104 replies to this topic

[AdamDavis]

joke
n.

1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal.
1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality
2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock

Clues:

The phrase "fool done lost his mind".

See also: adding "and shit" to a statement.

"A joke...? I do not understand."

Hehe, sorry, I never can tell whether people are joking or not [tung] .

Who is taking 250 supps? What are they? Where is the post? (and how old is the guy?)

Wikipedia

His Website

I highly recommend signing up for the free KurzweilAI newsletter, too.

Has he made those supplements public? I can't think of 250 different supplements... I take like 10...

He does discuss alot in the book Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough To Live Forever, which he co-wrote with Terry Grossman, MD.

I think Kurzweil should tour with his Ramona performance, definitely, or release an album. I wonder what could have been had he not sold his music systems company...

[mitkat]

I expect supplementation along with proper diet to provide maybe 5-10 of extra life, although I voted "None", because to me, quality of life is paramount to duration if we are indeed immortalists.

I think Kurzweil should tour with his Ramona performance, definitely, or release an album. I wonder what could have been had he not sold his music systems company...

I had never actually heard Ramona before, so I checked it out. If this is the future of music, freeze me now and throw away the key. I was expecting something a little more creative and progressive from Kurzweil in the music department...I'm not asking for futurepop, but he apparently doesn't know that the on-and-upcoming sounds and styles of transhumanist and posthumanist music will make the singularity look like your cousin's weak block party with a fat drunk DJ

A Jefferson Airplane cover? [glasses] [lol]

[caston]

I once read somewhere that you get an extra 2 minutes of life for every minute you spend in the gym.

[Shepard]

I once read somewhere that you get an extra 2 minutes of life for every minute you spend in the gym.

Yeah, that's not true.

[Live Forever]

Totally untrue, in some instances you may actually be shortening your lifespan.

[DukeNukem]

Versus the average American diet, a healthy diet plus supplements, started as early as 35-40 years old, should grant an additional 15 years on average, with many cases exceeding 20 additional years.

The fact is that a healthy diet an supplements can greatly reduce the chance of heart disease, the #1 killer, along with brain diseases, and cancer. Oh, plus, diabetes related deaths would be significant ended with a healthy diet.

[caston]

Is subway healthy enough? I caculated the cost of running a kitchen including my labor costs and decided that it was cheaper to eat out.

[zoolander]

Jarrod is that you?

[mitkat]

Jarrod is that you?

Zoo, he's on an important mission - eating subs is the only sure-fire way to lose weight. Subs with less than 8 grams of fat! Seriously, I rarely eat subway, but I've only ever had the veggie sub, minus plastic cheese of course. I have no idea about that bread, I should go harass them for a food guide.

[doug123]

Jarrod is that you?

LOL. I think his name is really Jared:

Jared before Subway diet:


Jared after Subway diet

[Live Forever]

Before and after pic:



A clearer before pic:




That guy was way fat. Not phat, with a p-h either.

[Shepard]

I have a hatred for that man that will damn me to being a mule in my next life.

[the big b]

Wikipedia

His Website

I highly recommend signing up for the free KurzweilAI newsletter, too.

He does discuss alot in the book Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough To Live Forever, which he co-wrote with Terry Grossman, MD. 

Alrighty then, well looks like I gotta get this book to find out about his supplementation?

[Shepard]

It's nothing terribly special, IMO....atleast not what is in the book. However, he does outline some nice treatments he gets, but most people wouldn't have the money/access to that stuff.

[Michael]

ALL:

CR is close to worthless.

Care to enlighten us?

I'll admit the dreams of adding 30-40 years to maximum lifespan were most likely premature, but the health benefits in general should easily add more than a decade to mean lifespan (just based on the overwhelmingly improved health markers; obviously we don't have mortality figures to substantiate this yet), and I wouldn't call that worthless.

I think that is very unlikely. As outlined in teh posts referenced in this post by opales, the complete ELIMINATION of ischemic heart disease, stroke and cancer would gain an average 50-y-o about 15 years. Unless CR actually retards aging in humans, then Aubrey is likely right that it will gain only a very few years over and above a basically healthy diet & lifestyle (as is the stipulated condition of this discussion).

