Restricting calories might offer protection against age-related diseases - A scientist who studies aging reveals how

• A scientist who studies aging in monkeys thinks that metabolism is at the center of the aging process.
• In her studies, caloric restriction seemed to protect monkeys against age-related damage and diseases.
• A study on caloric restriction in humans showed parallel effects.

Instead of survival of the fittest, evolution might actually be about survival of the laziest.

That’s according to a new study published Tuesday in the journal The Royal Society. Researchers from the University of Kansas studied fossils of ancient mollusks and gastropods, and found that organisms with higher metabolic rates were more likely to go extinct.

Charlotte Hu, Business Insider US

August 23, 2018

A capuchin monkey in Trujillo, Honduras.

 

US Air Force/Capt. David J. Murphy

Animals that required less energy to power their daily lives and maintain their bodily functions were more likely to win in the long run, the results showed.

While metabolism isn’t the only factor that determines whether a species goes extinct, the researchers suggest that it’s a very important component of long-term survival.

That new finding adds to a growing body of evidence that links lower metabolism with longevity. (Naked mole rats, for example, are the longest living rodentsthanks to a quirk in their metabolism.)

Rozalyn Anderson, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine and Public Health, told Business Insider that her work in monkeys also suggests metabolism is at the center of the aging process.

“I think it’s all about energy: energy use, energy storage and the type of pathways that are being engaged to derive energy,” she said.

Restricting calories in monkeys

Anderson’s most recent research has been on the impacts of restricting caloric intake in Rhesus monkeys.

In a study of 76 monkeys published in the journal Science in 2009, Anderson and her colleagues found that restricting how many calories the animals consumed by 25% over a span of 20 years made them age differently, compared to a group of control monkeys that ate however much they wanted.

The monkeys who ate less were 2.5 times less likely to have an age-related disease like cancer or heart disease.

“The calorically restricted animals age differently,” Anderson said. “They don’t age slower, they age differently, and the way they age is associated with less disease risk. And that difference is in terms of their metabolism.”

She added that restricting a body’s caloric intake – the fuel it takes in – alters how the body produces and consumes energy, making it more energetically efficient.

Anderson also noted that the monkeys that underwent caloric restriction maintained their level of physical activity as they aged, whereas the control animals’ physical activity levels decreased. She explained at a conference in 2014that for calorically restricted animals, there’s a lower metabolic cost associated with movement – more “bang for your buck” when it comes to trading nutrients for usable energy units.

When humans restrict their calories, researchers have seen similar outcomes. A two-year-long, NIH-supported study published in The Journals of Gerontology in 2015 found that participants who restricted their calories by 12% on average saw decreases in risk factors that contribute to age-related heart disease and diabetes. The experiment did not significantly alter their metabolism, though.

Read more: Animals that defy the rules of aging – like naked mole rats – could help scientists unravel the secrets to longevity

Shutterstock

Connecting the dots between factors in the aging process

Anderson said that in her various studies of different facets of aging, she’s most fascinated when her research uncovers pathways that converge and overlap. This is happening more and more in the field of aging, and it’s helping her piece together why caloric restriction seems to alter parts of the aging process.

“I think it’s all completely connected, and these are just different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, which is the things that change with age that makes older people more vulnerable to disease than young people,” Anderson said. “How could you imagine a machine as complicated as a person or a monkey or a mouse, and not have it massively interconnected?”

For example, she found that a specific group of microRNAs – molecules that control gene expression – that she studied in relation to aging a while back plays an active role in the body’s response to caloric restriction. Anderson also found links between caloric restriction and her previous studies on NAD, a molecule that’s tied to energy metabolism and mitochondria. Putting these cellular-level studies into a bigger picture allows Anderson to gauge how all the moving parts come together when calories are limited.

“There’s this idea that the constellation of cells in a tissue are performing different tasks and different ones are creating vulnerability in different ways,” Anderson said. “It’s becoming more nuanced, for sure, it’s becoming more complicated. But it’s also making more sense. Which is why I think it’s kind of cool.”

Aging is inevitable, Anderson said, but her work is suggesting that how you age is flexible and manipulatable.

Understanding the relationship between metabolism and aging will allow scientists to better design studies on longevity. And as more research reveals how and why animals with lower metabolisms live longer and survive better, scientists may be able to figure out ways to mimic those effects in humans.

https://www.businessinsider.my/restricting-calories-could-protect-against-aging-2018-8/

Forget the iPhone 7 — here are 9 reasons the 2017 iPhone will blow everyone away

Next year marks the 10-year anniversary of the iPhone, and all rumors are pointing to a radical redesign.

