• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

How to achieve ‘biological immortality’ naturally


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:23 AM


How to achieve ‘biological immortality’ naturally
December 6, 2010 by David Despain

Posted Image
Evolutionary biologist Michael Rose, professor at University of California, Irvine, says he has discovered a natural way to achieve “biological immortality” without the use of anti-aging drugs and stem cell treatments.

“It’s one you can start this evening,” the author of Evolutionary Biology of Aging shared in his talk Saturday at Humanity+ @ Caltech in Los Angeles. “It comes at no cost, you don’t have to buy anything, and, in fact, it might save you money.”

The term “biologically immortality” in gerontology is not to be confused with the Greek idea of immortality, or a god-like sense of living forever. It’s the point in which the exponential increase in mortality rates of a species population appears to level off, producing a sudden late-life plateau.

The phenomenon happens when a species reaches a state where it ceases to age, or no longer experiences a further loss of physiological function, Rose said. Rose suggests humans also experience a biological immortality phase if they are able to live long enough. “You can die, but the idea here is that you are non-aging,” Rose said, “versus aging with a decline of survival likelihood under good conditions.”

It’s an hypothesis that he supports in detail in his forthcoming book, Does Aging Stop?, co-authored with Casandra L. Rauser and Laurence D. Mueller (Spring 2011, Oxford University Press).

Humans eventually achieve this period of non-aging, the authors suggest, just as several other multicellular living forms do, such as a creosote bush growing in the Mojave desert that has lived for longer than 10,000 years, and other long-lived organisms, including some animals.

“The fact that such a diversity of eukaryotic [all life forms except bacteria] organisms can have indefinite lifespan shows you that there is precisely nothing about eukaryotic cell or molecular biology that requires an aging process,” Rose said, countering the “Aristotelian” view that aging is an inevitability, caused primarily by an accumulation of molecular damage and decline in physical function.

Aging as an evolution byproduct

Rose argues that an organism ages because the process is a byproduct forced upon us by evolution by natural selection—governed by the passing on of genes.

That’s because across evolutionary species in eukaryotes, the genes selected generally favor survival of the young in a population, and then mortality rates begin to rise exponentially. “This is why you are all aging,” Rose said.

He began his work on fruit flies by tricking natural selection to produce what eventually became “Methuselah flies,” for which he is well known. The trick? Take the eggs from fruit flies that have maintained enough of their physiological function to reproduce in old age, and repeat.

Selection for late-life reproduction eventually made longer-lived fruit flies. This delayed-reproduction lineage, Rose showed, lives up to five times longer than average. “Hugh Heffner would love it,” he quipped.

From fruit fly to human immortality

Even better, the aging phase eventually passes, Rose explained, and survival reaches a plateau, which is when the biological immortality phase starts. The chances of dying become constant, neither increasing or decreasing, a period of no more aging.

Rose was originally doubtful of this model of aging because it was contrary to the Gompertz model, which has it that mortality increases exponentially with age and is unrelenting. But then he realized that natural selection’s evolutionary pressures would stop falling, and allow a period of later biological immortality.

For us, instead of his fruit flies, he has put together what he calls his “natural immortality plan,” one that he hypothesizes can keep us living far beyond the old-age record of Jeanne Calment, who lived until age 122.

Calment inspired Rose’s new plan—because before the immortality phase theory, there was no reason for why she or other supercentenarians could survive so long. He explained that Calment may have reached a phase where physical decline stabilized. And, as Rose showed in fruit flies, aging can potentially remain stabilized indefinitely.

However, Rose explained that the unfortunate problem for humans is that they have a rough and long aging phase. “We hit late-life immortality plateaus very late in life, in our nineties—in your eighties you’re still aging—and we do so in terrible condition,” he said.

“But,” he added, “there are good reasons theoretically that hunter-gatherer populations are more like fruit flies which hit immortality plateaus quite early. That, in fact, they might hit their transition from aging to late-life immortality perhaps in their fifties or sixties and do so in better shape.

Posted Image
Biological Immortality in Late Life (credit: Michael R. Rose)

He explained, “When you have an earlier likelihood of death from somebody’s spear in the back or because you can’t cope with infection, immortal phases should start earlier.

The natural immortality plan (for 40+ people only)

So Rose suggests a fast route to the immortality phase. “The key is not to slow the rate of aging, but go directly to the immortal phase at a lower rate of mortality, which is exactly what the fruit flies do,” he said.

