So you want to live a long life, or at least age gracefully?
Bill Gifford has provided a well-researched and engrossing account of the quest for longevity. In his new book, Spring Chicken, Gifford critically examines the claims of scientists, enthusiasts and hucksters in their attempts to extend life using hormone replacement therapy, telomerase, supplements, drugs, exercise, caloric restriction, intermittent fasting and other practices. Along the way, he visits with a 108-year old investment advisor and a 76-year old female sprinter who can run a 6:58 mile, and he takes a close look at mice, monkeys and microbes that live much longer than species norms.
I found the book hard to put down. That’s not merely because Bill’s hilarious account of my wintry swim with him in the Pacific Ocean appears in Chapter 12–as a bracing illustration of how hormesis builds stress tolerance. I was captivated by reading of his up-close encounters with a diverse set of gerontologists, centenarians and odd, long-lived creatures such as the naked mole rat. Most interesting of all was his meticulous detective work in probing the major competing theories of aging, leading to some unconventional conclusions about what may or may not actually help prolong life and healthspan.
Here is a hyperlink with slides from the talk I gave today at the Ancestral Health Symposium 2013 in Atlanta. I will upload a video of the talk once the organizers make it available. Until then, you can click on the “Link to audio recording” to listen to a recording that one of the conference attendees made and posted on YouTube. The sound is a bit faint, but still audible, and should make the slides more intelligible.
This presentation is based on material from several previous blog posts
The talk includes some new material not covered in those previous posts, in particular addressing antioxidant recycling, supplementation of calcium and the essential fatty acids EPA and DHA. I have also provided a list of references of supporting studies and literature in the final 3 slides.
I enjoyed meeting many new faces and recognizing old ones at this year’s AHS.
My recent post on Why I don’t take vitamin D supplements generated a lot of interest and a few misconceptions. In that article, I did not suggest any practical alternatives to taking high dose vitamin D supplements. Here I will suggest a way that may provide the benefits of vitamin D without popping any pills, spending all day in the sun, or ingesting copious amounts of fish.
Some readers got the idea that I believe vitamin D is not beneficial, and that I discount the evidence from studies that show the benefits. I want to dispel that notion. I do acknowledge the key role that vitamin D and the vitamin D receptor (VDR) play in bone mineralization and regulation of innate and adaptive immunity, and among other things. I further acknowledge that many (but certainly not all) studies support an association between higher vitamin D3 levels and reduced incidence of diseases such as cancer.
As I wrote:
Nobody doubts the important role of vitamin D in the body. But are higher levels of a hormone like vitamin D–whether or not provided as a supplement– always a good thing?
My doubts are focused on several points:
My article created a dilemma for several commenters. These people acknowledged the risks, but nevertheless cited benefits they personally experienced from supplementing with vitamin D–ranging from fewer colds and flu, to relief of autoimmune symptoms, and even lessening of depression.
For these people, a key question remains:
Is there a way to get the benefits of vitamin D supplementation, while avoiding the dependency and risks of taking vitamin D capsules daily for the rest of your life? While I don’t have a definitive proven answer to that question, recent research leads me to speculate here that there is a promising approach that is within everyone’s reach.
It lies within a powerful natural biological process called autophagy.
Vitamin D has been associated with numerous health benefits, including cardiovascular and immune health, bone strength, and prevention of cancer. However, studies claim that most of us are deficient in vitamin D, and thereby unnecessarily vulnerable to increased heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, infection and autoimmune disorders. According to a review of recent studies in Natural News, there is a woldwide epidemic of vitamin D deficiency: 59% of the population is “vitamin D deficient”. The article goes onto to speculate that “What’s becoming increasingly clear from all the new research is that vitamin D deficiency may be the common denominator behind our most devastating modern degenerative diseases.”
Supplementation with vitamin D capsules is advocated even by “primal” advocate Mark Sisson, normally one to take inspiration from our paleolithic ancestors, shunning medication and embracing a lifestyle of eating whole foods and engaging in moderately stressful, playful exercise:
We can’t all bask in the midday sun.. For those of us unable to run shirtless and shoeless through a sun kissed meadow…our option is oral intake… food will help, but it won’t suffice. You need something stronger. ..take a good D3 supplement if you can’t get real sunlight. As long as you don’t go overboard on the dosage, you’re good to go. If it’s not in an oil-based capsule, just take it with a bit of fatty food (not a stretch for an Primal eater). It travels the same pathway and results in the same benefits. It’s always easier to just let nature take its course, but it’s not always realistic. A good general rule is 4000 IU per day.
Therefore, we should supplement with vitamin D. Right?
Not so fast. A closer examination shows that low vitamin D levels may be a consequence, not a cause, of poor health. And that supplementation with Vitamin D may actually be counterproductive. Let me explain.