3 Simple Longevity Rules A Nobel Prize Winner Swears By
We've written before at HuffPost UK about how everything from when you eat breakfast to how late you fall asleep and even the way you walk might affect your longevity.
Reassuringly, simple, conventional advice about staying on top of your heart health and getting in tune with your body clock might help you to boost your odds of a longer life.
Speaking to Vatican News, biologist and winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Dr. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, says he follows three such rules to improve his own longevity.
Dr Ramakrishnan, who has written a book called Why We Die, says he, 'came to the conclusion that the trio of a moderate and healthy diet, regular exercise, and adequate sleep is probably better than anything out on the market today in terms of supplements or drugs.'
He adds that avoiding social isolation probably helps, too.
Those pearls of wisdom might seem a little well-worn compared to the shiny, controversial experiments with longevity people like Bryan Johnson get involved with – but they're much better backed.
The American Medical Association says that working out two to four times above the recommended amount is associated with a 26-31% decrease in all-cause mortality.
A paper published in Nature says that improving UK diets could lead to 10 years more life.
And 2024 research found that men who sleep well live, on average, five years longer than those who don't.
'We're at a crossroads in terms of where we are in terms of life expectancy,' Dr Ramakrishnan told the publication at the Vatican Longevity Summit this year.
'Biology has made great strides in understanding the causes of ageing and for the first time is trying to see if we can do something about tackling ageing itself as opposed to tackling specific diseases.'
While this makes him wonder 'what will it mean for society if we all start living longer', he adds that his advice should work as well for the Pope (the longevity summit was held at the Vatican) as it does the rest of us.
'As [the Pope] gets better, the trio that I suggested would work for him, just as it would for anybody else,' the Nobel prize winner ended.
10 Everyday Habits That Are Harming Your Longevity The Most
I'm A Longevity Expert – This 30-Second Test May Reveal Your Risk Of Early Death
I'm A Longevity Professor – These 3 Walking Rules Can Help You Live Longer
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
New York state lawmakers passed a bill on Thursday that aims to prevent frontier AI models from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic from contributing to disaster scenarios, including the death or injury of more than 100 people, or more than $1 billion in damages. The passage of the RAISE Act represents a win for the AI safety movement, which has lost ground in recent years as Silicon Valley and the Trump Administration have prioritized speed and innovation. Safety advocates including Nobel prize laureate Geoffrey Hinton and AI research pioneer Yoshua Bengio have championed the RAISE Act. Should it become law, the bill would establish America's first set of legally mandated transparency standards for frontier AI labs. The RAISE Act has some of the same provisions and goals as California's controversial AI safety bill, SB 1047, which was ultimately vetoed. However, the co-sponsor of the bill, New York state Senator Andrew Gounardes told TechCrunch in an interview that he deliberately designed the RAISE Act such that it doesn't chill innovation among startups or academic researchers — a common criticism of SB 1047. 'The window to put in place guardrails is rapidly shrinking given how fast this technology is evolving,' said Senator Gounardes. 'The people that know [AI] the best say that these risks are incredibly likely […] That's alarming.' The RAISE Act is now headed for New York Governor Kathy Hochul's desk, where could either sign the bill into law, send it back for amendments, or veto it altogether. If signed into law, New York's AI safety bill would require the world's largest AI labs to publish thorough safety and security reports on their frontier AI models. The bill also requires AI labs to report safety incidents, such as concerning AI model behavior or bad actors stealing an AI model, should they happen. If tech companies fail to live up to these standards, the RAISE Act empowers New York's Attorney General to bring civil penalties of up to $30 million. The RAISE Act aims to narrowly regulate the world's largest companies — whether they're based in California (like OpenAI and Google) or China (like DeepSeek and Alibaba). The bill's transparency requirements apply to companies whose AI models were trained using more than $100 million in computing resources (seemingly, more than any AI model available today), and are being made available to New York residents. While similar to SB 1047 in some ways, the RAISE Act was designed to address criticisms of previous AI safety bills, according to Nathan Calvin, the Vice President of State Affairs and General Counsel at Encode, who worked on this bill and SB 1047. Notably, the RAISE Act does not require AI model developers to include a 'kill switch' on their models, nor does it hold companies that post-train frontier AI models accountable for critical harms. Nevertheless, Silicon Valley has pushed back significantly on New York's AI safety bill, New York state Assemblymember and co-sponsor of the RAISE Act Alex Bores told TechCrunch. Bores called the industry resistance unsurprising, but claimed that the RAISE Act would not limit innovation of tech companies in any way. 'The NY RAISE Act is yet another stupid, stupid state level AI bill that will only hurt the US at a time when our adversaries are racing ahead,' said Andreessen Horowitz general partner Anjney Midha in a Friday post on X. Andreessen Horowitz, alongside the startup incubator Y Combinator, were some of the fiercest opponents to SB 1047. Anthropic, the safety-focused AI lab that called for federal transparency standards for AI companies earlier this month, has not reached an official stance on the bill, co-founder Jack Clark said in a Friday post on X. However, Clark expressed some grievances over how broad the RAISE Act is, noting that it could present a risk to 'smaller companies.' When asked about Anthropic's criticism, state Senator Gounardes told TechCrunch he thought it 'misses the mark,' noting that he designed the bill not to apply to small companies. OpenAI, Google, and Meta did not respond to TechCrunch's request for comment. Another common criticism of the RAISE Act is that AI model developers simply wouldn't offer their most advanced AI models in the state of New York. That was a similar criticism brought against SB 1047, and it's largely what's played out in Europe thanks to the continent's tough regulations on technology. Assemblymember Bores told TechCrunch that the regulatory burden of the RAISE Act is relatively light, and therefore, shouldn't require tech companies to stop operating their products in New York. Given the fact that New York has the third largest GDP in the U.S., pulling out of the state is not something most companies would take lightly. 