How do you make the transition to the immortality phase earlier and stop aging sooner? Adhere to a regimen of “what is natural for humans, what is our best environment.”

That excludes an industrial lifestyle and a Western-style diet that involves sitting several hours in front of a TV or computer and munching on Twinkies, he explained. Instead, adopt an ancestral hunter-gatherer lifestyle and diet (the paleolithic, or “paleo” diet).

A paleo diet is a regimen that includes only foods available before the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic, which includes lean meats, shore-based foods, fruits and vegetables. Foods that became available after the Neolithic such as grains, dairy, and processed foods are all avoided.

But, interestingly, Rose told me, for people of Eurasian ancestry, he disagrees with the age a paleo diet should be adopted as advised by main proponents of the paleo diet, such as evolutionary nutrition researchers Loren Cordain and S. Boyd Eaton. He said that young people of Eurasian ancestry have actually adapted well to new environments brought on by the agricultural revolution.

“But at later ages,” he added, “you will lose that adaptation to a novel environment and you will revert back to a condition to which you are better conditioned to a long ancestral environment.”

He explained that after age 40, the physiology of people of Eurasian ancestry appears to return to a pre-adapted state with age to one that is better off with the same foods our pre-Neolithic ancestors ate: meat, seafood, nuts, fruits and vegetables.

“Don’t eat anything derived from a grain or grass of any type—that includes rice and corn—and don’t eat anything from the udder of a cow if you are over 35 or 40,” Rose warns. “If you are under 30 you should probably eat an Andrew Weil-style organic, agricultural diet.”

What this suggests is that the ancestral hunter-gatherer diet is best viewed as a late-life aging therapy. In combination with modern medicine and future breakthroughs of the next 10 to 15 years, that could allow you to join the exclusive club of supercentenarians — or beyond.


Rose’s natural recipe for immortality
Adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle after 35 to 40 if Eurasian, earlier if ancestry is less Eurasian. If younger than 30 and Eurasian, continue on a post-agricultural revolution diet (or Andrew Weil-style diet).
Use the best modern medicine
Use autologous (from your own cells) tissue repair as it becomes available in five or more years
Use next-generation pharmaceuticals in the next 10 or more years
“With this recipe, I feel, many of you could be alive, basically, indefinitely,” Rose said.

Paleo diet

The paleo diet, sometimes called the “caveman diet,” is one that mimics the diet of our ancestral hunter-gatherer ancestors in the Paleolithic era before the advent of the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic and animal husbandry.

It includes meats, seafoods, fruits, nuts, and vegetables. It excludes processed foods (including meats), grain-derived foods such as pasta and breads, and dairy-derived foods such as milk, yogurt and cheese.

Proponents of the diet such as Loren Cordain and S. Boyd Eaton argue that the agricultural revolution caused an “evolutionary discordance” between diet and our “genetically determined biology” as shaped through evolution.

Andrew Weil-style diet

Andrew Weil, MD, of the University of Arizona, has authored several popular articles and books about health and diet, including best-sellers Eating Well for Optimum Health and Healthy Aging. He also has a popular Web site.

The “Andrew Weil diet” is one in accordance with more conventional advice from dietitians and nutritionists. It includes eating whole grains, fruits and vegetables (50 to 60 percent of calories); fats largely derived from monounsaturated and polyunsatured oils (30 percent of calories); and protein (10 to 20 percent of calories) mainly from vegetarian sources such as soy.

He also recommends eating 40 grams of fiber a day and receiving calcium from dairy or from other sources such as vegetables.


OK we now have one of the kings of our movement telling you go get on a Paleo diet. Stop resisting :cool: the evidence is going this direction anyway (SAFA OK, RedMeat OK, etc). For those new to the idea, one of our ridiculously research driven & intelligent members Sillewater (studying Medicine) beat Mr Rose to the punch by over a year, and in his blog has been breaking Paleo down to a modern approach, and integrating it directly with our Life Extension & Longevity Goals. I even hear the very Michael Rose himself loves the blog and is a keen follower. Checkout his blog for Immortality+Paleo 101 Beyond Paleo (recently renamed/moved to Specific Strength)

Here is his basic principles in point form:
-24 Hour Fasting (2-3x/week)
-Adequate Protein (1g/kg)
-AGE Minimizing Food Preparation
-Carbohydrate Intake <120g (not incl. fiber)
-Optimal Nutrition (1.5x RDA), Phytonutrients, and Carninutrients
-Prudent Supplement Use (D3, K2, Mag)
-Resistance Training w/ Recovery

Edited by e Volution, 13 December 2010 - 01:39 AM.


