Life Extension May Add Just Bad Time
Strains of the lab workhorse roundworm C. elegans that lived longer added more time being frail and had the same portion of their lives being healthy as normal worms. The work has implications for life-extension ideas such as caloric restriction. Dina Fine Maron reports
By Dina Fine Maron
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Health
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Living longer doesn’t necessarily mean living better. That’s the lesson from the tiny roundworm called C. elegans, long a workhorse in basic biology lab work. The research is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Ankita Bansal et al, Uncoupling lifespan and healthspan in Caenorhabditis elegans longevity mutants]
In the study, thousands of normal C. elegans competed against strains that live days or weeks longer than their brethren, because of factors like genetic mutations or very low-calorie diets.
But a battery of tests to see how the all older worms moved or responded to stress revealed some hard truths: increased life span did not usually come with a prolonged period of health and strength. Indeed, the “good times” for each of the worms was roughly the same, regardless of their overall life span. In other words, the longer-living worms spent a greater proportion of their lives in a diminished state—with less mobility and stress resistance.
Aging worms are not aging humans. But if the findings do extend to people, then life-extension efforts, such as calorie restriction, may not shake out to a better old age, just more years of frailty. With associated healthcare cost increases and quality of life decreases. The researchers suggest that it’s time to start thinking about what they call “healthspan”—and maximizing “healthspan,” rather than just tacking on years of poor quality.
—Dina Fine Maron
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
