BTC donation

Please Donate To Bitcoin Address: [[address]]

Donation of [[value]] BTC Received. Thank You.
[[error]]

Sunday, 20 April 2014

How to Live forever (or die trying)...

Although (with a BMI currently hovering around 32 and having only just resumed regular gym sessions) I'm hardly a poster-boy for healthy living, I've always been intrigued by the possibility of extending natural lifespan in humans via Calorie Restriction (CR). This is often termed CRAN (Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition), CRON (Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition), or CRL (Calorie Restriction for Longevity) in order to clearly differentiate it from eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, where food intake is restricted, but in an unhealthy manner.

While there's no doubt that obesity can lead to numerous health issues and premature death, in practice it is often difficult to lose weight (and keep it off) and achieve the recommended BMI of around 22. Otherwise the developed countries wouldn't be experiencing an 'obesity epidemic'. Then, once you achieve a healthy BMI and take regular aerobic and strength training exercise, is the any further benefit to be achieved via CRAN?

While CRAN had been proven in multiple independent experiments to extend lifespan in simpler species (such as worms and mice), there was little hard data on the effects (for good or bad) that CRAN could have on humans. Most historical examples of calorie restriction were simply cases of starvation, where the adverse effects of malnutrition were the dominant factor. Given the ethical issues surrounding doing CRAN studies on randomly selected groups of human test subjects, the best scientific data applicable to humans is likely to come from primate studies (although there are a number of people voluntarily adopting CRAN to some degree as a lifestyle choice, such isolated cases are not a controlled study).

A study published a few years ago (by the NIA) had seemed to show that in rhesus monkeys CRAN had no significant beneficial effect. And yet a new study published only a few weeks ago (ref: Colman, R.J. et al. "Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys." Nat. Commin. 5:3557 doi: 10.1038/ncomms4556 (2014).) has found that CRAN did indeed have a significant effect on rhesus monkey survival rates. The apparent disparity in results is (according to the authors of the new study) due to the 'control' monkeys in the NIA study having not actually been fed 'ad libitum', but instead had, unintentionally, been fed on a slightly calorie-restricted diet (as shown by the fact that this 'control' group had lower average weights than is typical for Rhesus monkeys in captivity). The 'control' group had therefore already been getting some of the benefits available from CRAN (as shown by the unusually high survival rate to 40 years - the equivalent of around 116 years old for a human!).

As a very rough approximation of how effective CRAN 'might' be when applied to humans (from young adulthood - so this will be more relevant to DS1 and DS2 than myself!), I've scaled the age of Rhesus monkeys (by a factor of 2.9) to bring the survival rate curve of the monkey 'control' group (red squares) in line with that of UK humans in 2010 (blue diamonds). The scaled plot of the CRAN group of Rhesus monkeys (green triangles) should therefore be roughly in line with what one might expect to happen in the case of humans adopting a CRAN diet from young adulthood onwards.

Hopefully this could mean that instead of around 50% of humans in developed countries surviving to age 80, and very few making it past 100, by adopting a CRAN diet for their adult life, around 50% of people could live past 100, although the maximal natural lifespan could probably not stretch much past 130. The main benefit would be a significant reduction in the many disabling age-related illnesses that often reduce quality of life past 70.

It will be very interesting what happens to the surviving Rhesus monkeys over the next 5 or so years, but which time the survivors will be achieving the normal 'maximal lifespan'.

All in all, there seems to be sufficient evidence to warrant not only my getting down to my 'healthy weight' BMI of around 21-23 (and going to the gym 2-3 times a week), but for me (and later on my sons), adopting a modest level of CR (say 80% of 'normal' maintenance calorie intake) while ensuring our diet has no nutritional deficits. In practice this can be as simple as cutting out all 'empty calories' from snacks and junk foods, and avoiding (or at least minimising) processed foods that all generally high in fats, salt, and/or sugar.

The biggest hurdle is the self-control/psychological one associated with most forms of dietary restriction. If it was easy I would have stuck with CRAN since I first learned about it (and got down to my healthy BMI) back when I was in my mid thirties. I'm due to get my annual blood test done next week, and I'll post some selected biomarkers (BMI, cholesterol etc.) for the past couple of years and update them annually. Hopefully I'll be able to get down to a healthy weight again over the coming year, and transition into a more healthy CRAN-based dietary lifestyle. After all, there's not much point being wealthy if you're in poor health and die young!