#2 Jay

  • Guest
  • 406 posts
  • 22
  • Location:New York

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:22 PM

It's an interesting theory no doubt. But, I think there is another theory for why people get sicker as they age -- the accumulation of insults. In other words, eating crap may take some time to cause noticeable damage to a new body. This damage-accumulation theory seems the more obvious one to me, so I'm wondering if there is any evidence as to why it might be wrong.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:42 PM

It's an interesting theory no doubt. But, I think there is another theory for why people get sicker as they age -- the accumulation of insults. In other words, eating crap may take some time to cause noticeable damage to a new body. This damage-accumulation theory seems the more obvious one to me, so I'm wondering if there is any evidence as to why it might be wrong.


Yes, see the mortality graphs of fruit flies -- they plateau after a certain age, which contradicts the "aging = exponential accumulation of damage" theory.

But, on the other hand, the fruit flies do die at some point. So what kills them, if they are "biologically immortal"?

I find the idea of switching from one diet to another based on age fascinating, but I would like to see more than just theory behind it. I also find it hard to believe that consuming lots of PUFAs -- as the Andrew Weil diet suggests -- is good when you're young.

#4 motif

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • -57
  • Location:US

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:49 PM

good article, something told me anyway I stopped aging since I switched to paleo... :wub:

#5 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 13 December 2010 - 04:25 PM

Wow, that's interesting. Rose isn't exactly talking about actual immortality. He is talking about mortality rate I think. You still accumulate damage with time, so you still age, its just for some reason your rate of mortality doesn't increase. He observed it in flies and there's research to show that it also occurs in humans:

Cancer Res. 2008 Jun 1;68(11):4465-78.Cancer suppression at old age.Harding C, Pompei F, Lee EE, Wilson R.


Interested in seeing what his book says.

So since agriculture human have been able to age because we no longer die from spears and stuff. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors died much earlier. So theoretically at the age of 40 that would be a hunter-gatherer "late-life". He recommends the paleolithic diet under the assumption that our gene expression is altered by consuming a paleo diet, thus expressing a phenotype we would have millions of years ago (which probably does occur). Interesting idea.

I don't mean any disrespect to Art de Vany, but he is probably in this plateau. Like what do we think he will die of? Heart attack, pelvic fracture, pneumonia, cancer? The probability that these will happen to him are lower compared to another 73 year old man who isn't following a paleo lifestyle. Also the person not following a paleo lifestyle continues to age until 90, where he hits the plateau but presumably is already very frail thus the probability of death is higher. While Art entered the plateau at an earlier age thus maintaining the probability he entered at. He still intrinsically ages and eventually the probability will become realized with time but he isn't getting worse.

I remember Michael Rose had a video. I'll have to watch it now.

Wonder what MR has to say about it.

Edit: o yea, thanks for the plug eVo. I moved my blog to a new name:
http://specificstrength.blogspot.com/

Edited by Sillewater, 13 December 2010 - 04:26 PM.


#6 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:25 PM

I have a<b> view of the late-life mortality plateau that is in line with quasi all facts and theories</b>, including theories of James Vaupel, Leonid Gavrilov, most biogerontologists (including SENS), and Michael Rose.... except the latest concept of Michael Rose that we could lower the plateau.<br /><br />Let's call that &quot;<b>Unhealthy Die First</b>&quot; (<b>UDF</b>) : unhealthy people die first, healthy people will become unhealthy soon or later, and this generates a plateau at high ages. To describe it precisely I'll underline a confusion (sorry JLL): <i>see the mortality graphs of fruit flies -- they plateau after a certain age, which contradicts the &quot;aging = exponential accumulation of damage&quot; theory.</i><br /><br />There is actually no contradiction here:<br /><ul class='bbc'><li>Everyone in fact continues to age and age and age... but from different mortality levels [and arguably different aging rates], that depend on genetics, lifestyle, initial load damage at birth and at adolescence, etc..</li><li>With this variability accross individuals, the first ones who attain very high mortality rates die first, so the global mortality rate becomes the one of the remaining population, that is lower by definition but also increases (as everyone never stops aging) and the next ones attained very high mortality rates die, etc etc.</li><li>There is some continuity of variability so we see a plateau rather than oscillations around a plateau.</li><li>There is some discontinuity at extremes: cases like Jeanne Calment would be people who have the chance to at an extreme side of the variability range -- it would be nice to understand how they got there</li></ul>With UDF, <b>the only way</b> I think to lower the plateau is to postpone it, i.e. it <b>is to reduce the rate of aging</b>: in that case the persons (whether the more at risk or the next ones) spend more under medium mortality and eventually mostly die under medium-high mortality rates, before a large part of them get to a high-mortality-rate. To reach a plateau sooner... increase your mortality rates<br /><br />Now, I am not saying that UDF goes against what Michael Rose proposes to do....

