Genuinely surprised at the response this Tweet is getting and how many folks were unaware of the data showing caloric restriction is not universally beneficial. Many people assume these diet interventions have no risk, which is obviously false /1
I’m not trying to bash caloric restriction/intermittent fasting/time restricted feeding. The science is important, and I think many people obtain health benefits. Although those who would probably benefit most are least likely to actually practice them IMO /2
I would suggest that the risk profile for diet interventions is significantly higher than commonly appreciated, including adverse psychological effects. The impact of individual genetic and environmental context is not understood /3
The disconnect I struggle with is that we often think of drugs as much riskier than they are and dietary interventions as less risky than they are /4
I think it’s interesting to consider the actual relative risk/reward ratio of something like low dose rapamycin taken once each week compared to intermittent fasting. If you are scared by rapamycin, substitute metformin. The point is the same /5
The perception is that the drug is much riskier, but I’m not convinced that’s true. Personally, I’d *guess* that the likelihood of adverse events is higher in the IF group. Benefits in people are also better established for IF given the lack of data for the drug /6
My point here is to try to step away from your preconceived notions and consider the actual biology. Why would you think that periodic inhibition of mTOR from rapamycin (e.g. 1x/wk) is riskier than periodic inhibition of mTOR from IF? /7
*Probably* IF inhibits mTOR more than low dose rapamycin and does a bunch of other stuff, some of which might be good, some of which might be bad. Both have nasty side effects if taken to extremes /8
It’s not obvious whether the risk/reward favors fasting or low dose rapamycin at this point. My intuition is that it favors rapamycin, but I admit a bias away from restricting myself from good food /9
I also don’t know which individuals will benefit and which will be harmed, which is why I try hard to stay away from making recommendations about what other people should do 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few days ago I chose to call out a misleading Tweet by my friend and colleague @lamminglab that appears to endorse a flawed interpretation of a new study testing the effects of rapamycin on bone in young mice:
IMO, one reason for being on Twitter as an expert in #geroscience is to try to prevent misconceptions and misinterpretations that have the potential to damage the field. This appears to me as a classic example of how misinterpretation can potentially do great harm
/2
The study in question used very young mice that are still growing to test the effects of rapamycin on bone. They found that the mice receiving rapamycin had lower bone density. Importantly, no evidence for lower bone quality or bone frailty, but that was not discussed.
/3
Nic Austriaco and @BKennedy_aging were studying aging in yeast and identified a lifespan extending mutation in a protein called Sir4 (not a sirtuin) that physically interacts with Sir2 at telomeres. /2
They didn't know exactly how it worked but knew it affected distribution of Sir4 from telomeres to the nucleolus and that this mutation delayed degradation of the nucleolus with age