Subscribe to Enough Wealth. Copyright 2006-2014

A change is as good as a retirement

Since being retrenched from my previous job as a scientist at a tiny, privately-owned minerals processing research company about 15 years ago, I've been working for a small privately-owned marketing company (of around 250 employees). The company owner/CEO is about ten years older than me, and had wanted/planned to sell up and retire in her fifties (until the GFC squeezed profit margins and made the business less saleable), so it was always unlikely that my current job would last all the way through until my retirement. Pre-GFC the prospect had been more likely, as I had hoped to be able to afford 'early retirement' (by around age 57-60). But post-GFC my SMSF balance wasn't going to be sufficient unless I keep working until 67 or thereabouts.

Last week my employer announced that she will be retiring this year, having managed to sell the business to a large, multinational company. As usual this is being presented to the current employees as a completely positive development, with the new 'owner' having deep enough pockets to properly fund the company's future growth and expansion. But while the prospect of a multinational parent company with deep pockets may well be exciting for the younger employees (via improved education/training, opportunities for international work travel and the chance to work for different divisions located in different countries, and the greater chance of career progression to senior positions available within a large, multinational company), for those of us over 50 the change doesn't seem so 'exciting'. While there are promises that all existing permanent employees will retain their positions ("no retrenchments") this is only ever a short-term guarantee (I.e. it really mean "no retrenchments --- just now"). New ownership always means the chance to restructure a business to make it more efficient, which generally means laying off some of the existing staff working for the acquired company (once the new owners have absorbed all the valuable IP and determined which "key staff" they want to retain). My position is even more precarious as a large part of my current role was tasks associated with a part of the company that isn't being sold off, but is being split off as a smaller private company to be retained by the current owner. So I expect that in the next couple of months those tasks will have disappeared, and my work will have been restructured around the remaining "internal audit" tasks that I perform. I've had little training and no professional qualifications in internal audit (just a couple of short courses completed about ten years ago), so I'll either be given some proper training and have a chance to obtain audit certifications (the "best case" scenario) or else end up retrenched and with little prospect of getting a similar position elsewhere.

Changing employer and career path in my late thirties was quite stressful, but worked out OK in the end. But being unemployed and looking for a new position (and career path) again in my fifties isn't likely to have such a happy ending. I'll probably either wind up in a new job which requires a lot of unpaid overtime to 'get up to speed' and prove myself (again), hence putting an end to my part-time PhD studies, or else end up in a much lower paid position with little or no job security. Or perhaps even be unable to find any decent job at my age and wind taking early retirement with an inadequate superannuation balance (and no access to aged pension due to the assets/means test).

Subscribe to Enough Wealth. Copyright 2006-2014

Sunday, 13 April 2014

New Worth: March 2014

The net value of my geared stock portfolio and retirement account (SMSF) were both down slightly over the past month, having suffered a significant dip due to the global stock market being affected by the Crimean Peninsula tensions which were only partially recovered towards the end of the month.

The Stocks figure was also reduced by about $13,000 this month due to costs associated with the transfer of my parent's hobby farm into my name during the past month (my 'inheritance'). I was initially not going to include the market valuation for this property in my net worth calculations, but as the transfer and ongoing costs will be incorporated I may as well include the value of this 'asset' (although, as I intend to pass this property on to my sons in my will, it should be considered a non-liquid asset).

The remaining amount shown for 'properties' and 'home mortgage(s)' is my half of these figures. As usual, I don't include assets or liabilities belonging to DW, DS1 or DS2 in my net worth figures (which is why I was initially not going to include the value of the hobby farm mentioned above).

Assets$ Amount$ Diff% Diff
Stocks *$236,454-$8,559n/a
Retirement$580,913-$7,112-1.21%
Home$483,501$1,0360.21%
Farm$325,000$325,000n/a
Debts ^$ Amount $ Diff% Diff
Home Mortgage(s)$102,356-$39-0.04%
Net Worth$1,523,512$310,40425.59%
* the Stocks figure is portfolio value - margin loans. The LVR is around 80% overall.
^ doesn't include the ~$675,000 of investment loans, as these are already deducted when calculating the value of my geared stock portfolio.

Subscribe to Enough Wealth. Copyright 2006-2014