Drugs vs. Self-Control

There's an article in the New York Times about research comparing monkeys who ate 30% less calories than another group of monkeys. The group that took in fewer calories showed these results: longer lifespan and less diabetes, cancer, and cholesterol problems.

So that's good news, right? At least we know what we can do if we want to live longer and healthier. What percentage of your daily calories currently includes food you ate when you were already comfortably full? Do you stop to listen to your body to find out when it's full, or do you typically just eat the portions in front of you? Learning to restrain yourself could add years to your life, which is encouraging.

But here's the part about drugs vs. self-control. The article suggests that since most people can't stick to a diet of 30% less calories than they are used to, they are going to develop a drug that can create the same results as eating less.

First of all, that's sad that there's an assumption people won't do what's best for them. Not that I disagree. Most people won't stop overeating. So let's just skip self-control as even an option and go straight to more drugs as a solution? (Because it worked so well for Michael Jackson and thousands of others with drug dependencies). Secondly, is it realistic that a drug can substitute for healthy eating? Seriously, drugs can't solve everything. We don't want to become a nation of drug dependent overeaters.

Here's the article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/science/10aging.html?_r=1.