Now moderate CR with a good exercise plan will probably buy you most of the benefits, so I'll admit that extreme CR is probably not worth it unless you're in it for the lifestyle. Extreme CR may only add a few years more than what you can get from moderate CR and exercise, while negatively affecting QoL (hardcore CRers might debate this point, but then again, they're hardcore CRers...).

... and therefore in the best condition to know . IAC, if we can indeed extrapolate from the animal evidence on this, then the data are very clear: up to the point of actual starvation, the life extension effect of CR is a linear inverse function of Caloric intake. Fewer Calories = more years of healthy, youthful lifespan, down to the point of frank starvation. There are no diminishing returns.

Jay, what's wrong with Aubrey's argument [1]?

Quite a lot, in my view -- some of it theoretical, and very much empirical. See my finally-epublished reply (2), whose full text I will send out en masse to any inquirers in a couple of days.

I've since come across additional documentation favoring the idea that the Okinawan centenarians were only CRed significantly for part of their lifespans; one that I can readily dig up & summarize is the finding that today's Okie centenarians have a similar (higher for men, lower for women) Caloric intake to that of other Japanese centenarians (3). This may actually mean that they eat MORE per unit mass than other Japanese cents (not that I'm convinced that this "relative Caloric intake" is actually important), as they have relatively stunted bodies from Caloric undernutrition & protein malnutrition in their childhoods.

As well, the publication of the study showing a 15 yr more "youthful" diastolic function in long-term human CR practitioners (5) was published long after final acceptance of my MS, and provides support for the idea that CR has a direct effect of CR on primary aging in humans.

Demetrius' Metabolic Stability Hypothesis also predicts that in humans "the response of life span to caloric restriction will be negligible". So it would seem that my position has solid backing.

I wouldn't describe as 'solid backing' a conclusion drawn from a vaguely-defined hypothesis about the nature of aging and the mechanisms of aging and CR itself ...

As far as I'm aware there was only one randomized human study that measured the effect of CR, rather than the already known toxicity of the control diet, and while the effect was certainly beneficial I would not exactly call it "overwhelming".

The study you cite (CALERIE I) was actually a good example of a study of the already known toxicity of the control diet/lifestyle . The subjects were all quite overweight to obese, and (surprise!) normalizing energy intake, leading to weight loss (or temporarily putting them on a Draconian diet until their weight normalizes), imporved their reisk factors. This kind of thing is a dime a dozen; there are already plenty of such studies published -- they just don't talk up their grant proposals or results in terms of CR and aging.

There have been previous trials that more accurately reflect the effects of CR per se, tho' they're small and unambitious and I'm too lazy to dig the cites up just now unless someone is really interested. OTOH, while not truly controlled, Fontana's data on long-term hard-core CR folk (4) are pretty darned convincing; arguing against a cohort effect is the baseline conditions of the CR group and the clear-cut, dramatic improvements in these on CR (see Table 3. Arguing against the effect of a merely healthy lifestyle are the comparisons with raw-food vegans and runners, and the fact that the diets vary pretty widely in their macronutrient compositions and inclusions/exclusions.

Likewise, although not formally statistically analyzed as yet, it's pretty damned clear that the data collected to date by the CR Society Cohort Study is quite consistent with a powerful effect of CR per se, independent of a range of specific diet structures (Zoneish, healthy-Atkinsesque, Pritkinite).

Anecdotally, almost any CR person with whom one talks will tell you about the shock of their physicians when they see their lab tests after one to six months' CR.

Again, however, the possible effect CR on primary aging in humans (5), based on the observed more youthful diastolic function, is certainly much more excciting than the risk factor results, and much more important as an indicator that CR will indeed work in humans as it does in rodents, dogs, etc.

-Michael

1: de Grey AD.
The unfortunate influence of the weather on the rate of aging: why human caloric restriction or its emulation may only extend life expectancy by 2-3 years.
Gerontology. 2005 Mar-Apr;51(2):73-82. Review.
PMID: 15711074 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Rae MJ.
You don't need a weatherman: famines, evolution, and intervention into aging.
AGE. 2006 May 23;[Epub ahead of print]
No PMID assigned yet.

3. Suzuki M, Hirose N, Arai Y, Ebihara Y, Takayama M. Nutritonal status and its effects in Japanese centenarians. In Tauchi H, Sato T, Watanabe
T (eds). Japanese Centenarians: Medical Research for the Final Stages of Human Aging. 1999; Institute for Medical Science of Aging, Aichi, Japan:
116-23.

4. Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO. Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 27;101(17):6659-63. Epub 2004 Apr 19.PMID: 15096581 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Meyer TE, Kovacs SJ, Ehsani AA, Klein S, Holloszy JO, Fontana L. Long-term caloric restriction ameliorates the decline in diastolic function in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Jan 17;47(2):398-402. PMID: 16412867 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Edited by Michael, 09 February 2009 - 09:51 PM.

[ronan]

Ray Kurzweil is the one who takes over 250 supps/day. I think it's hard to take 9 multi's in one day plus all the other stuff I am taking. If you haven't already done so, download his guide. I wonder if he eats food. He sent me an MRP once, Chocolate, wasn't all that tastey, and didn't seem to have nearly as many branch chain amino acids as my dirt cheap Precision Engineered Whey Protein. Still, Ray's short guide is good to have for reference.

Right now, the human body still breaks down at 70, and even if you are a healthy 90 or 100 year old, you still show signs of age. Does anyone want to live like that? Not really, I would rather my body right now, the way it is, at 90. Can we do that with supplementation only? Can we do it with supplementation + work out + meditation + IV chelation + CRON + proper diet? Nope, there's still something in all of our bodies which will AGE us.

Which here is the most widely accepted Theory on Aging?

Neuroendocrine Theory?
Cross Linking Theory?
Free Radical Theory?
Hayflick?
Mitochodrial Theory?

I think it's too expensive to take supplements to combat each theory. Especially when none have won the debate. We take the right supplements, watch out diets, work out, but we still age.

Send in the Clones,
Ronan

[doug123]

A newly published Harvard study might shed some light on this issue:


[quote name='http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-lifespan12sep12']Life Span Gap Just Keeps Growing
Income isn't much of a factor, researchers report. But tobacco, alcohol and obesity are.
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Times Staff Writer

September 12, 2006

The life spans of the healthiest Americans are more than 30 years longer than those of the least healthy, despite more than two decades of efforts to reduce the disparities, Harvard researchers reported Monday.

At one end of the scale are Asian American women living in Bergen County, N.J., who have an average life expectancy of 91 years, according to the report published Monday in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine.

At the other extreme are Native Americans in South Dakota, whose average life expectancy is 58 years. "That's comparable to the life expectancy in Southeast Asia and in sub-Saharan Africa," said Richard M. Suzman, associate director of the National Institute on Aging, which partially funded the study.

The difference is not directly related to income, insurance, infant mortality, AIDS or violence. Rather, the contributing factors, in order of importance, are tobacco, alcohol, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diet and physical inactivity, said Dr. Christopher J. L. Murray of the Harvard School of Public Health, who led the study.

"Those seven are likely to explain a lot of the patterns that we see," he said. "They also give us some hints about the types of public health and medical care interventions that could make a difference in these disparities."

The life-span disparities are so severe that the researchers concluded that there are "eight Americas," each with its own racial, geographic, income, and life expectancy. The report did not separate out Latinos.

"There are millions of Americans that have life spans the same as in developing countries," Murray said. "That alone is pretty remarkable, considering we spend $5,000 a year per person on healthcare."

The data show that the gaps between groups have not been closing over the last two decades. If anything, they are increasing, Murray said, despite a series of policy initiatives.

"In simple terms, there has been a lot of discussion and effort, but no progress," he said.

Briefly, the eight Americas are defined as:

• 10.4 million Asians, average per capita income $21,566, in 1,889 counties, life expectancy 84.9 years.

• 3.6 million low-income whites in 112 rural counties in the Northern Plains and Dakotas, average income $17,758, life expectancy 79 years.

• 214 million middle-income Americans scattered through the country, average income $24,640, life expectancy 77.9 years.

• 16.6 million low-income whites in 467 rural counties in Appalachia and the Mississippi Valley, average income $16,390, life expectancy 75 years.

• 1 million western Native Americans in 359 counties, average income $10,029, life expectancy 72.7 years.

• 23.4 million middle-income black Americans in 1,632 counties, average income $15,412, life expectancy 72.9 years.

• 5.8 million southern low-income blacks in 427 rural counties, average income $10,463, life expectancy 71.2 years.

