56 replies to this topic

[caston]

Today it seems that many aged people pre to early boomers and their parents stay alive thanks to a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs such as warfarin that stops blood from clotting preventing them from having a stroke.
Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and drugs it seem that people can hold off heart disease, atherosclerosis and death from stroke, diabetes and parkinsons.

Life spans seem to be getting longer and more aged people are alive than at any time in our history. If we keep adding longevity gains like this will will getting more and more people passing the 100 year mark. What can we thank for this improved diets, better genetics, improved fitness or is a simply that now there are more and more drugs that extend frailty? Are these gains in longevity really just a bubble? Like a stock market bubble or a house price bubble now we have the population bubble.

Are the fundamentals sound here is 70 the new 50? Can we say that because people that may have died in their 50's are now living to 70 and beyond that we have reached a new paradigm?

What happens if we are wrong? There seems to be genes related to aging that are conserved across evolution even in yeast. Nature seems to know how to stop inflating bubbles or will inevitably burst any that do arise.
What happens when we are propping population up by any stimulus means necessary? Trying damn sure to make that bubble keeps growing and will never burst.

We may find out exactly the reason why nature has a program for aging to prevent a social catastrophe.

[churchill]

Today it seems that many aged people pre to early boomers and their parents stay alive thanks to a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs such as warfarin that stops blood from clotting preventing them from having a stroke.
Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and drugs it seem that people can hold off heart disease, atherosclerosis and death from stroke, diabetes and parkinsons.

Life spans seem to be getting longer and more aged people are alive than at any time in our history. If we keep adding longevity gains like this will will getting more and more people passing the 100 year mark. What can we thank for this improved diets, better genetics, improved fitness or is a simply that now there are more and more drugs that extend frailty? Are these gains in longevity really just a bubble? Like a stock market bubble or a house price bubble now we have the population bubble.

Are the fundamentals sound here is 70 the new 50? Can we say that because people that may have died in their 50's are now living to 70 and beyond that we have reached a new paradigm?

What happens if we are wrong? There seems to be genes related to aging that are conserved across evolution even in yeast. Nature seems to know how to stop inflating bubbles or will inevitably burst any that do arise.
What happens when we are propping population up by any stimulus means necessary? Trying damn sure to make that bubble keeps growing and will never burst.

We may find out exactly the reason why nature has a program for aging to prevent a social catastrophe.

I don't think that nature has a program for aging. Natural selection has selected for certain genes that prolong the life of the organism, that is why they are aging related genes.

I would say that the general consensus is that you cannot have dramatic life extension without it being healthy life extension.

[caston]

I don't think that nature has a program for aging. Natural selection has selected for certain genes that prolong the life of the organism, that is why they are aging related genes.

Quite a lot of genes cross over and control a lot of different things from regenerative capacity vs cancer defense to growth and reproductive fitness vs protection against biological pathogens. You also need to consider that the communities where individuals get sick in on some cases even altruistically self-terminate in response to chronic infection would have far greater advantages over communities that don't have any such immune response.

I would say that the general consensus is that you cannot have dramatic life extension without it being healthy life extension.

Yes, but we are seeing an awful not of unhealthy life extension due to drugs that interfere with naturally optimised and tweaked pathways both for a healthy individual and a healthy community made up of many generations of individuals. This unhealthy life extension should not be confused with gains and progress towards dramatic and healthy life extension.

[maxwatt]

One effect of increased health span and life span is that people are postponing child-bearing, often until their forties, which is near the end of women's fertile period. From tests in mice, we know that breeding nearer the end of life selects for longer life span, perhaps due to epigenetic factors as well as genetic selection.

We may be breeding ourselves into a longer-lived species.

Edited by maxwatt, 01 September 2010 - 12:06 AM.

[Elus]

Today it seems that many aged people pre to early boomers and their parents stay alive thanks to a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs such as warfarin that stops blood from clotting preventing them from having a stroke.
Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and drugs it seem that people can hold off heart disease, atherosclerosis and death from stroke, diabetes and parkinsons.