Edited by AgeVivo, 25 December 2010 - 06:20 PM.


#7 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:23 PM

Actually, from an evoluitonary point of view, is Michael Rose's recommendation good or bad?
Here is one point of view (correct on not, to discuss):

  • On the one hand I understand that we are genetically more adapated to paleo diets at high ages (if some sufficient fraction of paleo-ancesters lived at high ages)
  • On the other hand I am a little afraid that behaving too much like paleo-ancesters may reactivate some portions of the genome that could code for severe diseases that would appear at ages 40, 50, 60, 70 (if very few paleo-ancesters reached high ages), portions of the genome that would be deactivated when eating grains
With that point of view the balance depends on the fraction of paleo-ancesters that reached high ages -- anyone knows about it?

#8 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 14 December 2010 - 06:15 PM

Well what we see is evidence of a mortality plateau in flies and possibly humans (cancer study I posted, hopefully Rose has other). Are you talking about antagonistic pleiotropy?

#9 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:02 PM

Well what we see is evidence of a mortality plateau in flies and possibly humans (cancer study I posted, hopefully Rose has other). Are you talking about antagonistic pleiotropy?

hi. there are lots of evidence in humans. for example if you take general population data from many countries, you see the decelerating increase of mortality at high ages in virtually any country

in my posts above (http://www.imminst.o...post__p__444695 ) i was explaining that this plateau has nothing mysterious. it is simply due to the variability within the population. no need to see antagonist pleiotropy in it. I guess I was perhaps not sufficiently clear, if read my post again please ask where i should clarify. thx

#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 December 2010 - 10:14 PM

On the other hand I am a little afraid that behaving too much like paleo-ancesters may reactivate some portions of the genome that could code for severe diseases that would appear at ages 40, 50, 60, 70 (if very few paleo-ancesters reached high ages), portions of the genome that would be deactivated when eating grains

I really can't see how grains would inactivate a significant portion of the genome. Our genome contains all manner of bad things that have been silenced, but our accumulation of such genetic bombs has been going on for a lot longer than we've been practicing agriculture.

#11 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:44 PM

....

On the other hand I am a little afraid that behaving too much like paleo-ancesters may reactivate some portions of the genome that could code for severe diseases that would appear at ages 40, 50, 60, 70 (if very few paleo-ancesters reached high ages), portions of the genome that would be deactivated when eating grains
....


This sounds like antagonistic pleiotropy to me. Sorry didn't read your previous post carefully. Are you saying that on the individual level you cannot bring down the plateau?

I don't think it would just be grains, like niner says, but probably the whole macronutrient distribution thing. But who knows, kitavans are considered paleo aren't they. What is Rose's take on the "real" paleo diet?

Could you explain more why fraction of paleo ancestors reaching high ages matter? Are you saying that if there is a large proportion then the plateau will come lower?

As always when talking about paleo kismet brings reason to the discussion:
http://www.imminst.o...post__p__444840

So with Michael Rose's idea are we trying to balance intrinsic aging and rate of mortality. I don't see how they are different like you explain AgeVivo.

#12 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 15 December 2010 - 01:22 AM

I saw Rose's videos on this ( on youtube) a month or so ago. He looks pretty good for 53, unlike many aging researchers, heh. I found his presentation regarding switching to a paleo diet after age 40? persuasive. I found his argument about 'biological immortality' after a certain age fuzzy at best. As someone else already stated... the fruit flies still die, so they must be aging. (just not at an accelerating rate???, big deal). I read somewhere recently that Aubrey De Grey thought the plateau was just a statistical quirk of no great importance.
  • like x 1

#13 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 December 2010 - 02:07 AM

the fruit flies still die, so they must be aging. (just not at an accelerating rate???, big deal). I read somewhere recently that Aubrey De Grey thought the plateau was just a statistical quirk of no great importance.

