31 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

The kid is 18 years old, 6 feet tall, and weighs 150lbs. He can stand 3500 Calories/day if he's even able to eat that much. The fact that he's 6' tall and weighs 150 means he's probably not going to like eating enough to put on weight anyway.

I'm 6ft and 150lbs, and even when I made my most consistent efforts to bulk up I could only get to about 160lbs... I'm guessing mostly muscle. My body fat is more like 5%. I wouldn't say this is unhealthy, and I actually like it that way.

[kismet]

It's my belief that we are going to find that overall, any hormone boosted state will bring about a decline is maximal longevity.

Think Jeanne Calment (122, 4'11).

Think Asian Cultures (usually shorter than other groups, high SHBG from higher carb diets, more androgynous looking (less hormones), overall good longevity).

Yes, this may be correct in many cases, but only for now as long as there is this nasty problem of fast growth (cell division) -> faster senesence and/or cancer. However, your theory does not apply to all - or rather most - hormones, because not all of them regulate growth or "androgenity". Many hormones are most benefical at the highest quartile of intake/blood levels (e.g. vitamin d/calcitriol, generally speaking androgens), whereas growth hormones seem to be rather detrimental at higher levels. Much more depends on the hormone signalling involved and most hormones require some trade-offs even at their optimal level. High testosterone is associated with a longer lifespan AFAIK (but correlation does not imply causation) and will certainly prevent falls, osteoporosis and sarcopenia at least to some degree, but it will probably increases the likelihood of prostate cancer.

An interesting paper:
Hormonal regulation of longevity in mammals
http://www.pubmedcen...978093#id376737

Edited by kismet, 04 January 2009 - 10:06 PM.