Life spans seem to be getting longer and more aged people are alive than at any time in our history. If we keep adding longevity gains like this will will getting more and more people passing the 100 year mark. What can we thank for this improved diets, better genetics, improved fitness or is a simply that now there are more and more drugs that extend frailty? Are these gains in longevity really just a bubble? Like a stock market bubble or a house price bubble now we have the population bubble.

Are the fundamentals sound here is 70 the new 50? Can we say that because people that may have died in their 50's are now living to 70 and beyond that we have reached a new paradigm?

What happens if we are wrong? There seems to be genes related to aging that are conserved across evolution even in yeast. Nature seems to know how to stop inflating bubbles or will inevitably burst any that do arise.
What happens when we are propping population up by any stimulus means necessary? Trying damn sure to make that bubble keeps growing and will never burst.

We may find out exactly the reason why nature has a program for aging to prevent a social catastrophe.

http://longevity-sci...ons-RR-2010.pdf

You are wrong about a social catastrophe. The mathematics say otherwise. I quote:

Thus, even in the case of the most radical life
extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation.
Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences
(overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as
scientific, organizational, and financial limitations.

[PWAIN]

Today it seems that many aged people pre to early boomers and their parents stay alive thanks to a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs such as warfarin that stops blood from clotting preventing them from having a stroke.
Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and drugs it seem that people can hold off heart disease, atherosclerosis and death from stroke, diabetes and parkinsons.

It is worth noting that warfarin is 60 years old - not what I would consider modern.

[caston]

http://longevity-sci...ons-RR-2010.pdf

You are wrong about a social catastrophe. The mathematics say otherwise. I quote:

Thus, even in the case of the most radical life
extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation.
Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences
(overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as
scientific, organizational, and financial limitations.

I don't mean a catastrophe of over population I refer to a catastrophe of a sudden huge decline in population. One that could happen so fast it would take inheritance lawyers and deceased estate auctioneers decades to catch up. I support healthy life extension but i'm don't think it is a good idea to keep old people alive as long as possible with drugs. That stroke or heart attack is there for altruistic reasons but the motivation for producing drugs to combat these things are selfish ones.

[N.T.M.]

We may find out exactly the reason why nature has a program for aging to prevent a social catastrophe.

NO!!!

That implies foresight, something which evolution just doesn't possess.

I'll go on more about what you said later. It's strewn with errors.

[JLL]

Today it seems that many aged people pre to early boomers and their parents stay alive thanks to a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs such as warfarin that stops blood from clotting preventing them from having a stroke.
Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and drugs it seem that people can hold off heart disease, atherosclerosis and death from stroke, diabetes and parkinsons.

Life spans seem to be getting longer and more aged people are alive than at any time in our history. If we keep adding longevity gains like this will will getting more and more people passing the 100 year mark. What can we thank for this improved diets, better genetics, improved fitness or is a simply that now there are more and more drugs that extend frailty? Are these gains in longevity really just a bubble? Like a stock market bubble or a house price bubble now we have the population bubble.

Are the fundamentals sound here is 70 the new 50? Can we say that because people that may have died in their 50's are now living to 70 and beyond that we have reached a new paradigm?

What happens if we are wrong? There seems to be genes related to aging that are conserved across evolution even in yeast. Nature seems to know how to stop inflating bubbles or will inevitably burst any that do arise.
What happens when we are propping population up by any stimulus means necessary? Trying damn sure to make that bubble keeps growing and will never burst.

We may find out exactly the reason why nature has a program for aging to prevent a social catastrophe.

That's a terrible financial metaphor. Bubbles essentially have to do with prices. To have a population bubble you would have to have a (false) incentive to produce lots of new people.

[caston]

JLL: OK I probably should not have used the terms "population bubble" or "longevity bubble" I should have used the term "fragility bubble" e.g. when a society has an extreme amount of aged people. Normally nature respectfully and gracefully takes care of this with things like heart attacks and strokes. Now with the advent of modern drug companies it is highly profitable to sell drugs that (without grace) extend the lifespan of the individual but do not reverse the age related decline.

Edited by caston, 14 September 2010 - 02:08 PM.

