Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Mind

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 29 November 2007 - 01:03 AM


Posted Image

I am happy to announce SJ Olshansky will be joining Imminst for the Sunday Night Chat this Sunday December 2nd at 6:30pm CST U.S. If you are not familiar with Professor Olshanksy...you should be. He was researching methods to slow aging while most Imminst members were still in diapers. He has seen all the hype, the successes, and failures. His latest endeavor is the The Longevity Dividend, which proposes to set aside 3 billion (that's billion with a B) dollars a year of NIH funding for the study of aging.

Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat

Sun December 2nd
4:30 Pacific
5:30 Mountain
6:30 Central
7:30 Eastern
[timezone help]

#2 Bruce Klein Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 29 November 2007 - 01:37 AM

Awesome, Mind... perhaps someone can add to the calendar?

Here is Dr. Olshansky's ImmInst chat from 2005.

#3 Live Forever Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 29 November 2007 - 02:00 AM

Awesome, Mind... perhaps someone can add to the calendar?

Oh that calender thing is sweet! Anyone can add stuff? That would be a great source to keep up to date with life extension stuff. (imminst and other)

#4 Bruce Klein Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 29 November 2007 - 02:04 AM

Yes, Nate.... all ImmInst members can add events :thumb:

#5 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:02 PM

Join the chat and find out what Professor Olshansky thinks is the most promising avenue of research when it comes to extending human lives.

#6 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:39 PM

Before you enter the chat room on Sunday, you might want to check out some of Olshansky's past articles here at his download page.

He made this wager in 2000:

Other wagers have produced more fruitful debate. In 2000, Steven Austad of the University of Idaho in Moscow bet Jay Olshansky, a fellow researcher of ageing at the University of Chicago, that someone alive at that time would live to be 150, with their cognitive faculties intact. The two established a trust fund that they estimate will be worth 500 million when the bet pays out to one or the other’s heirs in 2150.


I wonder if Professor Olshansky still thinks he will win...now that 7 years have passed (since the bet) and aging research continues to apace.

#7 Live Forever Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 01 December 2007 - 06:07 PM

Before you enter the chat room on Sunday, you might want to check out some of Olshansky's past articles here at his download page.

He made this wager in 2000:

Other wagers have produced more fruitful debate. In 2000, Steven Austad of the University of Idaho in Moscow bet Jay Olshansky, a fellow researcher of ageing at the University of Chicago, that someone alive at that time would live to be 150, with their cognitive faculties intact. The two established a trust fund that they estimate will be worth 500 million when the bet pays out to one or the other’s heirs in 2150.


I wonder if Professor Olshansky still thinks he will win...now that 7 years have passed (since the bet) and aging research continues to apace.

The only bad thing is that 500 million in 2150 will be worth like 10 bucks nowadays. (slight exaggeration)

Should be an awesome chat. I am looking forward to it.

#8 Matt Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 01 December 2007 - 10:14 PM

Chat isn't working for me now... Server down? make sure it's up for tomorrow :)

Edited by Matt, 01 December 2007 - 10:14 PM.


#9 Matt Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 02 December 2007 - 01:45 AM

There are some good videos with Jay in discussing aging here at the top of this page.

http://web.mac.com/s...Background.html

#10 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 02 December 2007 - 12:32 PM

Join the chat and find out why Olshanksy is critical of Aubrey De Grey's approach.

#11 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 02 December 2007 - 12:34 PM

As far as the chat room goes...seems it was working last night for awhile, then stopped working again. Will try our best to make sure it is operational for tonight's chat.

#12 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 02 December 2007 - 09:07 PM

Coming up in about 3 hours. Hope to see you there.

#13 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 03 December 2007 - 12:13 AM

Heading into the chat room now

#14 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 03 December 2007 - 12:51 AM

Aubrey De Grey has now joined the chat with Professor Olshansky

#15 Bruce Klein Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 03 December 2007 - 03:36 AM

