8 replies to this topic

[Aurel]

To understand the fundaments of aging I would love if some of the more advanced members could answer my question.

In a pure fictional setting, how would a human body change (including aging) - especially in contrast to real world settings - to whom the following principals apply:

- Perfect diet - and that means perfect. The intake of nutrients etc. would match exactly the needed amount, whatever that would be.

- No contact to external toxics / harmful bacteria / virus / prions

- No contact to harmful sunlight, but only to fictional rays of sunlight in an amount needed (for internal clock, vitamin d, etc)

- Of course to accidents / contact with forces of higher power (earthquakes, etc.).

- Perfect activity - the exact amount needed to keep all the muscles in check

 

Etc. I guess you get the point (someone could add social activites and so forth, but please dont let split hairs).

 

What would happen in that scenario. Why would someone age?

 

Thank you so much!

[Raphy]

You would age because our very metabolism is generating garbage in its processes. Cells respiration is creating free radicals that slowly damage mitochondria (our cells power plants), our stem cells pools are depleting while regenerating our tissue,...

 

So while it is a good idea to make sure you protect your body as much as possible (eat a keto diet is the way to go imho), you can not stop aging yet.

 

However, check out what the SENS foundation is doing here: http://sens.org/Every bit of helps can increase your chance to prevent aging.

 

 

 

[Aurel]

Yes, the metabolism creates products while working. Many of wich are reused in the body itself, others are useless and are carried out of the system on several ways. There is an abundance of cells etc. that do exactly that. In the setting as described this should not lead to an accumulation of waste (that would be my guess at least).

 

So again, what would happen to such a body?

 

P.S.: This has not the purpose of me finding the right diet (keto for example) and is a simple thought experiment, to increase my understanding of the aging problem.

[corb]

Don't want to go into too much detail so I'm just going to say this - you're oversimplifying the problem and you're making some big assumptions.

Mammals and indeed humans have lived from the North Pole, through the Equator, to the South Pole. Eating, living, etc in those widely different environments with little effects on maximum lifespan. Mammals are adaptable. The more adaptable an organism is the greater pleiotropy it has - the more pleiotropy it has the more "imperfect" it is. Having more complexity, just means we can break down in more complex ways.

And indeed it means there's no perfect environment for us to live in.

 

Of course I'm not considering the possibility that aging is mainly a programmatic occurrence in this mental exercise. Which is a mistake.

You should consider programmed down regulation at least a bit in my opinion if you want to understand aging better.

[Aurel]

No, I do not make any assumptions at all. But as two persons already misunderstood me, I try to make it even clearer.

 

First question: If one would "beam" every nutrient / oxygen / etc. directy into (or in front of) every single cell in the human body. That includes the large amount of natrium / calcium etc. At the same time we would "beam" every single item that has to leave the cell out of it. All this in every single moment in time, according to the exact need of each cell. Plus the settings I made in the first post (external harm etc.).

What would happen with such a body? Would it age and why?

[Raphy]

It would age because the VERY PROCESS OF LIVING creates byproducts that degradates your body overtime. I dont know how to make it much clearer.

 

Our metabolism is not perfect, even if the environment around it is, even if there are mechanisms to correct errors and remove garbage, those mechanisms are not perfect and irremediable damage will happens overtime.

 

There are also theories of a certain programmation of aging, which means your body would be somewhat programmed to die (DNA methylation for example which changes gene expression over time). I dont think it is relevant if we can find a way to repair damages as they happen as the SENS foundation plan on doing.

[niner]

No, I do not make any assumptions at all. But as two persons already misunderstood me, I try to make it even clearer.

 

First question: If one would "beam" every nutrient / oxygen / etc. directy into (or in front of) every single cell in the human body. That includes the large amount of natrium / calcium etc. At the same time we would "beam" every single item that has to leave the cell out of it. All this in every single moment in time, according to the exact need of each cell. Plus the settings I made in the first post (external harm etc.).

What would happen with such a body? Would it age and why?

 

If the things that would be beamed out included the reactive intermediates that were about to damage your tissues, and they were beamed out before they could do the damage, that would eliminate some aging.  If they also included the indigestible molecules that we otherwise have no way of getting rid of, and which eventually clog the cell, that would eliminate some more aging.  We'd also need to beam out aggregated and mis-folded proteins that might otherwise form the amyloids that will eventually kill you if nothing else does.  The body doesn't have ways to do these things itself, and that's the problem.

 

On the other hand, if you mean that you were setting up the optimal working environment for each cell, without doing anything that can't or doesn't happen in nature, then you would certainly still age, although you would be in pretty good shape while doing it and would probably have a long healthy life, but you probably wouldn't live longer than about 120 years.

[Aurel]

As I wrote since the very first post - imagine that every single molecule etc. that has to leave the cell, will definetly leave it. Thus including what you call garbage. So there would be no stacking up of old material etc. All of it would be - only in this imagenary experiment of course - directly beamed out of each cell in the moment that it happens.

 

What would happen with such a body? Would it age?

[Aurel]

 

No, I do not make any assumptions at all. But as two persons already misunderstood me, I try to make it even clearer.

 

First question: If one would "beam" every nutrient / oxygen / etc. directy into (or in front of) every single cell in the human body. That includes the large amount of natrium / calcium etc. At the same time we would "beam" every single item that has to leave the cell out of it. All this in every single moment in time, according to the exact need of each cell. Plus the settings I made in the first post (external harm etc.).

What would happen with such a body? Would it age and why?

 

If the things that would be beamed out included the reactive intermediates that were about to damage your tissues, and they were beamed out before they could do the damage, that would eliminate some aging.  If they also included the indigestible molecules that we otherwise have no way of getting rid of, and which eventually clog the cell, that would eliminate some more aging.  We'd also need to beam out aggregated and mis-folded proteins that might otherwise form the amyloids that will eventually kill you if nothing else does.  The body doesn't have ways to do these things itself, and that's the problem.

 

On the other hand, if you mean that you were setting up the optimal working environment for each cell, without doing anything that can't or doesn't happen in nature, then you would certainly still age, although you would be in pretty good shape while doing it and would probably have a long healthy life, but you probably wouldn't live longer than about 120 years.

 

 

I have not seen your post yesterday. Thank you niner.

Now - if we would not only beam out everything that you mention, but beam in only the ressources needed for the cell. I wonder at what speed we would age in this instance. Last night I finished the new book about p53 by Sue Amstrong and I was very impressed by the sheer abundance of safety systems that each cell has to prevent themselfs of creating harmful material. And yet it seems that still this is not enough and I wonder why.