• 7.5 million high-risk urban blacks in 13 urban counties with the highest homicide rates, average income $14,800, life expectancy 71.1 years.

When the data is broken down by counties, the lowest life expectancy, 66.6 years, is found in Bennett, Jackson, Mellette, Shannon, Todd and Washabaugh counties in South Dakota — all areas with large, reservation-based Native American populations.

The counties with the longest life span, 81.3 years, are Clear Creek, Eagle, Gilpin, Grand, Jackson, Park and Summit counties in Colorado, Montgomery County, Md., and Lyon and Sioux counties in Iowa.

The gap has been growing since 1984, Murray said. "The counties that started the best just keep getting better. Those at the bottom either stayed the same or got worse."

According to the state data, Hawaii is the healthiest, with a combined life span for men and women of 80 years.

The District of Columbia is the worst, with a life expectancy of 72 years.

It is followed by Mississippi, 73.6 years, Louisiana, 74.2 years, Alabama, 74.4 years, and South Carolina, 74.8 years.

California ranks 10th with a combined male and female life expectancy exceeding 78.2 years.

Personal choices may be more important than access to medical care, Murray added.

Although 85% of the population has health insurance, half of those with high blood pressure fail to get it controlled, he said. Two-thirds of those with high cholesterol do not receive statins to bring it down and two-thirds of those with diabetes fail to get it managed, he added.[/quote]

[Karomesis]

Well, IMHO the surest approach absent direct lifespan studies on humans, which are obviously prohibitive due to time constraints ,is the multi-pronged one.

I think the pluripotent nature of some recently develped drugs would play out to at least 10-20 years. I also think some of the beneefits are far greater if the supplement was taken when young. The old ounce of prevention cliche,, especially the anti-glycation agents and mitochondria targeted anti-oxidants. What the hell sense does it make to wait until you're alreeady on the downward spiral to the grave to take those two supps? I suppose it would still have a beneficial effect, but much of the horrific damage has already accumulatd.

My goals are simple; to maintain youthful biomarkers as much as possible through any means available, sometimes that means taking experimental stuff to ascertain any possible benefits, sometimes it's just dragging myself to the gym with an almost religious fervor. Do I still partake of some unhealthy behavoirs? yes, but they are limited in their ill effects and they still bring me great pleasure which assists in calming me and elevating my seretonin levels.

My biomarkers are currently phenomenal, which indicates at least some benefits are being derived from the stuff I'm taking, granted it's somewhat subjective, but blood pressure, MHR, RHR,sex drive, , axial rigidity, and testosterone levels aren't [thumb] some of my stats resemble a 15 year old and I'm 28 in dec.

[doug123]

[quote name='karomesis']Well, IMHO the surest approach absent direct lifespan studies on humans, which are obviously prohibitive due to time constraints ,is the multi-pronged one.

I think the pluripotent nature of some recently develped drugs would play out to at least 10-20 years. I also think some of the beneefits are far greater if the supplement was taken when young. The old ounce of prevention cliche,, especially the anti-glycation agents and mitochondria targeted anti-oxidants. What the hell sense does it make to wait until you're alreeady on the downward spiral to the grave to take those two supps? I suppose it would still have a beneficial effect, but much of the horrific damage has already accumulatd.

My goals are simple; to maintain youthful biomarkers as much as possible through any means available, sometimes that means taking experimental stuff to ascertain any possible benefits, sometimes it's just dragging myself to the gym with an almost religious fervor. Do I still partake of some unhealthy behavoirs? yes, but they are limited in their ill effects and they still bring me great pleasure which assists in calming me and elevating my seretonin levels.

My biomarkers are currently phenomenal, which indicates at least some benefits are being derived from the stuff I'm taking, granted it's somewhat subjective, but blood pressure, MHR, RHR,sex drive, , axial rigidity, and testosterone levels aren't [thumb] some of my stats resemble a 15 year old and I'm 28 in dec.[/quote]

Well, what you see above is a lifespan study on humans (probably the most extensive and high quality ever published); Harvard University is considered to be the top academic/learning/research institution in the US (and perhaps the world).

Basically this confirms the importance of a healthy *lifestyle*...and probably most importantly preventive medicine...