No great importance, unless living to 120 or whatever the human number would be is, you know, meaningful. Sure, it's not "immortality", but it's not like Aubrey has any therapy to offer at this moment. A reduced rate of aging is better than nothing, and I don't think Rose is trying to sell this as something it's not. In fact, he doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything, unless he's got a patent on paleo.

#14 e Volution

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 15 December 2010 - 02:32 AM

Sure, it's not "immortality", but it's not like Aubrey has any therapy to offer at this moment. A reduced rate of aging is better than nothing, and I don't think Rose is trying to sell this as something it's not. In fact, he doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything, unless he's got a patent on paleo.

"It’s an hypothesis that he supports in detail in his forthcoming book, Does Aging Stop?, co-authored with Casandra L. Rauser and Laurence D. Mueller (Spring 2011, Oxford University Press)."

Edited by e Volution, 15 December 2010 - 02:33 AM.


#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 December 2010 - 03:21 AM

Sure, it's not "immortality", but it's not like Aubrey has any therapy to offer at this moment. A reduced rate of aging is better than nothing, and I don't think Rose is trying to sell this as something it's not. In fact, he doesn't seem to be trying to sell anything, unless he's got a patent on paleo.

"It’s an hypothesis that he supports in detail in his forthcoming book, Does Aging Stop?, co-authored with Casandra L. Rauser and Laurence D. Mueller (Spring 2011, Oxford University Press)."

Well, I guess he's selling a book about it... You could always go to Barnes & Noble, order a tall coffee, and read it for free... Rose spoke (via skype or somesuch) at the recent ImmInst conference in Brussels. We have a video of the talk, which is all about this. I have a link to it and some discussion of it in this post.

#16 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 December 2010 - 05:01 AM

I can see the value in saying that it is possible to reach a plateau in mortality rate as an argument about the nature of aging. It may even be beneficial to make lowering the mortality rate at when the plateau is reached a goal. Hopefully, the concept won't be spun into more than that.

Edited by Athanasios, 15 December 2010 - 05:22 AM.


#17 zokvok

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 12
  • Location:England

Posted 23 December 2010 - 06:55 PM

“When you have an earlier likelihood of death from somebody’s spear in the back or because you can’t cope with infection, immortal phases should start earlier."

Not sure if I follow this...
If dying young is likely, then how well you do when you're old is effectively irrelevent.
Yes, a 40 year old caveman is old for a caveman, but still quite young for a human. I can see no reason for a dangerous enivornment to lower the age of the plateau.

Of course I may have simply misunderstood.
We'll see.

#18 Lucas

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Lima, Peru

Posted 24 December 2010 - 06:15 AM

I like the Immortal Phase hypothesis. However, I dont support the use of un unhealthy diet like Dr. Weil's just because you can tolerate it. Why eat something that has nothing to offer just because you can tolerate it?
  • like x 1

#19 Marios Kyriazis

  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 24 December 2010 - 02:06 PM

It is a bit simplistic to accept that by just eating a few things and not eating others you are going to live forever. In fact this article does not suggest anything new. Paleo diets have been around for ever (my grandfather wrote a book about it in the early 1910's). The definition of 'immortality' is also not relevant to everyday average people. A particular diet, in association with certain supplements and a suitable lifestyle may help in overall expanding average lifespan but it will not make any difference to maximum lifespan (and thus to 'immortality').
  • like x 1

#20 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137

Posted 24 December 2010 - 08:09 PM

Well he at least has a great skin (walks the walk, so to say) heh: Posted Image

Tho' what's more important is that he's one of the very few (if any) that is doing a real science, in a sense that theory actually predicts experimental results. And he's probably the only one that has been able to postpone aging of a specie WITHOUT pay-offs (vice versa - fecundity and overall fitness just increased). As most other interventions has some "down side" or a shortcoming, Lose-WIn situation in contrast to WIn-WIn one, so I'd pay more attention to what this man is/will be saying.
I guess we may be a little biased by the "tweaking" or "repairing" point of view, when what he says is quite a different thing - the evolutionary achieved OPTIMAL health, that means - ALL the variables fall into places so that the result is what we see - extended lifespan, increased fitness, etc... not one tweaked gene, not "repaired" damage of one or two types, there's just no need to do that, as if there isn't a cause (and cause, as it's clear by expiremental results - is evolutionary pressure, NOT the damage per say, this is very crucial point he makes IMHO, and I still need to wrap my head around this better myself...) there isn't an effect...

