complete
layperson - does this mean that the genome is modified based on acquired
characteristics? Or are there other mechanism to carry the signal?

~~~
turbofail
The Wikipedia article on epigenetics goes over some mechanisms.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics>

------
tokenadult
But do you call that living?

(Really, as a human being, would you want to pursue that lifestyle?)

~~~
anigbrowl
Sure - you don't have to do bare-minimum survival dieting. Caloric restriction
to levels between 10-25% less than the average seems to deliver fairly
substantial benefits. I eat very lightly by accident rather than by design; I
enjoy my food and eat out frequently, I just don't eat as often as others and
stop as soon as I begin to feel full. I tend to avoid fatty meat (don't like
the texture) and skip dessert (don't like too much sugar), but that's probably
offset by frequently consuming a beer at mealtimes. I don't feel like I'm
missing out on anything.

Or do you mean the reproducing without sex bit?

~~~
salemh
The groups shown to have the highest percentage of 100+ in age (with active
lifestyles, not crippled) include a more "restricted" diet. Mostly in the
sense of eating small portions until nearly full and no gorging. Only one
factor, but interesting. (Other factors: large amounts of low-intensity
activities walking, gardening, not exercising 1 hour a day), mostly plant-
based diet(not necessarily vegetarian), and very strong community and a
feeling of fulfillment or goal in life "why do you wake up in the morning").

[http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100....](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html)

------
joe_the_user
I've heard claims that caloric restriction only works in the lab because the
average lab animal is fed plenty and sits doing nothing. Under those
circumstances, yes, most animals live longer when fed less ... die(still
chasing the link down...).

Anyway, articles I've read describe caloric restrictionists as going from
average build to barely underweight. I am currently barely underweight with my
unrestricted diet. It seems pretty clear that any further reductions would be
unhealthy in my case. But I think that pretty well shows that the
_generalizations_ about caloric restriction are over-broad.

Looking at it with that lense, the original article is one experiment
concerning _markers for markers for something that's arguable_ , the very
common product of biological science: an experiment that settles nothing
except if its taken with a thousand others (and maybe then not).

I wonder why the thing is in the economist with some crazily optimistic
headline...