<RichardJSchueler> S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D. (born 1954) is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.[1] He is a biodemographer, biogerontologist and researcher on the upper limits to human ageing and longevity and efforts to inform the public about products that claim to reverse or stop the aging process. Olshansky is the lead author of "The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging," t
* Bart1 has joined #immortal
<Mind> Thanks for the info Richard
* Bart has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<Mind> I see that our esteemed guest is here
<Mind> so I think we can start the chat now
<sjayo> good evening
<Mind> Remember
<Mind> I will ask a handful of questions to begin
<Mind> then I will annonce open chat after about 20 minutes
<Mind> Good evening Professor Olshansky and thank you very much for joining the chat tonight.
<sjayo> pleasure to be here
<Mind> For those not aware, one of Prof. Olshansky's major projects recently is the Longevity Dividend
<Mind> How is everything going with the Longevity Dividend? Any recent news?
* ag24 has joined #immortal
<Mind> Has wording been inserted into the NIH funding bill yet?
<ag24> hi all
<sjayo> we have a follow-up manuscript now in preparation, with an excellent cast of authors. also, congress has adopted our language upon a request by senator Harkin.
<ag24> bah, looks like you started early :-)
<Mind> What was the key aspect of getting the ears of congress?
<sjayo> you will see a rather dramatic change in how much money is spent on basic aging research beginning next year
<Mind> AG24, you are on time, I will ask a handful of questions to begin and then I will give you an opportunity to join in
<sjayo> the key event was the longevity dividend briefing on capitol hill put on by the alliance for aging research, and the subsequent personal meeting with senator harkin.
* mitkat has joined #immortal
<Mind> Any contact with members of congress since the meeting with Harkin
<Mind> ??
<sjayo> you can view the entire briefing on my website. no subsequent meetings, although dan perry from the alliance is always active.
<Mind> The Chinese government recently announced a massive investment in anti-aging research, how does the U.S. compare to other countries of the world with respect to "dedicated" aging research?
<sjayo> actually, i believe their investment was in anti-aging medicine put on a4m. i would hardly call that an investment in research on the biology of aging.
<Mind> ok understood
<CNorwood> website: http://web.mac.com/s...Background.html
<Guest6556601> A4M encourges public acceptance and support of antiaging research
<Tech> hah, i wish we had Dr. Klatz here to respond...you two don't agree on much if I recall
<Mind> Please keep comments out for now
<Mind> another 10 minutes of member questions
<sjayo> frankly, there is very little research money spent anywhere on the basic biology of aging.
<Mind> question from member Bram
<Mind> Which theory of the cause of aging seems to be supported by evidence the most at the moment?
<sjayo> that's outside of my area of expertise -- i'm sure you have other people here who can comment on that. i know of the theories of aging, but commenting on which one looks the most promising is best left to the biologists in the laboratories.
<Mind> ok, thanks
<Mind> Personally, how do you combat the effects of aging?
<sjayo> remember, i've stated for quite some time that the only control we have over aging at the moment is to accelerate it, or shorten our lives. eliminating or reducing those risks is what I do -- no smoking, no tobacco, little exposure to sun, no alcohol, daily exercise
<Mind> I know you have a long history of warning the public about "snake oil" treatments and supplements, are there any supplements that you take?
<sjayo> and of course, i'm trying like everyone else to reduce my caloric intake
<sjayo> no, i take no supplements
<Mind> Seems there is some evidence for the efficacy of at least a few supplements out there, any reason why you don't take these?
* mitkat has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
* Guest1 has joined #immortal
* mitkat has joined #immortal
<sjayo> there is quite good evidence for women and their use of some supplements, but clinical trials are few and far between on supplements. much that has been published of late on supplements where they've actually been evaluated using clinical trials indicate they don't work, and that we'd be much better off eating more fruits and vegetables. there is a very nice summary in a special issue of the journal of gerontology: biological sciences t
<Mind> Some members may be aware that you have been critical of Aubrey De Grey's approach to aging research...
<Mind> What is your main criticism of Aubrey's approach to aging research?
<sjayo> no, i'm critical of his approach, i'm critical of his conclusions before the empirical evidence is in.
<Mind> ok, I see
<sjayo> big difference
<Mind> It appears Aubrey has joined the chat
<Mind> Aubrey, do you have any questions at this moment
<sjayo> cheers aubrey
<Mind> Maybe he is away from his computer at the moment
<ag24> I'm here - am I online now? - I gathereed there was a period when members were asking moderated questions
<ag24> OK I see I am! - OK here goes...
<Mind> Just wondering if you had any questions at this point
<ag24> My differences with Jay are indeed slight. The main thing is:
<sjayo> aubrey and i are about to spend some time debating at a meeting in arizona. it will be fun.
<ag24> Jay imposes., in my view arbitrarily, a threshold level of "directnes" of evidence, below which he views a given item of data as irrelevant. I, conversely...
* Elrond has joined #immortal
* LazLo has joined #immortal
<ag24> take the strategy that thinking laterally works best, and that evidence that may seem indirect at first sight can sometimes be very compelling. SENS is built largely on evidence of this sort. It's definitely data - published experimental data - but it's not the sort that basic scientists tend to prioritise. That;s the distinction that I always stress between basic scientists and technologists.