Antonio Villas-Boas Tech  Oct. 9, 2016, 10:00 PM

ConceptsiPhone/YouTube

This month, we’ve seen the rumor of a third iPhone model with a larger screen resurface, and it could even have a frame made out of steel.

Check out the latest rumors surrounding Apple’s next NEXT iPhone.

This will not be an “S” model of the iPhone 7.

MacRumors spotted a report from an analyst at Barclay’s that claims Apple will skip the “S” model this year, which has historically followed each new phone version, and jump directly from the iPhone 7 to the iPhone 8, or possibly “10,” in 2017.

Since 2017 marks the iPhone’s 10th anniversary, it wouldn’t be surprising if Apple does something special to mark the anniversary of its most important product.

 The front surface will be all display with no borders or bezels.

Rumors that the iPhone 10 will have an all-display front surface first emerged from John Gruber, the plugged-in Apple blogger and podcaster from Daring Fireball.

Gruber claims he has heard insider scuttlebutt that the iPhone 10′s front won’t have any bezels or borders, and that it’ll be one large display.

It will mostly be made of glass with an aluminum frame.

A report from Apple analyst Ming Chi Kuo, who often accurately predicts new Apple products and features, says that the iPhone 10′s body will be made of glass. If so, it could have a similar aesthetic as the iPhone 4 and 4s, both of which had a glass back.

 There will be a third “high-end” model with a larger screen with a stainless steel frame.

A report from Kuo predicts Apple will release a third “high-end” model with a larger 5.8-inch screen compared to the Plus model’s 5.5-inch screen.

Kuo also claims it’ll have a stainless steel frame rather than the aluminum, which is more often used than steel in smartphones.

The home button will be invisible.

Gruber claims the home button, which also houses the fingerprint sensor, will be embedded into the front glass panel, making it invisible. 

Gruber’s claims line up nicely with rumors posted by tech site i4u that a future iPhone will have an embedded home button.

Recently, Chinese tech giant Xiaomi released new phones with the same technology that Apple described in a patent for alternative home buttons, which could give us an idea of how a future home button on the iPhone 10 could work.

It will have an incredible screen.

Rumors from The Korea Herald news site suggest the 2017 iPhone will have an AMOLED display, which would look better than the LCD display in current iPhones.

It will have wireless charging.

The Barclay’s analyst report summarized by MacRumors claims that the iPhone 10 will have wireless charging.

Most recently, a patent submitted by Apple on September 9 shows the company is still looking to optimize wireless charging solutions. 

It won’t have a headphone jack.

Since the iPhone 7 doesn’t have a headphone jack, we can expect future iPhones won’t feature a headphone jack, either.

The smaller model will not get the a dual lens camera like the iPhone 7 Plus.

Ming Chi Kuo believes the dual-lens camera will remain an exclusive feature for the larger iPhone models from 2017 onward. 

There might have been a glimmer of hope that the dual-lens camera would make its way down to the smaller iPhone model, as the optical image stabilization (OIS) that was exclusive to the iPhone 6s Plus trickled its way down to the regular iPhone 7. But if Kuo’s predictions are true, this will not be the case.

http://www.businessinsider.my/apple-iphone-10-2017-9-rumors-features-2016-10/#PFhhMka2z7UigJbu.97

Most vitamins are useless, but here are the ones you should take

It seems like simple, obvious advice: Eat your vegetables, get some exercise, and — of course — take your vitamins.

Erin Brodwin Science  Oct. 12, 2016, 11:15 PM

Reuters

Or not.

Decades of research has failed to find any substantial evidence that vitamins and supplements do any significant good. In fact, recent studies skew in the opposite direction, having found that certain vitamins may be bad for you. Several have been linked with an increase in certain cancers, for example, while others have been tied to a rise in the risk of kidney stones.

And a large new study out Wednesday suggests that despite this growing knowledge, Americans’ pill-popping habits have stayed basically the same over the last decade.

So here are the vitamins and supplements you should take — and the ones you should avoid:

Multivitamins: Skip them — you get everything you need with a balanced diet.

For decades, it was assumed that multivitamins were critical to overall health. Vitamin C to “boost your immune system,” Vitamin A to protect your vision, Vitamin B to keep you energized.