[churchill]

JLL: OK I probably should not have used the terms "population bubble" or "longevity bubble" I should have used the term "fragility bubble" e.g. when a society has an extreme amount of aged people. Normally nature respectfully and gracefully takes care of this with things like heart attacks and strokes. Now with the advent of modern drug companies it is highly profitable to sell drugs that (without grace) extend the lifespan of the individual but do not reverse the age related decline.

Number 1 killer used to be bacteria and virii before modern medicine, not much is graceful about getting pneumonia. 20% of women dying in child birth is not respectful. Or freezing and dying in the winter because you don't have enough wood, or dying of starvation because your crops went bad one year. Heart attacks are a modern disease which most humans on this planet never had the good fortune to reach the age of having to worry about.

[dustinw]

JLL: OK I probably should not have used the terms "population bubble" or "longevity bubble" I should have used the term "fragility bubble" e.g. when a society has an extreme amount of aged people. Normally nature respectfully and gracefully takes care of this with things like heart attacks and strokes. Now with the advent of modern drug companies it is highly profitable to sell drugs that (without grace) extend the lifespan of the individual but do not reverse the age related decline.

Number 1 killer used to be bacteria and virii before modern medicine, not much is graceful about getting pneumonia. 20% of women dying in child birth is not respectful. Or freezing and dying in the winter because you don't have enough wood, or dying of starvation because your crops went bad one year. Heart attacks are a modern disease which most humans on this planet never had the good fortune to reach the age of having to worry about.

this

[rwac]

Heart attacks are a modern disease which most humans on this planet never had the good fortune to reach the age of having to worry about.

No, Heart Attacks are a modern disease because widespread use of things like sugar, seed oils, soy, trans fats and certain breeds of wheat is relatively modern.

[churchill]

Heart attacks are a modern disease which most humans on this planet never had the good fortune to reach the age of having to worry about.

No, Heart Attacks are a modern disease because widespread use of things like sugar, seed oils, soy, trans fats and certain breeds of wheat is relatively modern.

No, heart attacks happen partly because of diet and lifestyle but the number one indicator for heart disease is age.

[rwac]

No, heart attacks happen partly because of diet and lifestyle but the number one indicator for heart disease is age.

Not really. Look at the French Paradox.

[churchill]

No, heart attacks happen partly because of diet and lifestyle but the number one indicator for heart disease is age.

Not really. Look at the French Paradox.

Every year that you get older your risk of getting heart disease increases, even if your diet or lifestyle stays the same.

[rwac]

No, heart attacks happen partly because of diet and lifestyle but the number one indicator for heart disease is age.

Most heart attacks are caused by Coronary Artery disease, and this is completely caused by diet.

[AgeVivo]

Are these gains in longevity really just a bubble? Like a stock market bubble

They have been pretty constant over the last 150 years. Not quite like a market bubble.
And they don't incorporate x-fold life extensions produced in model organisms

[churchill]

No, heart attacks happen partly because of diet and lifestyle but the number one indicator for heart disease is age.

Most heart attacks are caused by Coronary Artery disease, and this is completely caused by diet.

Most No
The following lists the causes of heart attacks:
http://www.nhlbi.nih...ttack_risk.html

About 4 of every 5 deaths due to heart disease occur in people older than 65.

Feel free to cite evidence for what you are claiming.

[JLL]

Age and diet are interrelated. When you're young, your body can handle even a shitty diet. When you're older, you either need to eat healthy or have a stroke.

[churchill]

Age and diet are interrelated. When you're young, your body can handle even a shitty diet. When you're older, you either need to eat healthy or have a stroke.

You can also eat healthy and get a stroke, and you are much more likely to have this occur than if you are young and are eating poorly.

My basic point is that with heart disease the risk factors are in the following order with aging being way at the front.
1) Age
2) Diet

Clearly there are also other risk factors I have not included which are in the previous link.

[caston]

No, Heart Attacks are a modern disease because widespread use of things like sugar, seed oils, soy, trans fats and certain breeds of wheat is relatively modern.

What about chlorinated water and homogenized milk?

http://www.holistico...cholesterol.htm

All those times when we go to the kitchen to get a drink and we have a few choices: milk, water, juice or cola.

[churchill]

No, Heart Attacks are a modern disease because widespread use of things like sugar, seed oils, soy, trans fats and certain breeds of wheat is relatively modern.

