[johnchristopher]

I like that comment from a few days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675412

> Go look at the studies showing resistance training to be pretty effective in seniors before getting excited about NAD+ boosters. The resistance training is probably cheaper and better. One still has studies such as the one showing that dietary nicotinamide doesn't do a great deal in mice [3] - like sirtuin manipulations, it helps fat mice a little, but is distinctly unimpressive otherwise.

> Remember that calorie restriction extends life by 40% in mice, but probably five years or less in humans - the effects of all these stress response related mechanisms of metabolic manipulation work through a few overlapping core processes, and scale down with species longevity. That's why I see them as a dead end in comparison to other strategies.

[loeg]

I'd take 5 extra QALYs any day.

[nothrabannosir]

Ironically, the Q stands for Quality. If the reports on calorie restricted diets are to be believed, that’s not an appropriate descriptor anymore.

[loeg]

Not ironic — that is exactly why I said QALYs and not just years.

[nothrabannosir]

Unless I misunderstand QALY, wouldn't n+5 years of misery not necessarily equal n years of actual quality life? assuming a base quality of 0 < k ≤ 1 with n years, and a calorie restricted life at quality 0 < k' < k with n+5, surely you'd end up at k * n QALYs for a normal life, and k' * (n + 5) for a calorie restricted one? Which might very well be lower given how large n is and how much smaller k' is than k.

Concretely: 85 years of misery is not 5 QALYs more than 80y of normal life.

Or am I missing your point, here?

[derefr]

Yes, you are missing their point: they meant that they'd be happy to do something that resulted in five additional QALYs, which this is likely not.