<sjayo> i believe you will find that aubrey and i agree on most things, and certainly the most important issues, and in the end, that's what really counts.
<Mind> My feeling is that it is a win-win for aging research:
<Mind> Aubrey-SENS-private funding, at the same time Olshansky-Longevity Dividend-Public funding
<ag24> Mind - totally, I'm in favour of a 100-flowers model
* MAK has joined #immortal
<sjayo> we are not just seeking public funding by the way, we are going way beyond that..... you will need to wait for the next manuscript.
<Mind> Will be waiting anxiously
<ag24> jay - conversely, we're not only focusng on private
<sjayo> what matters in the end are not petty squabbles, but rather, the fact that decelerating aging is the best and most efficient to do what we are already doing
<Mind> The chat is now open to all members, however, please be coureous in this format and try to stay on one theme/question/idea at a time.
<Mind> **courteous
<sjayo> and matt, i understand your pain with tinnitus
<Mind> you have tinnitus also?
<BruceKlein> Hi Jay, Mind... can you talk more about the upcoming event in Arizona?
<Matt> Hi jay! Yes it is quite annoying at times... got static going on right now and masks it :)
<sjayo> yes, acquired it 3 years ago.
* Kalepha has joined #immortal
<Matt> white noise
<ag24> sjayo - yes, and thus to highlight the bankruptcy of the traditional gerontologist stance that it's all about "compressing morbidity", "successful aging" etc.
<Mind> yes...more about AZ event
<BruceKlein> Jay, Aubrey... that is.
<sjayo> the event in arizona is being put on by some religous organization in illinois, i don't recall their name, but aubrey and i debating will be featured and recorded.
<ag24> The arizona event may be very interesting. They seem to think Jay and I will disagree on the desirability aspect
<sjayo> however, it won't be much of a debate since we'll both be saying largely the same thing.
<ag24> I think we may give thm a bit of a shock
<sjayo> perhaps we should really shock them and not disagree at all
<ag24> I hve not entirely enlightenend them on this point
<BruceKlein> Aubrey, you were recently at a religious event in CA... right?
<Mind> A religious org/
<Mind> what is their motivation?
<sjayo> steve austad and i have public debates all the time, they're quite fun, but i will win the bet of course.
<Mind> motivation for holding the debate
<sjayo> i actually don't know their motivation.
<Mind> interesting
<ag24> sjayo - yes, actually for the second time (the american academy of religion) - but that was a very academic theologian crowd, not a hard sell at all
* Elrond has left #immortal
* Elrond has joined #immortal
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Elrond
<Mind> Why are you so confident that you will win the bet with Austad?
<ag24> their motivation for the debate is profound ignorance
* Elrond sets mode: +o ag24
<Mind> Your bet was 7 years ago...
* Elrond sets mode: +o sjayo
* Elrond sets mode: +o Mind
<Mind> hasn't their been enough progress in aging research....
<Mind> to make you change your min a bit
<Mind> **mind a bit
<BruceKlein> Jay... how do feel the public climate toward life extension science has changed in the last ten years or so... say, do you feel it has changed faster, or about in line w/ your expectations?
<sjayo> the first 7 years have passed, and the demographic evidence keeps moving in my favor. in fact, i believe we're on the verge of a decline in life expectancy in low mortality populations. no one seems to be pushing jeanne calment's record.
<ag24> they see Jay and me as disagreeing, and they stop right there and presume that we disagree on what they disagre with me on. I bet they haven't asked Jay what he actualy thinks. Jay?
<RichardJSchueler> Do you have a link to the gain in life expectancy by elimination of cause of death table, newer than 1991?
<ag24> sjayo - my take on recent data is not far from yours - we need another breakthrough like infectious diseases, else there will be at best a levelling-off. I plan to hasten that breakthrough
<sjayo> nope, they haven't. on the public climate toward life extension, much depends on what you're talking about. life extension per se I think is somewhat new to most folks, for most tend to think in terms of health promotion and disease prevention. it's the same thing as we all know, but they need to be educated.
<sjayo> richard, you can go to your friendly life table and perform the calculation in a few minutes.
<sjayo> my graduate students are required to perform this exercise every time i teach my epidemiology of aging course.
<BruceKlein> Jay... do your kids express expectations to live beyond 150?
<BruceKlein> http://thequestforim..._wsn/page2.html
<sjayo> no, i think they're quite realistic.
<ag24> HAHA
<sjayo> i'm not joking my friend
<Mind> Like father like kids
<sjayo> although i do have a smirk on my face
<ag24> "realistic" like "pessimistic"
<Mind> So that would mean you also have no expectations to live longer than Jean Clement/
<Mind> ?
<BruceKlein> beautiful kids... btw
<sjayo> aubrey, do you really think you're going to live to 150? honestly???
<ag24> "optimistic" like "idealistic"
<ag24> my expectation is bimodal, but...
<RichardJSchueler> If you were to throw caution to the wind, and were forced to put 10 million dollars into research that would lead to technology which slowed aging, where would you put your 10 million?
<sjayo> it's a yes or no answer
<ag24> the modes are 95 and 100, and...
<sjayo> good question richard.
<ag24> the probability of 100 is currently about equal to the probability of 90
<ag24> for sure I think it's <10% that I'll die between 20 and 500
<ag24> sorry 200 and 500
<sjayo> 10 million wouldn't be enough, but i think the answer is already contained, at least partially, within our own genome. studying the genetics of centenarians will, i believe, reveal numerous pathways.
<RichardJSchueler> I ask this because from my limited overview of your initiatives, your focus seems ot be more focused on research of the basic animal, and not so much randomly throwing money at experiments such as the sirtis folks are doing