What about chlorinated water and homogenized milk?

http://www.holistico...cholesterol.htm

All those times when we go to the kitchen to get a drink and we have a few choices: milk, water, juice or cola.

Look at the following graph...
http://en.wikipedia....y_age_group.png
It shows the massive spike in in heart disease in the elderly, if diet were such a factor you would not expect to see such a spike (unless it is as I contend a minor factor)

Heart disease has increased primarly as people are not dying of other things. Look at the following pdf. Go down to 1901, check out what people were dying off. Note how many of these have been eradicated or been better controlled thanks to modern medicine, vaccines and sanition.
http://www.cdc.gov/n...lead1900_98.pdf

Both things you mention have very little evidence to support it. What clinical trials or studies are you basing your assumptions on?

[caston]

Churchill: Age of death is not enough information. Ideally we need graphs of calcium scores throughout their lifespan. The straw breaks the camels back but some camels have stronger backs than others.

It is still a very nice and interesting and useful graph though. Thank you. Look at the age ranges where the huge exponential curve makes its humble beginnings.

Now the theory that homogenized milk may be responsible for heart disease came from a guy called Oyster in the 1960's and he relates it to Xanthine oxidase.
http://www.realmilk....genization.html

http://www.hubmed.or...gi?uids=6362227

The studies on hudmed I could find don't back his hypothesis but it would have to be one of the biggest scandals of our time if were true and there are other reasons why people avoid milk (such as acne breakouts) so I think there should be further research.

As for chlorine there are a few books on it (of course I know anyone can write a book) but here is one example.

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/9962636892

I could only really find one article on hubmed about it but then I had trouble viewing the summary or abstract so I don't know what conclusion it comes up with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1790202


I think that another possible factor is fructose consumption:



The track your plague guy doesn't like milk much (because of diabetic complications) but doesn't have any strong reasons to tell people to avoid it.

He doesn't say anything about chlorinated water. Jon Barron argues extensively that (although chlorinated water helps control harmful pathogens) you want to remove the chlorine before you drink it.

The track your plaque guy does argue quite extensively against fructose.

Fatty acids such as Omega 3 are of course good for your heart.


I would also put periodontal disease at the very top of the list for factors increasing the risk of heart disease.

Edited by caston, 16 September 2010 - 12:47 AM.

[caston]

My basic point is that with heart disease the risk factors are in the following order with aging being way at the front.
1) Age
2) Diet

Clearly there are also other risk factors I have not included which are in the previous link.

I suggest you read Nutrition and
Physical Degeneration

A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets
and Their Effects

BY

WESTON A. PRICE, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.

http://gutenberg.net...2/0200251h.html

I should read it as well

Edited by caston, 16 September 2010 - 01:57 AM.

[churchill]

My basic point is that with heart disease the risk factors are in the following order with aging being way at the front.
1) Age
2) Diet

Clearly there are also other risk factors I have not included which are in the previous link.

I suggest you read Nutrition and
Physical Degeneration

A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets
and Their Effects

BY

WESTON A. PRICE, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.

http://gutenberg.net...2/0200251h.html

I should read it as well

Interesting link.

I would say that the main reason a primitive society is more healthy is that the unfit die off, while in modern society every one survives (which is a good thing).

E.g. primitive society you have poor eye sight, you can't hunt your a burden on your village you have a good chance of dying. You break your ankle, it does not set properly you die. You are 6 months old you get an illness, you die, food is in short supply, the strongest get the biggest portion the weakest die. It is a massive selection process for healthy individuals. If I lived in a primitive society I would probably be dead by now and so would you be.

To me this is the primary reason that primitive societies were more healthy, not their diet.

[churchill]

Churchill: Age of death is not enough information. Ideally we need graphs of calcium scores throughout their lifespan. The straw breaks the camels back but some camels have stronger backs than others.

It is still a very nice and interesting and useful graph though. Thank you. Look at the age ranges where the huge exponential curve makes its humble beginnings.