[quote name='http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5039']Definition of Preventive medicine

Preventive medicine: Medicine designed to avert and avoid disease. Screening for hypertension and treating it before it causes disease is good preventive medicine. Preventive medicine is a proactive approach.[/quote]

This topic is called: "How many "extra" years of life do you expect to gain from supplements / optimal nutrition?"

I interpret this to mean: "if you did not have an optimal diet which included several deficiencies how many years might you lose." This study might infer that a deficiency in diet might make you lose quite a few years.

This study says that:

[quote name='http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-lifespan12sep12']The difference is not directly related to income, insurance, infant mortality, AIDS or violence.  Rather, the contributing factors, in order of importance, are tobacco, alcohol, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diet and physical inactivity, said Dr. Christopher J. L. Murray of the Harvard School of Public Health, who led the study.[/quote]

Testing for disease and regular CBCs, platelet counts, etc. and other markers are important...this is most helpful in preventing disease, such as cancer...but we have no biomarkers for an extended lifespan.

If we are really interested in finding compounds that can deliver a REAL increase in human lifespan (ie past 90 years old for the Asian American women living in Bergen County, N.J.) we should invest more in REAL life extension research, such as the Mprize. As far as I know, caloric restriction and GH receptor knockout are the most robust methods of extending lifespan...as far as I know, mitochondrial targeted anti oxidants have not demonstrated a measurable increase in lifespan...and if you are counting on bio markers, we would have no way to measure for a new disease induced by such compounds -- or if they are causing any damage. The current record holders are from Growth Hormone Receptor Gene Knockout and Caloric Restriction. So extra growth hormone and eating too much seem most likely to shorten lifespan.

We might soon start a new reserach project called the Rprize (the Ratprize) and the Dprize (the Dogprize)...to see what extends the lives of animals besides mice....we should ask Dr. de Grey what he thinks.

Edited by nootropikamil, 15 September 2006 - 08:03 PM.

[Ghostrider]

I think the pluripotent nature of some recently develped drugs would play out to at least 10-20 years. I also think some of the beneefits are far greater if the supplement was taken when young. The old ounce of prevention cliche,, especially the anti-glycation agents and mitochondria targeted anti-oxidants. What the hell sense does it make to wait until you're alreeady on the downward spiral to the grave to take those two supps? I suppose it would still have a beneficial effect, but much of the horrific damage has already accumulatd.

When did you start taking these supps and how do you know that you are not simply gifted with genetics favoring longevity?

By the way, I don't see the point of this poll either. It's kinda like asking the question what do you expect tomorrow's lottery numbers to be...

Well, what you see above is a lifespan study on humans (probably the most extensive and high quality ever published); Harvard University is considered to be the top academic/learning/research institution in the US (and perhaps the world).

Let's not resort to ad hominem :-). MIT > Harvard in terms of science and engineering :-)

[doug123]

Let's not resort to ad hominem :-). MIT > Harvard in terms of science and engineering :-)

We're off topic now...but:

Who's ad homineming whom? I'm referring to the most prestigious learning/academic/research institution in the nation; research is just 1/3 of the rationale behind my rating.

The latest US News and World Report: National Universities: Top Schools (USA) actually has Princeton rated the #1 school; Harvard is, in fact, rated #2. Harvard has the MOST selective admissions (#1), and Princeton, (#4).

The US News and World Report actually uses Average Alumni Giving Rate as a factor in rating the quality of a school; that's the dumbest criteria I've ever heard of (and that's ad hominem ). Who cares how much Alumni donate to a school, and should that really be a factor in judging quality of academic rigour -- or its rating? According to my assessment, Harvard is not rated #1 (this year) due to Princeton's higher Average Alumni Giving Rate. Oh, and also another super dumb thing: who cares what % of classes w/fewer than 20 students? So that means Harvard is ranked lower also because they can manage to fit a few more students into each classroom. Ah, another reason why they aren't #1 this year: they use the Student/ faculty ratio from 2005 to give the rating for 2007! Or, if a class has more than 50 students, another reason to mark down -- and they use the 2005 stats! That is even dumber than the other stuff. No wonder the smartest folks don't need to finish college.