Not only do you already get these ingredients from the food you eat, but studies suggest that consuming them in excess can actually cause harm. A large 2011 study of close to 39,000 older women over 25 years found that women who took them in the long term actually had a higher overall risk of death than those who did not.

Vitamin D: Take it — It helps keep your bones strong and it’s hard to get from food.

Vitamin D isn’t present in most of the foods we eat, but it’s a critical ingredient that keeps our bones strong by helping us absorb calcium. Getting sunlight helps our bodies produce it as well, but it can be tough to get enough in the winter. Several recent study reviews have found that people who took Vitamin D supplements daily lived longer, on average, than those who didn’t.

Antioxidants: Skip them — an excess of these has been linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, and you can eat berries instead.

Vitamins A, C, and E are antioxidants found in plentiful form in many fruits — especially berries — and veggies, and they’ve been touted for their alleged ability to protect against cancer.

But studies suggest that when taken in excess, antioxidants can actually be harmful. A large, long-term study of male smokers found that those who regularly took Vitamin A were more likely to get lung cancer than those who didn’t. And a 2007 review of trials of several different types of antioxidant supplements put it this way: “Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality.”

Vitamin C: Skip it — it probably won’t help you get over your cold, and you can eat citrus fruits instead.

The Vitamin C hype — which started with a suggestion from chemist Linus Pauling made in the 1970s and has peaked with Airborne and Emergen-C — is just that: hype. Study after study has shown that Vitamin C does little to nothing to prevent the common cold. Plus, megadoses of 2,000 milligrams or more can raise your risk of painful kidney stones.

So get your Vitamin C from your food instead. Strawberries are packed with the nutrient.

Vitamin B3: Skip it and eat salmon, tuna, or beets instead.

For years, Vitamin B3 was promoted to treat everything from Alzheimer’s to heart disease. But recent studies have called for an end to the over-prescription of the nutrient.

A large 2014 study of more than 25,000 people with heart disease found that putting people on long-acting doses of Vitamin B3 to raise their levels of “good,” or HDL, cholesterol didn’t reduce the incidence of heart attacks, strokes, or deaths.

Plus, people in the study who took the B3 supplements were more likely than those taking a placebo to develop infections, liver problems, and internal bleeding.

Probiotics: Skip them — the science isn’t advanced enough yet for them to have a significant benefit, and you can eat yogurt instead.

Probiotics — pricey bacterial supplements that can cost upward of $1 per pill but are found naturally in smaller amounts in yogurt and other fermented foods — have become a big business with a market of roughly $23.1 billion in 2012.

The idea behind them is simple: Support the trillions of bacteria blossoming in our gut which we know play a crucial role in regulating our health.

But putting that idea into actual practice has been a bit more complicated. So far, the effects of probiotics have been all over the map. Sometimes they help, sometimes they don’t. So rather than shelling out for a pill that promises to be a cure-all, snack on a parfait.

Zinc: Take it — it’s one of the only ingredients linked to shortening a cold.

Unlike Vitamin C, which studies have found likely does nothing to prevent or treat the common cold, zinc may actually be worth it. The mineral seems to interfere with the replication of rhinoviruses, the bugs that cause the common cold.

In a 2011 review of studies of people who’d recently gotten sick, researchers looked at those who’d started taking zinc and compared them with those who just took a placebo. The ones on the zinc had shorter colds and less severe symptoms.

Vitamin E: Skip it — an excess has been linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, and you can eat spinach instead.

The antioxidant Vitamin E was popularized for its alleged ability to protect against cancer. But a large 2011 study of close to 36,000 men found that the risk of prostate cancer actually increased among the men taking Vitamin E compared to the men taking a placebo.

And a 2005 study linked high doses of Vitamin E with an overall higher risk of death. So if you’re looking for more Vitamin E, make yourself a fresh spinach salad and skip the pill. Dark greens like spinach are rich with this stuff.

Folic acid: Take it if you’re pregnant or if you might want to get pregnant.

Folic acid is a B vitamin which our bodies use to make new cells. The National Institutes of Health recommends that women who are currently pregnant or who want to get pregnant take 400 micrograms of folic acid daily because their bodies demand more of this key nutrient when they are carrying a growing fetus.

