3 Simple Longevity Rules A Nobel Prize Winner Swears By
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
Scientific American
a day ago
- Scientific American
A Thought Experiment Reveals the Fingerprints of Climate Change Came Early
Physicists are fond of Gedankenexperimente — thought experiments that are difficult or impossible to perform in the real world. Schrödinger's cat is a well-known example of a thought experiment, used to illustrate the complexities of quantum mechanics. This puzzle occupied some of the best and brightest physicists of the early 20th century. We tried the same thing recently, only with climate change. Given today's network of satellites and temperature sensors, when could scientists have first known, beyond a reasonable doubt, that increases in atmospheric CO 2 from fossil fuel burning and land use change were altering our global climate? The results might surprise you, and they help to illustrate why it's critically important to continue long-term monitoring of Earth's climate. Our thought experiment used simulations of historical climate change from nine different state-of-the-art computer models. We made three key assumptions. The first was that back in 1860, scientists in our 'Gedanken world' had the technology to monitor global temperature changes in both the troposphere (the atmospheric layer extending from the surface up to about 15 kilometers) and the stratosphere (ranging from roughly 15 km to 50 km). Historically, global monitoring didn't happen until the 1940s using early weather balloon networks. More recently, since the late 1970s, we've monitored global atmospheric temperature changes with satellites. 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. Second, we assumed that over the period 1860 to 2024, the model simulations used reliable estimates of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases, particulate pollution and land use, as well as accurate estimates of natural changes in external factors like volcanic activity and the sun's energy output. All of these inputs to the model simulations are primarily derived from observational data. Third, we assumed the model-simulated responses to human and natural factors were realistic, and that the size of modeled 'climate noise' associated with natural phenomena like El Niño and La Niña was in reasonable agreement with observations. We tested the third assumption by comparing modeled and observed climate change and variability and found no evidence of model errors that would negate our bottom-line findings. The work of Syukuro ('Suki') Manabe helped inspire this investigation. Back in 1967, Manabe—who would later go on to receive the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics—published one of the most famous papers in climate science. Together with his colleague Richard Wetherald at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, N.J., Manabe used a simple climate model to show that increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 would lead to more efficient trapping of heat in the troposphere. The consequence? Warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. The former has captivated most of the world's attention for good reason—it is where we humans live—but the latter turns out to be particularly useful in our thought experiment. The 1967 Manabe and Wetherald paper made a testable prediction: if humans continue to burn fossil fuels and ramp up levels of CO 2 in the atmosphere, the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature will change not only in the troposphere but also in the stratosphere. But back in 1967, scientists lacked the long-term records necessary to test this prediction, particularly for the mid- to upper stratosphere, between approximately 25 and 50 km above Earth's surface. Decades after 1967, weather balloon and satellite temperature records revealed that Manabe and Wetherald were right. Their predicted pattern of change in the thermal structure of the atmosphere was observable. Importantly, this pattern of human influence—showing long-term, global-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere—couldn't be confused with natural patterns of temperature change. The human 'fingerprint' on atmospheric temperature was distinctly different from the natural temperature fingerprints caused by the sun, volcanoes and internal climate noise. When climate scientists say we know people cause climate change, this fingerprint is one defining reason why. Which brings us back to our 'When could we have known?' thought experiment. Although the question is simple, the answer isn't obvious. The first 40 years of the thought experiment (from 1860 until 1899) were a time when large-scale fossil fuel burning and deforestation were just beginning to ratchet up during the industrial revolution. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO 2 over this time, which we can estimate from Antarctic ice cores, was only 10 parts per million. This is small relative to the recent CO 2 increase of roughly 54 parts per million over the 25 years from 2000 to 2024. Nevertheless, this modest 10 parts per million early CO 2 increase is still large enough to lead to significant cooling of the stratosphere over 1860 to 1899. The size and pattern of this stratospheric cooling is very different than what we would expect from natural forces affecting temperature: the solar variability at the time, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and internal climate noise. Because of these differences between signal and noise, our thought experiment shows that even the relatively small human-caused signal of stratospheric cooling could have been identified in 1885. Put differently, given today's measurement capabilities, humans could have known that our actions were significantly changing global climate even before Carl Benz patented the first gasoline-powered car. The human-caused signal of tropospheric warming emerges later, in the second half of the 20th century, partly because human and natural patterns of climate change are more similar in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. Would this advance knowledge have made a difference? Would humanity have followed a different energy use pathway given the understanding that fossil fuel burning eventually leads to large, global-scale changes in climate? That's outside of our sandbox as climate scientists—it's a question for philosophers, social scientists, and historians of science. But in our opinion, based on the history of other global environmental problems, it's certainly conceivable that early knowledge of the reality and seriousness of climate change could have spurred earlier global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's worth noting that our identification of the atmospheric 'fingerprints' predicted by Manabe and Wetherald was enabled by NOAA and NASA satellite remote sensing. The work of these agencies is an essential part of our research, and of the national and international climate science enterprise. But in the United States in 2025, federally funded climate science, including observation and modeling work, is being systematically dismantled. This is not a thought experiment. It is all too real. We are now observing what happens when decades of work to understand the nature and causes of climate changes are rejected, and are replaced by ideology, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Stopping climate work will lead to a data vacuum that could last years or even decades. This experiment in willful ignorance can only end poorly. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are solely their own and not those of any organization they are affiliated with or necessarily those of Scientific American.