'I don't want to underestimate the political pettiness that might happen, but I am very confident that there is no economic reasons for them to not make their models available in New York,' said Assemblymember Borres. Sign in to access your portfolio
Medscape
2 days ago
- Medscape
AMA Calls for ACIP Answers, Stable Federal Funding
Leaders and delegates at this week's American Medical Association (AMA) annual meeting called for more stable funding for medical care and research, and a US Senate investigation into unprecedented changes to a federal vaccine advisory panel. AMA delegates passed an emergency resolution asking for that investigation after US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr earlier this week removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with eight new members, some regarded as vaccine skeptics. The resolution also directs AMA to send a letter asking Kennedy to immediately reverse the changes. Jason M. Goldman, MD, president of the American College of Physicians said at the meeting that Kennedy's action puts at risk insurance coverage for vaccines. ACIP's recommendations influence insurance coverage and vaccine uptake. 'As physicians, we must be the voice for our patients,' said Goldman. 'We must be the voice for science, evidence, and knowledge, and we must make sure that our institutions are protected.' Other delegates pressed the AMA to fight back against deep cuts to federal funding for healthcare and medical research. In his inaugural speech on Tuesday as AMA president, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist, said the 'importance of access to physician care is very much on my mind.' 'We cannot lose sight of what medicine and science have achieved in our lifetimes, and we cannot abandon this progress and endanger the health of millions whose illnesses could have been treated had we stayed on course,' Mukkamala said. Congressional Republicans have proposed cutting Medicaid spending and reducing subsidies for plans sold by exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Separately, the Trump administration has proposed a roughly 40% cut, or almost $18 billion, in the annual funding of the National Institutes of Health for fiscal 2026, the budget year starting in October. Mukkamala also called for efforts to reduce the administrative burden of prior authorization and to address Medicare physician payments, which have not kept up with inflation in recent years. More Transparency for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Medicine The AMA also adopted policies regarding AI-driven tools and guidance for physicians regarding corporate investment in their practices. One policy calls for independent third parties to determine whether an AI tool for clinicians is 'explainable' — that it can explain to users its decisions and the evidence behind them. The new AMA policy calls for more transparency regarding these tools, including disclosure of their algorithms. Physicians at the conference raised concerns about AI-based tools making errors that could potentially harm patients and leave clinicians liable for the tools' flaws. AMA members' concerns included the potential for AI hallucinations about billing codes to leave a busy physician at risk for allegations of fraud. Among those who pushed for the AMA to adopt new policies on AI-driven tools was Jennifer Bryan, MD, chair of the Mississippi delegation to the AMA and president of the Mississippi State Medical Association. Decisions made at this AMA meeting will help physicians know when 'AI informs clinical decisions and exactly how confident the AI is in its recommendations,' Bryan told Medscape Medical News in an email. 'This is a big step forward in not just setting standards today but shaping responsible AI practices in medicine for years to come.' Corporate Intrusion The AMA delegates also voted to strengthen guidance for physicians regarding corporate or private equity investment in their practices. Corporate investment can offer an alternative to selling a practice to a hospital or health system, AMA said. These kinds of arrangements can include private or public for-profit companies, investment firms, and insurance companies. Physicians may benefit from these arrangements by being freed of some business and administrative responsibilities to spend more time with patients. But such arrangements may also pose risks, including the loss of independent authority over clinical decisions and operations, the AMA said. AMA's updated guidance recommends that decisions that should remain in the ultimate control of the physicians partnered with other entities include: Determining which diagnostic tests are appropriate for patients. Determining the need for referral or consultation with another clinician. Determining how many patients a physician should see or how many hours a physician should work. Determining the content of patient medical records. Making decisions regarding coding and billing procedures for patient care services.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Science cuts endanger research that improves the economy, national security and your life
