There are three areas of scientific research in which the tiniest discovery can be inflated into a huge press release: cures for obesity, cancer and old age.

Here’s an example of the third: scientists in Boston have published a paper which shows that – within a specific mouse model of aging – switching on our old friend telomerase gave anti-aging (even aging-reversal) benefits.

Sadly, everybody reporting this has gone with a Benjamin Button reference.

Pfft. As if we would be so obvious.

Here’s the real deal: mice which have been genetically engineered to produce no telomerase protein age prematurely. That was known.

Ronald DePinho and colleagues at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute bred somewhat different mice, which had “conditional” copies of the telomerase gene. This meant that no telomerase protein was produced in these mice until the scientists fed it a chemical which allowed protein production. The upshot: these mice age prematurely, because they don’t produce telomerase.You can think of them as a bunch of mice which become Larry King at the age of twenty

The scientists’ question was: what would happen when they gave the chemical and the mice began producing telomerase?

And the answer: the mice’s intestines regained their youthful vigor. Their patchy hair began to fill in, and their shriveled testicles swelled and became fertile once again. It’s the anti-aging elixir! Benjamin Button can be cured!

Remarkable, eh? Well, maybe. Other scientists are claiming that the fact these experiments were performed in a “faked” system (mice lacking telomerase from birth) negates – or at least reduces – their applicability to humans. See, we’re born with our cells expressing the telomerase gene; it just gets less effective as we age. So it remains to be seen whether this research has any relevance to real life.

Sorry, Benjamin Button, but you ain’t been saved yet.

]]> http://www.slantedscience.com/2010/11/29/scientists-discover-anti-aging-drug-copious-references-to-benjamin-button-inevitably-follow/feed/ 2 http://www.slantedscience.com/2010/11/06/the-latest-diet-scientists-say-that-working-for-food-makes-it-taste-better/ http://www.slantedscience.com/2010/11/06/the-latest-diet-scientists-say-that-working-for-food-makes-it-taste-better/#comments Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:09:17 +0000 SlantedScientist http://www.slantedscience.com/?p=165

We know diets.

We’ve done the cabbage soup, the WeightWatchers, the Jenny Craig, the high fiber, the low fat, the high protein, the low carb. One time we deliberately swallowed a tapeworm so we could eat anything we liked and still lose weight.

Sadly, our diet was so poor – basically, pizza-sandwhiches and Sprite -  that one day he decided to jump ship and make the best of it in the sewers. Travel safely, Stringy Jeff.

Now scientists have come up with a new one: putting some physical effort into getting your food apparently makes crappy foods taste like gourmet items.

This may be some sneaky new way to make us all realize that losing weight is dependent on both diet and exercise, but here’s the scientific deal.

Two researchers from Johns Hopkins Univeristy in Baltimore – Alexander Johnson and Michela Gallagher – have published research which they claim shows that:

Greater effort boosts the affective properties of food…Basically, what we have shown is that if you have to expend more effort to get a certain food, not only will you value that food more, but it might even taste better to you.

In other words, when you come back from the gym, a mouthful of Cheez Whiz can taste as luxuriously decadent as a sliver of the finest Camembert.

The scientists trained their laboratory mice to press one of two levers to get a treat. The first lever needed only one press to deliver the treat, while the second needed fifteen presses. When the scientists removed the need for lever pressing, and allowed the mice to freely access both treats, the critters chose the one which had previously required most work to get.

This stayed true even when the workout-accessible grub had fewer calories than the single-push food. So, the mice were willing to expend precious calories in order to get fewer in return.

Johns Hopkins have a press release, which contains the dubious lines:

At least in theory, this means that if we had to navigate an obstacle course to get to a plate of baby carrots, we might come to prefer those crunchy crudités over the sweet, gooey Snickers bars or Peanut M&Ms more easily accessible via the office vending machine.

No. No it doesn’t. That’s like saying that if we had to climb a ladder to be either smacked in the face or kicked in the balls, pretty soon we’d be unable to climb it because of massively swollen testicles. You have extrapolated the data way to far out.

However, putting aside the overselling which is endemic in these University press releases, we do see the point to this work. Not that we should go to the gym and then home for a carrot salad. Oh no.

No, what we take from this research is that if you jog to McDonald’s, then that nasty little burger you buy will taste like it’s from a real classy restaurant. Like Applebee’s or something.

Wowza.