New York Times
2 days ago
- New York Times
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Is Stripped of Dutch Citizenship
For years, Andre Geim was known to the world as a Nobel Prize-winning Dutch physicist, which suited both him and the Dutch just fine. He is still a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, but now, according to the government of the Netherlands, he is no longer Dutch. He is, he said in a show of considerable understatement, 'extremely annoyed.' Thirteen years ago, Mr. Geim took British citizenship to accept a knighthood, and until recently he had no inkling that it would cause a problem. He said he was informed that he was no longer a Dutch citizen and must hand his passport over at the embassy in London or face consequences from Interpol, because the Netherlands sharply restricts dual citizenship. 'Personally, I consider myself a Dutch-British Nobel Prize winner (in this order),' he said in an email. 'The history and my time living and working in the Netherlands are very close to my heart.' The decision to revoke his citizenship, he added, 'is just so sad and odd.' Mr. Geim was born in 1958 in Russia to parents of German descent. He adopted Dutch citizenship in the 1990s while at Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, working on what would prove to be groundbreaking physics. In 2010, he and his colleague Konstantin Novoselov — who were by then working in England — won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their experiments creating graphene, the world's thinnest and strongest material. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Scientific American
4,800-Year-Old Teeth Yield First Human Genome from Ancient Egypt
Teeth from an elderly man who lived around the time that the earliest pyramids were built have yielded the first full human genome sequence from ancient Egypt. The remains are 4,800 to 4,500 years old, overlapping with a period in Egyptian history known as the Old Kingdom or the Age of Pyramids. They harbour signs of ancestry similar to that of other ancient North Africans, as well as of people from the Middle East, researchers report today in Nature. 'It's incredibly exciting and important,' says David Reich, a population geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who was not involved in the study. 'We always hoped we would get our first ancient DNA from mummies.' 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. Numerous labs have tried to extract DNA from ancient Egyptian remains. In 1985, evolutionary geneticist Svante Pääbo reported the first ancient DNA sequences from any human: several thousand DNA letters from a 2,400-year-old Egyptian mummy of a child. But Pääbo, who won a Nobel prize in 2022 for other work, later realized that the sequences were contaminated with modern DNA — possibly his own. A 2017 study generated limited genome data from three Egyptian mummies that lived between 3,600 and 2,000 years ago. The hot North African climate speeds up the breakdown of DNA, and the mummification process might also accelerate it, said Pontus Skoglund, a palaeogeneticist at the Francis Crick Institute in London who co-led the Nature study, at a press briefing. 'Mummified individuals are probably not a great way to preserve DNA.' The remains that Skoglund's team sequenced pre-date widespread mummification: the person was interred instead in a ceramic pot, a sign of high, but not elite, status. The remains were found at an archaeological site called Nuwayrat, 265 kilometres south of Cairo along the Nile river. The teeth and bones were discovered in 1902, when Egypt was under British colonial rule. They were donated to institutions in Liverpool, UK, where they have been ever since, even surviving German bombing during the Second World War. Low expectations Skoglund says his expectations were low when his team extracted DNA from several teeth from the Nuwayrat individual. But two samples contained enough authentic ancient DNA to generate a full genome sequence. Y-chromosome sequences indicated that the remains belonged to a male. The majority of his DNA resembled that of early farmers from the Neolithic period of North Africa around 6,000 years ago. The rest most closely matched people in Mesopotamia, a historical Middle Eastern region that was home to the ancient Sumerian civilization, and was where some of the first writing systems emerged. It's not clear whether this implies a genetic direct link between members of Mesopotamian cultures and people in ancient Egypt — also hinted at by similarities in some cultural artefacts — or whether the man's Mesopotamian ancestry arrived through other unsampled populations, the researchers say. The rest of the ancient Egyptian man's bones revealed more details about his life. Evidence of arthritis and osteoporosis suggest he died at an advanced age for the time, possibly in his sixties. Other signs of wear indicate a life of physical toil, sitting hunched over on hard surfaces. On the basis of this and imagery from other tombs from this period, he might have been a potter, said co-author Joel Irish, a bioarchaeologist at Liverpool John Moores University, at the press briefing. 'The publication of a whole-genome data set of an ancient Egyptian constitutes a significant achievement in the field of molecular Egyptology,' says Yehia Gad, a geneticist at Egypt's National Research Centre in Cairo, who praises the researchers for presenting the provenance of the remains clearly. But he points out that the genome is from one individual and might not fully represent ancient Egypt's gene pool, which was probably a melting pot of different ancestries. For this reason, researchers are eager for more ancient Egyptian genome data — perhaps even from a mummy. Advances in ancient-genomics technology and local capacity — Gad supervises an ancient DNA lab at the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Cairo — means it hopefully won't take another 40 years.