Edited by VidX, 24 December 2010 - 08:12 PM.


#21 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 25 December 2010 - 05:46 AM

It is a bit simplistic to accept that by just eating a few things and not eating others you are going to live forever. In fact this article does not suggest anything new. Paleo diets have been around for ever (my grandfather wrote a book about it in the early 1910's). The definition of 'immortality' is also not relevant to everyday average people. A particular diet, in association with certain supplements and a suitable lifestyle may help in overall expanding average lifespan but it will not make any difference to maximum lifespan (and thus to 'immortality').

That's more or less true; I would argue that a great diet will have some effect on max LS compared to a bad one, but diet alone is probably not going to result in a very large change in max LS. However, Rose is proposing not just diet but also using whatever medical science can provide, particularly autologous stem cell therapy as it becomes available. In Rose's model, diet is just the first rung of the ladder in a de Grey-like "escape velocity" schema.

#22 e Volution

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 25 December 2010 - 09:01 AM

It is a bit simplistic to accept that by just eating a few things and not eating others you are going to live forever. In fact this article does not suggest anything new. Paleo diets have been around for ever (my grandfather wrote a book about it in the early 1910's). The definition of 'immortality' is also not relevant to everyday average people. A particular diet, in association with certain supplements and a suitable lifestyle may help in overall expanding average lifespan but it will not make any difference to maximum lifespan (and thus to 'immortality').

Do you follow a Paleo-type diet mrszeta? What is the name of your grandfather's book, be great to check it out. is it in english?

#23 Marios Kyriazis

  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 25 December 2010 - 11:07 AM

It is a bit simplistic to accept that by just eating a few things and not eating others you are going to live forever. In fact this article does not suggest anything new. Paleo diets have been around for ever (my grandfather wrote a book about it in the early 1910's). The definition of 'immortality' is also not relevant to everyday average people. A particular diet, in association with certain supplements and a suitable lifestyle may help in overall expanding average lifespan but it will not make any difference to maximum lifespan (and thus to 'immortality').

Do you follow a Paleo-type diet mrszeta? What is the name of your grandfather's book, be great to check it out. is it in english?


I try to follow a paleo diet although it is not always easy. When I go to my farm in Italy for the summer I also live a paleo lifestyle with hardly any technology whatsoever, for months on end. This is a hormetic approach that helps maximise cognitive inputs, novelty, variety and natural goal-seeking behaviour. I believe that this has epigenetic benefits that influce my repair mechanisms and reduces the risk of chronic degenerative damage. Regarding my grandfather's book, this is in Greek and out of print, but all the relevant concepts are mentioned by others in modern books.

#24 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 25 December 2010 - 06:47 PM

behaving too much like paleo-ancesters may reactivate some portions of the genome that could code for severe diseases that would appear at ages

I really can't see how grains would inactivate a significant portion of the genome. Our genome contains all manner of bad things that have been silenced, but our accumulation of such genetic bombs has been going on for a lot longer than we've been practicing agriculture.

fast adaptations to avoid late age diseases during grain period could have happened through promoter activated by environnent (environment: grain/méat/other)

Edited by AgeVivo, 25 December 2010 - 10:27 PM.


#25 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 15 May 2011 - 07:49 PM

Linking the thread here: http://www.longecity...postpone-aging/

Rose has a site now with his 55Theses:

http://55theses.org/
http://michaelroses5...ained-final.pdf (pdf explaining them all)


This thread is more substantive, discussion should be continued here.

Edited by Sillewater, 15 May 2011 - 07:50 PM.

  • like x 1

#26 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 16 May 2011 - 04:42 AM

Wonder what MR has to say about it.




Michael Rae?

#27 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 16 May 2011 - 05:00 AM

Yea.

Here's Aubrey's take:

#28 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,111 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 26 June 2011 - 08:54 PM

I fully agree with Aubrey's analysis (that, this time, is very technical): heterogenity of a population is sufficient to explain such plateaus (or succession of plateaus)

the clearest way to have the plateau earlier is to increase mortality rates... not what we want



#29 neue regel

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 2
  • Location:1

Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:12 PM

I find the 24-hours Fasting rule is ridiculous and unjustified. I'm not in any religious cult like Islam doing Ramadan or something.
  • dislike x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users