<sjayo> i'm strongly supportive of what the sirtris folks are doing, i spoke there last summer and believe they are taking exactly the right approach to this issue.
<RichardJSchueler> Did you hear of Michael Rose's approach? Via directed evolution?
<ag24> argh fast typing, both 100's above should have been 1000
<sjayo> yes, but don't expect directed evolution of humans any time soon, at least not in this democracy.
<Mind> So you might take a Sirtis Supplement...if it passed double blind placebo studies in humans....your first supplement?
* Maxwatt has joined #immortal
<sjayo> perhaps
* Kalepha has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
* Maxwatt has quit IRC (Quit: JWIRC applet)
* Maxwatt has joined #immortal
<sjayo> wow, no more burning questions?
<RichardJSchueler> What question if asked of you would result in actionable intelligence of great value?
<RichardJSchueler> What type of question is the ideal question for a man of your expertise, with a mind towards progress
<RichardJSchueler> Is there a question you wished we were insightful enough to ask?
<sjayo> yes
* GregH has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<Mind> As we pass the 40 minute mark...I just wanted to remind Professor Olshansky that he can remain as long as he desires or leave at his discretion.
<sjayo> there is one critical question in our mutual effort
<sjayo> and it concerns me greatly
<sjayo> all of the work on decelerating aging must begin with animal models
<sjayo> it will eventually progress through other mammals to humans...
<sjayo> but there is one fundamental problem
<sjayo> the one characteristic that distinguishes us from all of the other animals is our cognition
<BruceKlein> hopefully
<sjayo> and there is no way to address how life extension on other animals influences their cognitive functioning in a way that is relevant to us
<BruceKlein> agree on the importance of this, Jay...
<sjayo> unless we know with certainty that life extension interventions work effectively on the mind as well as does on the body, then we must proceed with great caution.
<Elrond> Dr. Olshansky,
<Elrond>
<Elrond> I've come late to this discussion so forgive me if this question has already been asked (and you can say so and I can look at the answer in the log)
<Elrond> I understand you believe/have believed this is the first generation where life expectancy might actually decrease, and I'd agree with you if technological progress were to suddenly stop today, but what is your rational for making such an assertion in light of the fact that technological, including biomedical technology is progressing faster now than it ever has before, and that trend is only accelerating?
<sjayo> i'll answer elron's very good question
<ag24> I disagree. Igrant that all we can obtain here is negative results, but the restoration of all assayable behavioural features by a given therapy should in my view be enough evidence to proceed with human therapies.
<sjayo> first of all, life expectancy has already decline in numerous nations, especially sub saharan africa.
<sjayo> i would encourage you to read our nejm paper where we outline why we're headed in this direction.
<sjayo> also, life expectancy gains have not been accelerating, they have been decelerating.
<Mind> but we are still gaining
<sjayo> if all you're looking at is a correlation between technology and life expectancy, i'm afraid there is an inverse relationship.
<Mind> in most areas of the world
<ag24> Jay - I don't think you have (either in print or informally) ofered an opinion as to whether the famous Oeppen/Vaupel trajectory will go negative (Note: not just decline from 2.5/10). Do you have a view on that - specifically re the best-performing nation in any given yar?
<sjayo> we are still gaining in most parts of the world, but the obesity epidemic, which is already here and measurable, is about to rear its ugly head. you are about to see the publication of several articles indicating that cardiovascular disease has already reversed or is about to reverse.
<sjayo> best practice life expectancy from oeppen/vaupel is non-sensical as far as i'm concerned.
* Mind1 has joined #immortal
* Mind has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<sjayo> as you know, i've shown the same image with height and weight and running speed and come to equally ridiculous conclusions using linear extrapolation.
<Bart1> so, by refrring to obesity, you mean it is not only a technology issue, but also related to individual will-power?
<ag24> pnonsensical for predictive purposes, I totally agree - you should have seen my use of a famous Onion piece in Berkeley last year
<RichardJSchueler> which onion piece?
<ag24> http://www.theonion....tent/node/29626
<sjayo> it's an excess of 50-150 calories a day, that's all, but the problem is that we have a younger generation that is already obese at alarming rates, and it's growing worse by the day.
<ag24> my point was that the correlation has only worked for the past 20 years because of Japan
<sjayo> this is a cohort phenomenon -- it won't show up in period life expectancy for another 5-10 years or so, but it'll appear first among blacks and hispanics.
<Bart1> what would be the main cause of obesity in your view?
<Elrond> yes, but several interesting treatments for cardiovascular disease are on the horizon, which though perhaps aesthetically unpleasing to some, may greatly decrease obesity as a cause of “premature” death. And we aren't a huge step away from being able to replace whole organs. Bioartifical kidney's are in clinical trials now, liver models are in use in scientific laboratories. Even if Aubrey's ideas were to completely not pan out it seems we still could ex
<sjayo> eating too much and exercising too little.
<RichardJSchueler> I'd be willing to bet that many folks are most interested with the ferrari's of longevity achievement, and not so much homw many people will be forced to drive the camry's of healthspan
<Mind1> So is that what you mean by and inverse relationship between life expectancy and technology...young people sit are with their tech toys all day instead of getting exercise? :)