Additionally, several large studies have linked folic acid supplementation before and during pregnancy with decreased rates of neural-tube defects, serious and life-threatening birth defects of the baby’s brain, spine, or spinal cord.

http://www.businessinsider.my/vitamins-you-should-take-2016-10/#TaEPGckrCxzdxdHE.97

Here are the 10 best engines in the world today

Wards released the latest edition of its annual list of best engines in the world. For 2016, the 10 winners are an eclectic bunch. There are four-, six-, and eight-cylinder engines, along with a diesel and a trio of hybrids. 

Benjamin Zhang Finance  Oct. 12, 2016, 9:34 PM

Ford

This is the 22nd time Wards has conducted the competition to find the best engine in the world. Eight of the 10 are new to the list for 2016, with two being holdovers from last year.

According to Wards, only new or significantly reengineered engines or propulsion systems that are available for sale in the US and are installed in cars having a base price of less than $61,000 are eligible for the top 10. In addition, the winners from the previous year are also eligible to defend their crowns. But all VW Group products were banned this year from the list, as a result of the company’s ongoing emissions scandal.

A total of 31 candidates were evaluated by the publication’s editors in real-life, on-road driving conditions in October and November. Wards scored each engine based on horsepower, torque, comparative specs, noise attenuation, fuel economy, and application of new technology.

Check out all the winners:

10. The Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 is one of the hottest pony cars to reach production in recent memory. At its heart is a snarling 5.2-liter, 526-horsepower V8 engine known as the “Voodoo.”

Wards editors found the powerful V8 to be equally competitive at mundane street driving or at pushing the boundaries of its performance. As a result, the publication calls the Voodoo “the pinnacle of internal-combustion engineering.”

9. The 3.6-liter LGX V6 engine is the first of two power plants from General Motors to make the list this year. According to Wards, the 335-horsepower, fuel-efficient V6 proves that the six-banger is no longer just a consolation prize for missing out on the V8.

The direct-injected V6 can be found in Cadillac’s sleek ATS and …

… the new Camaro

8. The second entry from GM is the 1.5-liter inline four-cylinder and hybrid-electric system from the Chevrolet Volt.

According to GM, the Volt is capable of 53 miles of all-electric range and a total gas/electric range of 420 miles. Wards editors achieved an incredible 229 MPGe of fuel economy while evaluating the car.

7. Wards was also highly impressed by the hybrid system on the Hyundai Sonata PHEV. The hybrid sedan returned 41 mpg to 80 mpg of fuel economy during testing.

Wards found the Sonata Hybrid’s 2.0-liter, 154-horsepower, four-cylinder engine “enormously fulfilling and smooth to drive.”

6. You can’t talk about hybrids without mentioning the Toyota Prius. This year, the Prius returns to the winner’s circle for a fourth time.

Wards found the Prius’ new 1.5-liter, 95-horsepower, inline four-cylinder, and 71-horsepower electric motor to be quieter and silkier than the outgoing model. According to the publication, the new Prius returned 61 mpg of real-world fuel economy.

5. The Ram 1500′s 3.0-liter, EcoDiesel V6 engine is the first of two holdovers from last year’s winners. In fact, this is the EcoDiesel’s third win in a row.

With 420 pound-feet of torque on tap and 25 mpg, Wards calls the Italian-built engine the “gold standard for refinement and fuel economy” for the segment.

4. The other returning winner from 2015 is Subaru’s potent 2.0-liter, 268-horsepower, turbocharged boxer four-cylinder.

The powerful engine makes the WRX one of the most sought-after performance cars on the market today.

3. Last year, Volvo’s 2.0-liter, 240-horsepower turbocharged Drive-E engine took home one of Wards’ trophies. This year, Volvo’s Drive-E is back with a turbocharger and a supercharger.

The 316-horsepower engine powers Business Insider’s 2015 Car of the Year: the Volvo XC90 T6.

2. Nissan’s VQ Series V6 engine returns to Wards’ top-10 list. With the latest variant from the new Maxima, the venerable engine makes its 15th appearance on the list since 1995.

With 61% of its parts redesigned, the VQ makes its first appearance since 2008. Editors were impressed with Nissan’s strong mid-range torque and lively yet refined power delivery.

1. Finally, there’s BMW’s new B58 3.0-liter, inline six-cylinder. This is BMW’s 32nd trophy in the competition in 22 years.

Although it produces 320 horsepower, there are lots of motors that make more. But Wards lauded the engine, saying, “BMW proves once again an engine need not make outrageous horsepower or torque numbers to be enormously rewarding and thrilling to drive.”

http://www.businessinsider.my/wards-10-best-engines-world-2016-9/#kFFfbdz3YKfpSg5H.97