Avg. alumni giving rate
Princeton: 61% #1
Harvard: 44% #6

% of classes w/fewer than 20
Princeton: 74%
Harvard: 69%

% of classes w/50 or more ('05)
Princeton: 10%
Harvard: 13%

Student/ faculty ratio ('05).
Princeton: 5/1
Harvard: 7/1

Edited by nootropikamil, 18 September 2006 - 03:16 AM.

[Karomesis]

When did you start taking these supps and how do you know that you are not simply gifted with genetics favoring longevity?

[mellow] I started taking some of them a few years ago. And the genetic longevity lottery is highly unlikely....I have no surviving grandparents, and when they died, they were all under 80 [:o]

I was already an athletic person my entire life, but some of the supps have reversed certain "phyical" biomarkers, that are much less open to misinterpertation

[opales]

I was already an athletic person my entire life, but some of the supps have reversed certain "phyical" biomarkers, that are much less open to misinterpertation

Could you explicate what effect each one of the supps had as far as you know (i.e. which biomarkers changed and how after including that particular supp)? The more specific you can be (for example quantifying the change) the better.

[marcus]

nootrop,

Not to say there is a lot of validity to the US News rank of schools, but I do like the inclusion of the alumni giving rate as it serves to measure the amount of financial success generated by the institution which is one objective criteria in determining the value of an education at 1 elite school versus another.

Personally, I think it is MUCH more important to go to a school that caters most specifically to what you are interested in and that has faculty who understand what sort of career path you want to follow and can help get you there then to have a degree from a big name prestigious school. Back to my searching the boards...I do like to drop in on these supplement talks from time to time.

Marcus

[doug123]

Yes, we are off topic...but...

nootrop,

Not to say there is a lot of validity to the US News rank of schools, but I do like the inclusion of the alumni giving rate as it serves to measure the amount of financial success generated by the institution which is one objective criteria in determining the value of an education at 1 elite school versus another.

Okay, well...first, the ranking of an academic institution should be based upon its academic rigour and nothing else (in my opinion). They should have another "US News and World Report" on alumni giving rate (and other such similar topics) and keep these separate.

Personally, I think it is MUCH more important to go to a school that caters most specifically to what you are interested in and that has faculty who understand what sort of career path you want to follow and can help get you there then to have a degree from a big name prestigious school. Back to my searching the boards...I do like to drop in on these supplement talks from time to time.

Finding a school that caters to your needs is definitely the best way to go...however...most people believe that the US News and World Report indicates the academic reputation of the school; not how many former students donate. Hey, if I went to Harvard as an undergraduate, I would not feel particularly compelled to donate money...they seem all set to me...and I don't know why that should reflect poorly on their ranking as an elite learning institution.

[sja_]

I don't care if I add years......I just want the absolute best quality of life possible. I'd like to still be mobile in my "golden years" and then suddenly die of a heart attack in my sleep (or at the Bunny Ranch). There are sooo many variables to this question.....DNA being the largest......an unfortunate mishap being a close second. So I'll just take the quality of living associated with being healthy and call it good.

[cpuomega5]

even if you get an extra 5-10 years on this earth through a healthy life style (which is good) it's going to be very miserable during the last years in your life as an old individual that is low responsiveness and less awareness of the stuff. The only cure is gene engineering,

[david ellis]

even if you get an extra 5-10 years on this earth through a healthy life style (which is good) it's going to be very miserable during the last years in your life as an old individual that is low responsiveness and less awareness of the stuff. The only cure is gene engineering,

I like to think of it as "squaring the curve". I don't expect more years(not enough evidence for that), I am shooting for a death like Jerome Rodale who died on the Dick Cavett show. I want to die healthy.

[Dmitri]

I've found the "health-freak" lifestyle to increase my quality of life pretty substantially. For me, it's worth it for right now. The hope that I'll be 85+ and still be active is a much bigger motivator than adding 1-2 years on my maximum lifespan.

If you continue being a health freak it's possible you'll be active at age 85, my health professor's uncle is 84 and he goes out to jog in the mornings. I also saw a 90+ year old man in China (on TV) who still had the agility of a gymnast, he was doing this acrobatic stunts in the park.

[Dmitri]

I suppose it would be 10-20 years; exercise is supposed to extend your life 10 years and adding a nutritious diet with supplements would likely increase that number. Although, I suppose it also depends on the amount of stress you experience, having a stressful life increases the risk of having a heart attack.