<RichardJSchueler> I.e. If the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket, it's nice to know that the tech is there for those that are willing to work for it :)
<Elrond> I'm certianly not disagreeing that obesity is bad btw
<Bart1> ok, but in the context of education, politics, etc...
<ag24> RJS - you are quite right - sjayo - you are right too in terms of predictions, but RJS is focusing on aspirations, which can eventiually influence trajectories
<sjayo> elrond, i hope all of this come to fruition. however, i don't make forecasts on technologies that might come to pass, i tend to focus on what we can see. if we make forecasts on what might be, then the sky is the limit.
<sjayo> put yourself in the shoes of the chief actuary at the social security administration and how you would make such forecasts.
<Elrond> But today, not at least taking a conservative approach on what "might be", amounts to next to no predictive power
* Guest2 has joined #immortal
<Elrond> considering our technological trends
<Mind1> good point elrond
<sjayo> actually, you are about to see something along the lines you suggest in our new macarthur aging initiative forecasts
<Elrond> i look forward to it
<ag24> I am pleased to find myself increasingly in demand from actuaries, and they care a lot these days about the influence of aspirations on subsequent trajectories
<BruceKlein>;-)
<Mind1> what...incorporating possible new medical tech in demographic forecasts?
<RichardJSchueler> racing technology always makes it's way down to the consumer, just takes a decade
<sjayo> yes, that is exactly what we are doing. in fact, i am providing a model of how decelerated aging will influence basic demographic variables such as population growth.
<ag24> mind1 - yes, they know what they don't know (or at least they are more careful in guesing what they don't know)
<ag24> sjayo - right - I bet you're not decelerating it enough though :-)
<sjayo> more importantly, my colleagues and i are beginning a new project on measuring the economics of the longevity dividend.
<sjayo> what is enough aubrey?
* Guest2 has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
* Nigel has joined #immortal
<sjayo> our projections extend out to 2050
<ag24> sjayo - right, I've heard - very happy that you're allocating effort to that
<ag24> sjayo - enough deceleration per year
* Elrond sets mode: +o Mind1
<sjayo> what is enough?
<ag24> as you know, 10% deceleration = escape velocity
<sjayo> actually, one model goes beyond 10% deceleration
<Mind1> whoa!!
<RichardJSchueler> You've probably seen this talk: http://www.ted.com/i...lks/view/id/140 Do you account for the decline of birthrate whic seems correlated to increases in wealth and longevity?
<RichardJSchueler> or is there a third cause whereby birthrate's decline not because of longevity or wealth, but some other unknown variable, or perhaps global "fashion"?
* Elrond sets mode: +o BruceKlein
<ag24> sjayo - fabulous - i.e., people experience decreasing mortality rate, right?
<sjayo> we are using TFRs in the range of 2.0 to 2.2, but we're considering testing the implications of going to 1.2 as in some european countries.
<sjayo> right aubrey
<ag24> I'm overjoyed
<ag24> glad I stayed up!
* Guest6556601 has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<sjayo> and we're decelerating mortality in two ways -- through the delay methodology i developed a quarter century ago, and by altering the slope of the total and intrinsic mortality curves.
<ag24> fine - just so long as individuals experience decreasing personal mortality risk in your model, it's what we need modelled
<sjayo> i believe it will be quite enlightening. i hope to have a manuscript written by next summer.
<Mind1> My question is, besides writing congress and telling them to support the longevity dividend, in your view, what can Imminst members do to generate more publicity and more funding for aging research?
* Nigel has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
<sjayo> no, no, no, not personal mortality aubrey. we deal with populations.
<ag24> let's make sure we're not misunderstanding
<ag24> MDRT is about 7.5
<Mind1> put my question on hold
<ag24> 1.1 to the power 7.5 is 2
<RichardJSchueler> TFR is tasty fruity refreshment's right?
<sjayo> that's impressive math. just think of your usual mortality curve, and then put a weight on it so the slope changes.
<ag24> thus, a 10% per year decrease of age-specific mortality rate constitutes a non-increasing risk of death per year for actual people who are getting older at 1y/y
<ag24> thus, a >10% decrease constitutes a decreasing risk - right?
<sjayo> a non increasing risk of death per year implies something other than a deceleration. however, it is a decelerating risk to be sure.
<sjayo> i assume you mean per year of age
<ag24> what does it imply other than a deceleration?
<ag24> if in year 2009 the risk of death of a 50yo is 1%
<ag24> and the MRDT is 7.5 years
<sjayo> oh, i think you're using deceleration in a different way aubrey
<ag24> then the risk of death in 2009 of a 51yo is 1.1%
<sjayo> do not think of decline, think of a decline in the rate of increase
<ag24> so if there is a 10%/y decrease of age-specific mortality
<ag24> then in 2010 the risk of death of the average 51yo wil be 1%
<ag24> wbut that 51yo is the same person who was 50yo in 2009
<ag24> right?
<sjayo> a 10% reduction in the risk of death at every age would yield only a small increase in life expectancy -- i demonstrated this in our science paper in 1990
* RichardLeis has quit IRC (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 2.0.0.11/2007112718])
<sjayo> a 55 percent reduction would yield a life expectancy of only about 85 years, 88 for women and 82 for men
<ag24> your 1990 paper certainly did not discuss a 10%/y decrease in age-specific mortality rates!
<sjayo> this is not the same as modifying the slope
<sjayo> and perhaps this is not the best place to be having this discussion.
<sjayo> yes it did aubrey
<sjayo> i think i should know
<ag24> right - nothing here is either slope or intercept - this is a succession of advances in intercept