Since its creation, the National Science Foundation has partnered with agencies across the government, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. During this 1969 mission to the moon's surface, astronaut Buzz Aldrin deploys instruments to measure the distance to the Earth, as well as to analyze the chemical composition of solar wind and measure the moon's seismic activity. (NASA photo) Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. No matter where you live, NSF-supported research has also made your life safer. Engineering studies have reduced earthquake damage and fatalities through better building design. Improved hurricane and tornado forecasts reflect NSF investment in environmental monitoring and computer modeling of weather. NSF-supported resilience studies reduce risks and losses from wildfires. Using NSF funding, scientists have done research that amazes, entertains and enthralls. They have drilled through mile-thick ice sheets to understand the past, visited the wreck of the Titanic and captured images of deep space. NSF investments have made America and American science great. At least 268 Nobel laureates received NSF grants during their careers. The foundation has partnered with agencies across the government since it was created, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3. However, that funding is now at risk. Since January, layoffs, leadership resignations and a massive proposed reorganization have threatened the integrity and mission of the National Science Foundation. Hundreds of research grants have been terminated. The administration's proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 would cut NSF's funding by 55%, an unprecedented reduction that would end federal support for science research across a wide range of discipines. At my own geology lab, I have seen NSF grants catalyze research and the work of dozens of students who have collected data that's now used to reduce risks from earthquakes, floods, landslides, erosion, sea-level rise and melting glaciers. I have also served on advisory committees and review panels for the NSF over the past 30 years and have seen the value the foundation produces for the American people. In the 1940s, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the space race and the intensification of the Cold War, American science and engineering expertise became increasingly critical for national defense. At the time, most basic and applied research was done by the military. Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer who oversaw military research efforts during World War II, including development of the atomic bomb, had a different idea. He articulated an expansive scientific vision for the United States in Science: The Endless Frontier. The report was a blueprint for an American research juggernaut grounded in the expertise of university faculty, staff and graduate students. On May 10, 1950, after five years of debate and compromise, President Harry Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation and putting Bush's vision to work. Since then, the foundation has become the leading funder of basic research in the United States. NSF's mandate, then as now, was to support basic research and spread funding for science across all 50 states. Expanding America's scientific workforce was and remains integral to American prosperity. By 1952, the foundation was awarding merit fellowships to graduate and postdoctoral scientists from every state. There were compromises. Control of NSF rested with presidential appointees, disappointing Bush. He wanted scientists in charge to avoid political interference with the foundation's research agenda. Today, American tax dollars supporting science go to every state in the union. The states with the most NSF grants awarded between 2011 and 2024 include several that voted Republican in the 2024 election – Texas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – and several that voted Democratic, including Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Colorado. More than 1,800 public and private institutions, scattered across all 50 states, receive NSF funding. The grants pay the salaries of staff, faculty and students, boosting local employment and supporting college towns and cities. For states with major research universities, those grants add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even states with few universities each see tens of millions of dollars for research.' As NSF grant recipients purchase lab supplies and services, those dollars support regional and national economies. When NSF budgets are cut and grants are terminated or never awarded, the harm trickles down and communities suffer. Initial NSF funding cuts are already rippling across the country, affecting both national and local economies in red, blue and purple states alike. An analysis of a February 2025 proposal that would cut about US$5.5 billion from National Institutes of Health grants estimated the ripple effect through college towns and supply chains would cost $6.1 billion in GDP, or total national productivity, and over 46,000 jobs. America's scientific research and training enterprise has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Yet, as NSF celebrates its 75th birthday, the future of American science is in doubt. Funding is increasingly uncertain, and politics is driving decisions, as Bush feared 80 years ago. A list of grants terminated by the Trump administration, collected both from government websites and scientists themselves, shows that by early May 2025, NSF had stopped funding more than 1,400 existing grants, totaling over a billion dollars of support for research, research training and education. Most terminated grants focused on education – the core of science, technology and engineering workforce development critical for supplying highly skilled workers to American companies. For example, NSF provided 1,000 fewer graduate student fellowships in 2025 than in the decade before − a 50% drop in support for America's best science students. American scientists are responding to NSF's downsizing in diverse ways. Some are pushing back by challenging grant terminations. Others are preparing to leave science or academia. Some are likely to move abroad, taking offers from other nations to recruit American experts. Science organizations and six prior heads of the NSF are calling on Congress to step up and maintain funding for science research and workforce development. If these losses continue, the next generation of American scientists will be fewer in number and less well prepared to address the needs of a population facing the threat of more extreme weather, future pandemics and the limits to growth imposed by finite natural resources and other planetary limits. Investing in science and engineering is an investment in America. Diminishing NSF and the science it supports will hurt the American economy and the lives of all Americans. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