Now the theory that homogenized milk may be responsible for heart disease came from a guy called Oyster in the 1960's and he relates it to Xanthine oxidase.
http://www.realmilk....genization.html

http://www.hubmed.or...gi?uids=6362227

The studies on hudmed I could find don't back his hypothesis but it would have to be one of the biggest scandals of our time if were true and there are other reasons why people avoid milk (such as acne breakouts) so I think there should be further research.

As for chlorine there are a few books on it (of course I know anyone can write a book) but here is one example.

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/9962636892

I could only really find one article on hubmed about it but then I had trouble viewing the summary or abstract so I don't know what conclusion it comes up with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1790202


I think that another possible factor is fructose consumption:



The track your plague guy doesn't like milk much (because of diabetic complications) but doesn't have any strong reasons to tell people to avoid it.

He doesn't say anything about chlorinated water. Jon Barron argues extensively that (although chlorinated water helps control harmful pathogens) you want to remove the chlorine before you drink it.

The track your plaque guy does argue quite extensively against fructose.

Fatty acids such as Omega 3 are of course good for your heart.


I would also put periodontal disease at the very top of the list for factors increasing the risk of heart disease.

Age of death is very important as is age of healthy life span. It is the one statistic that should be used when measuring the efficacy of any drug or treatment. If you don't use this stat, then you can cure cancer, and still only increase life expectancies by a few years (as everyone promptly dies of from heart disease or Alzheimers).

So both theories have very weak evidence, in that case I would just discard them (note that I can produce very weak evidence for almost anything you care to mention). Almost everyone takes the substances that you mention, so the effect is probably negligable. Remember that life expectancies have been creeping ever upward for a long time now.
http://www.google.co...life expectancy

The reason that heart disease happens in old age much more than when you are young is that the systems in place to clean up cholesterol and repair damage stop working so well. The solution is to fix those systems that are going wrong.

[caston]

I would say that the main reason a primitive society is more healthy is that the unfit die off, while in modern society every one survives (which is a good thing).

E.g. primitive society you have poor eye sight, you can't hunt your a burden on your village you have a good chance of dying. You break your ankle, it does not set properly you die. You are 6 months old you get an illness, you die, food is in short supply, the strongest get the biggest portion the weakest die. It is a massive selection process for healthy individuals. If I lived in a primitive society I would probably be dead by now and so would you be.

To me this is the primary reason that primitive societies were more healthy, not their diet.

Sure, it could explain the perfect teeth and jaw structure as well as complete absence of atherosclerosis. The lions eat the guy that runs out of puff but you are missing out the diet aspect which I will like to argue is the most important. You see it is the refined sugars especially fructose, the processed meats, the farmed grains and high carb cereals. We didn't eat these things thousands of years ago. Now we put fluoride in the water because our diets are causing tooth decay.

[churchill]

I would say that the main reason a primitive society is more healthy is that the unfit die off, while in modern society every one survives (which is a good thing).

E.g. primitive society you have poor eye sight, you can't hunt your a burden on your village you have a good chance of dying. You break your ankle, it does not set properly you die. You are 6 months old you get an illness, you die, food is in short supply, the strongest get the biggest portion the weakest die. It is a massive selection process for healthy individuals. If I lived in a primitive society I would probably be dead by now and so would you be.

To me this is the primary reason that primitive societies were more healthy, not their diet.

Sure, it could explain the perfect teeth and jaw structure as well as complete absence of atherosclerosis. The lions eat the guy that runs out of puff but you are missing out the diet aspect which I will like to argue is the most important. You see it is the refined sugars especially fructose, the processed meats, the farmed grains and high carb cereals. We didn't eat these things thousands of years ago. Now we put fluoride in the water because our diets are causing tooth decay.

I am not missing the diet aspect, I am saying it is very minor when put up against the huge selection pressure for health that was occuring at that time.

[caston]

I am not missing the diet aspect, I am saying it is very minor when put up against the huge selection pressure for health that was occuring at that time.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I only say that if you want to live a long and healthy life you should pay attention to what you eat and learn as much as you can. Just because everyone else takes the slow poison doesn't mean you have to as well. I don't know you (in person) though and haven't seen what you eat. It is not always easy to eat healthy when there is a lot of people in society using their false status and official positions to mislead us.

The dollar is weak and always getting weaker but not until we recognise this we ourselves become strong.