<ag24> in 1990 you looked at a ***one-off*** decrease by x*.
<ag24> I' talking about a repeated decrease, every year
<sjayo> well, perhaps we've found something to disagree about in arizona
<ag24> heh - but not something that will be well understood byour hosts :-)
<sjayo> lol
<sjayo> any other questions from non-aubreys
<ag24> :-)
<Bram> hmm pity, I would've loved to hear the outcome of this debate :)
<sjayo> any students out there, please ask
<sjayo> i love students
<Mind1> My question is, besides writing congress and telling them to support the longevity dividend, in your view, what can Imminst members do to generate more publicity and more funding for aging research?
<sjayo> well, that's a good question. if you're talking about scientists in the field, that's easy. if you're talking about the general public, i'm not sure what they can do.
<ag24> I need to go to bed now I'm afraid. I' sure Jay will sleep on my comments :-)
<sjayo> what comments...
<sjayo> good night my friend
<Elrond> cheers aubrey!
<Mind1> bye Aubrey'
<RichardJSchueler> night aubrey
<Mind1> I am talking general public
<Mind1> most of the general public seems oblivious
<Mind1> to possible aging research/interventions
<Mind1> What is the most effective way to sway opinion
<sjayo> well, i'm not sure. i think it's our responsibility as scientists to educate them on what the difference is between aging research and disease-specific research.
<Mind1> I figured since you have been in the field so long...you would have some good insights
<Elrond> so you don't view aging as a disease?
<sjayo> most importalty, what we are talking about is something that they already support, they just don't quite know it yet.
<sjayo> of course not, aging is not a disease...
<sjayo> we discuss this issue in my first day of class every year.
* ag24 has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<Elrond> i wish I could take your class
* Guest has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<sjayo> you're most welcome to do so
* Guest has joined #immortal
<Bram> yeah, same here - any chance you have some lecture notes or something lying around that you could share?
<sjayo> i'm chair of admissions, apply
<Mind1> So you are saying taking the issue to the public one component at a time....focus on one disease and one proven intervention at a time....and then more people will eventually come around to the idea of slowing aging in general
<Elrond> i'd have to get away from med school;)
<sjayo> watch my nobel video -- that will give you a good sense of what i do in the classroom
<Elrond> will do
<Bart1> I think, to be honest, we need results from the sience community to be able to turn around general public interest or opinion
* mitkat has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<Matt> Slowing down the aging rate will push back or decrease certain age releated diseases. I'm surprised hasn't been the focus for curing many diseases we see today. Given the fact we know how effective something like CR is for the past 70 years (in rodents at least)
<sjayo> no, not one disease at a time. that is our mistake. decelerating aging will influence them all simultaneously. the medical and scienice community is entrenched in the idea of disease when most have no sense whatsoever of how aging influences disease expression. did you know that the word "aging" does not even appear in most textbooks on epidemology.
<Mind1> no way!!
<Mind1> I did not knwo that
<Elrond> i'm all too aware
<sjayo> it's quite amazing -- it's all risk factors. most of my medical students don't have a clue about aging.
<sjayo> student questions??
<sjayo> i need at least one question from a student...
<Bram> you declined mine way at the beginning :)
<sjayo> remind me
<Bram> about evidence for the different theories of aging
<Mind1> Bram...I think he said...
<sjayo> i did answer that...
<Mind1> studying centenarians would be the most beneficial area of research
<kanzure> Hmm. What's the opinion on the Gerontology Research Group?
<sjayo> i think the work on the genetics of centenarians will eventually yield pharmaceuticals that mimic the protective effects of some of these alleles
<Bram> oh, I must've missed that
<Bram> [01:38:28] <Mind> question from member Bram
<Bram> [01:38:43] <Mind> Which theory of the cause of aging seems to be supported by evidence the most at the moment?
<Bram> [01:39:53] <sjayo> that's outside of my area of expertise -- i'm sure you have other people here who can comment on that. i know of the theories of aging, but commenting on which one looks the most promising is best left to the biologists in the laboratories.
<Bram> anyway, never mind
<Bart1> looking beyond technology, statistics and funding, what do you considder other major hurdles to overcome?
<sjayo> hurdles to what?
<Bart1> extend lifespan in a general way
<sjayo> bart, remember, i don't consider lifespan extension the proper goal. healthspan extension is my goal. therein lies a big difference. extending life without extending health would be harmful in my view.
<Elrond> Naturally, I think we all agree with that
* Tech has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<Bart1> yes
* Guest2 has joined #immortal
<sjayo> but this is part of the problem. much of the language i've seen of late is focused on lifespan extension.
<sjayo> i can see why some folks do not like this, because they see what lifespan extension can do to people who do not have their health.
<Elrond> so you believe it is possible to extend lifespan without healthspan? (ie keep people alive a long time in a frail state?)
<Mind1> So the motto of Imminst should change from "for infinite lifespans" to "for healthy infinite lifespans" :)
<sjayo> absolutely elrond, we're already doing it. THIS is why we need research on decelerating aging.
<sjayo> I don't know what your motto should be, but I certainly wouldn't focus only on lifespan.
<Bart1> I never thought of it this way, for me it always was evident that reasonable quality of life is included.
<sjayo> go into a nursing home to see what happens when you get lifespan without healthspan -- it's quite an eye opener.
<Matt> Indeed
<Elrond> actually I believe our moto is not "Advocacy and research for unlimited lifespans"
<Elrond> yes, I've worked in one
<Mind1> right
<Mind1> doh! my bad
<sjayo> that is what people are afraid of, and i sympathize with this view, which is exactly why research in this area is so important. I argue that without decelerated aging, the disease specific model will probably yield an extension of unhealthy life.
<Elrond> I suppose we should all be clearer when speaking to others so they understand exactly what we mean
<Elrond> no one want to live forever in a frail state
<Mind1> Thanks for the advice
<sjayo> we have to educate our med students as well. believe me, i do this every year.
<CNorwood> but then you have to differentiate from just squaring the curve
<sjayo> we seem to be squaring the curve, but i'm not convinced that in the short term this will yield a compression of morbidity.
<Elrond> being like Tithonus is far from ideal
<Guest1> Jay, is there documented evidenced that healthspan rose in the 20th century, instead of just the lifespan? I mean in a world of greater and greater retirement age, extending lifespan seems more like a curse than a blessing.
<Elrond> thats why we need to be able to repair the damage
* JD has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<sjayo> part of the problem is that docs focus, quite appropriately, on treating disease. if i have one, then i'm pretty happy that i go to a doc with expertise in this area. however, they generally don't think in terms of big pictures, just the immediate health of their patients. i tend to go beyond that.
<CNorwood> There looks to be great strides in treatment of chronic pain
<kanzure> Isn't it their job to have foresight in preventive medical science?
<sjayo> both healthspan and lifespan have increased in the 20th century, but accompanying that has been an extension of unhealthy life and the expression of quite nasty conditions at older ages. the pricess of success.
<sjayo> price
<Elrond> being in the medical field that does seem to be slowly changing
<Elrond> Yes, in the 1800s far fewer people lived long enough to get Alzheimer's et al
<kanzure> I wonder if there are any "transhumanist" (or SENS and that crowd) related scholarships for students interested in pursuing MSTP or medical science in general.
<sjayo> alzheimer's disease is the "gift" of great longevity
* Didier has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
* Zariuq has joined #immortal
<sjayo> a negative tradeoff, and i'm afraid we're headed for others.
<Elrond> what other diseases of now extreme old age, do you think will become more common with advancing longevity?
<Mind1> cnacer seems to be an obvious one
<sjayo> many more sensory impairments, infectious disease are going to make a comeback with a vengeance
<Elrond> due to antibiotic resistance or due to impaired immunity of old age?
<Matt> Antibiotic resistant bacterial infections
<sjayo> we have two main Achilles heels -- non replicating muscle fibers and neurons. yes matt, that's part of it.
<sjayo> both elrond
<sjayo> we published two papers on the re-emergence of infectious diseases -- one is published in Population Bulletin. I suggest reading it.
<CNorwood> sjayo - Aubrey thinks that the U.S. is way too conservative in what it will research and what drugs are allowed to come to market (skewed risk/reward)...do you also see this as a problem?
<Elrond> the biggest one obviously being neurons, however there were some interesting talks at the SENS III conference on replacing neurons and getting them to connect
<kanzure> Insuring memory integrity over superlong periods of time sounds like a difficult task as well.
<Elrond> obviously fairly early stage
<Guest1> It seems to me that with all these new diseases of the old age coming out that we hit a wall on the healthspan advancment lately, and retirement age is less and less in synch with our healthspans. Don't we need a distinct field for aging on Biology?
<kanzure> Elrond: How would they connect new neurons? The important point is being able to either slowly introduce the neurons, to see if they can "pick up" on the old memories/connections, or secondly able to instantly replace the old connections with new ones (which seems to require nanotech?).
<sjayo> aubrey and i probably disagree on this. the passing of DSHEA allows just about anything on the market.
<sjayo> i'm writing a new book on this topic now.
<CNorwood> thanks
<sjayo> anything else -- I have 10 more minutes.
<Bart1> do you expect influence (positive / negative) from politics or religious organisations towards increasing healthspan and lifespan?
<kanzure> There was the recent announcement from the Pope that I remember seeing; it did not favorably look at life-extension.
<sjayo> i'm optimistic that both politicians and religious organizations will find our argument compelling.
<Bart1> why?
<sjayo> however, we have to make this argument very carefully.
<sjayo> because what we are promoting is what they are already doing -- we're just proposing a new way to do the same thing more efficiently.
<Elrond> they've never interfered before with evolutionary type progress
<kanzure> I think it opened up with ( http://www.vatican.v...e-salvi_en.html ) "Do we really want to live eternally?" Anyway, back on topic.
<Elrond> no reason to expect they would now
<sjayo> well, if they're using antibiotics and seeing their doctor, they're already interfering.
<Mind1> right
<sjayo> they can't have it both ways, and i think this issue will come up at the debate in arizona.
<Mind1> I would like to extend Professor Olshansky a warm round of IRC applause *applause*. Many thanks for the enlightening conversation and advice.
<sjayo> thanks for having me -- it's been a pleasure.
<Bart1> thanks!
<Mind1> Thanks for all the great questions from the gallery
<Mind1> Log of the chat will be posted in the forums
* CNorwood has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<Matt> It's been great! Jay you're a good guy! I hope that you can really get this moving forward for longer healthier lives :)
<Mind1> Great attendance tonight
<sjayo> my best to all of you.

#16 Live Forever Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 03 December 2007 - 04:21 AM

Thanks so much for the log, Bruce. Looks like it was a good discussion.

#17 Bram Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Maastricht

Posted 03 December 2007 - 04:54 PM

I thought this line was really rather impressive:

<sjayo> you will see a rather dramatic change in how much money is spent on basic aging research beginning next year

I look forward to the manuscript he was talking about that'll go into more detail. I had no idea there were people actively lobbying with US senators on this.

#18 Live Forever Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 03 December 2007 - 05:29 PM

I thought this line was really rather impressive:

<sjayo> you will see a rather dramatic change in how much money is spent on basic aging research beginning next year

I look forward to the manuscript he was talking about that'll go into more detail. I had no idea there were people actively lobbying with US senators on this.

Yes, Dr. Olshansky is very involved in the "Longevity Dividend" as discussed previously.
http://www.imminst.o...t...p;t=9614&s=
http://www.imminst.o...o...c=11847&hl=

#19 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 03 December 2007 - 06:28 PM

Dr. Olshansky was another in a great series of guests recently. He gave a little preview of new wording that will be in the longevity dividend manuscript including the different demographic projections from various decelerations in the rate of aging.

I found it interesting that he does not take any supplements. His reasoning is that most supplements have not been proven by rigorous scientific studies. He did say he would consider taking a future supp from Sirtis, if their products are proven via double blind placebo controlled studies.

Chat log for download:

Attached Files



#20 lunarsolarpower Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:BC, Canada

Posted 22 November 2009 - 06:00 AM

This was a great chat to read through again.

I found this video containing a 15 minute set of excerpts from a recent SJO talk. I couldn't find the Nobel conference talk he mentioned though.

#21 Mind Re: Chat With S J Olshansky Sunday Dec. 2nd, 6:30 P.m. Central

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 25 January 2012 - 10:36 PM

SJO and DeGrey will be discussing the state of anti-aging once again on Thursday January 26th. Check it out here: http://news.sciencem...of-antiagi.html

Through the years, their views have converged. Even though SJO has been the more conservative of the pair, he does care about health and does want to reduce the suffering associated with age related disease. I am unsure if he has yet come out in favor of indefinite lifespans.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users