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

Photo

Why men die sooner ?


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#61 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

I think people put too much into the idea of testosterone behavior. We are definitely more a product of our environment. T levels determine physiology and physiology may determine some behavior, but the danger behaviors of men are caused by the socialization that men receive. You don't see men who know that danger behaviors don't help their chances of getting success/laid/etc doing the danger behavior. The simple fact is that the men who are doing the dangerous things think it is good for them in some way.

Military service really isn't caused by testosterone either. When one joins the military it is largely for personal reasons. There is a need for soldiers and men can be very successful for it and have the right physiology.

Military aside. I tend to think that men are exploited as laborers etc. and are expected to perform and do dangerous things despite knowing better. Society just doesn't perceive us as having the same rights and like to see men run off cliffs like lemmings.

#62 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:54 AM

Some Facts about Estrogens: Telomeres and Aging Posted on: June 29, 2011
Oestrogen plays an important role in ageing and ageing-related development. Lack of oestrogen prompts endocrine cell ageing of the ovary, whereas oestrogen overflow impacts on epithelial cell neoplastic development.
Recent studies indicate that oestrogen regulates cell proliferative fates by a mechanism of reprogramming the size of telomeres (ends of chromosomes) in the oestrogen target cells. This is achieved by upregulating the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene in a temporal and spatial manner.
Currently, the relationship between oestrogen and telomerase activity in regulating productive cell development and function remains elusive. A number of lines of evidence suggest that telomerase is a downstream target of oestrogen in oestrogen-dependent reproductive ageing and neoplastic development. Source: Li H, Simpson ER, Liu JP.; Oestrogen, telomerase, ovarian ageing and cancer.; Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2010 Jan;37(1):78-82. Epub 2009 Jun 29.
  • like x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#63 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:14 PM

I think people put too much into the idea of testosterone behavior. We are definitely more a product of our environment. T levels determine physiology and physiology may determine some behavior, but the danger behaviors of men are caused by the socialization that men receive.


Oh, come on. This sounds like the argument that we are 'socialized' to prefer women who look a certain way (young & cute) and not another. Do you really thing that we're any different with respect to T than any other mammals? How do rats or zebras respond to T?
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:13 PM

We choose women for their health, and their outward appearance is often indicative of said health. If we choose otherwise it has most likely been a socialized choice. This is why some men are more attracted to foreign women than others (because they have been less socialized).

I've admitted that T affects physiology and that physiology is an enabling factor in dangerous behavior. But men have to believe we are getting something out of the dangerous behavior. If a lion allows too much competition, he won't have a pride, so he fights the competition and a male might die. But the male that dies in this situation has died for a reason related to social order rather than because his T made him do it.

Most commonly men think we will get laid, so we do the stupid things that can get people killed. When was the last time you saw a drug addict with women in their lives? People who see movies of speeding men in fast cars with healthy women on their arms will probably want to speed in order to get noticed as one of the guys who deserves having healthy women on his arms. The same can be said of other behaviors like playing football, the reward being greater acceptance among peers and more sex with cheerleaders. And in some cases the rewards we portray aren't the rewards that get reaped, and when people realize it, their behavior changes.

So what I'm saying is that the circumstances of modern society could be seen as eugenically disfavoring males in a disproportionate manner and should be improved until such time as its effects are not eugenic.

This feels "incomplete," but I'm not sure how to finish it...

Edited by cryonicsculture, 23 December 2012 - 04:20 PM.


#65 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:30 PM

totally off topic, with regards to getting laid by cheerleaders or impressing women with a fancy car, i think your mistaking male ego with the anthropological reasons we pick partners,
you’ve been watching to many crappy TV shows,

the reason we pick our partner, it’s called the primal urge, the continuation of the species and its hard wired into us and has been since we left the rift valley,
man picks women as child bearers good looking well built women with big breasts that's why many men have fixation with breasts,
but it still comes down to their looks, that first look is what attracts us generally their face, but not always, we pick that person in less than a second, that's how long it takes for us to realise if we are attracted to them as a potential mate,
then we find out what they are like as a person, which can nowadays break the interest,
most men don’t actually like women they are there for two reasons still tied into the primal urge to have the kids and cook the food, and many men still look on women that way they may deny it but its part and parcel of continuing the species,
and why many men chase other women he is driven by his primal urge to make as many kids as he can, so hops from one female to the next monogamy is recent in mans and womens development living as a couple is recent compared to how long he has been on this planet

women pick men as providers the big hunter who will put food on the table, modern society has altered these things but it’s still there hard wired into them, women look for security even if that's just as a couple or for financial security, and will quite often pick someone even if he is not their first choice simply to have the protection they perceive as being part of a couple, like men's picking women its hard wired,
despite their protestations that they are not as bothered by looks as men they will also go for the tall well built guy it's part of their primal urge,
  • like x 2

#66 smilence

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Beijing, China

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:03 AM

-testosterone can depress the immune system
-leftover stem cells from a pregnancy can be used by used by the mother
-I have an unproven hunch that frequent enough male ejaculation over time takes some essence out of a man. Is it spermidine, zinc, or something else?

“male ejaculation” really takes some essence out of man, the most valuable thing is the germ cell, which costs lots of your body energy to create them. So you have less energy to repair your body, comparing that of a woman. Woman create only one germ sell per month, but man, far more than that.
So, What do you think?
  • dislike x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#67 smilence

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Beijing, China

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:13 AM

btw to the few mentions that delaying reproduction (abstence from sex or masturbation) naturally preserving you for longer life as male, i was going to ask how is it same with females ? what if they dont have sex or experience orgasms for a long period of times actually extend their lives ?

Will women's orgasms increase their frequency of creating germ cells? It seems not. So if they dont have sex or experience orgasms for a long period, they won't extend their lives. The SEX is unfair.

#68 dear mrclock

  • Guest
  • 557 posts
  • -121
  • Location:US

Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

-testosterone can depress the immune system
-leftover stem cells from a pregnancy can be used by used by the mother
-I have an unproven hunch that frequent enough male ejaculation over time takes some essence out of a man. Is it spermidine, zinc, or something else?

“male ejaculation” really takes some essence out of man, the most valuable thing is the germ cell, which costs lots of your body energy to create them. So you have less energy to repair your body, comparing that of a woman. Woman create only one germ sell per month, but man, far more than that.
So, What do you think?



interesting

#69 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:27 PM

Females might be more taxed by shedding of the endomitrial lining and blood loss. Unlike germ cells, those tissues are not immortal.

I think that there are probably some repair and maintenance signalling pathways involved that are turned up when a male is not getting sex, similar to CR, to preserve him for when it becomes available. Maybe that vitality is carried into the immune system. This is a deeply held belief in traditional chinese medicine. It might be that telomerase is expressed more in somatic cells when sexual functions go dormant.

#70 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:43 PM

-testosterone can depress the immune system
-leftover stem cells from a pregnancy can be used by used by the mother
-I have an unproven hunch that frequent enough male ejaculation over time takes some essence out of a man. Is it spermidine, zinc, or something else?

“male ejaculation” really takes some essence out of man, the most valuable thing is the germ cell, which costs lots of your body energy to create them. So you have less energy to repair your body, comparing that of a woman. Woman create only one germ sell per month, but man, far more than that.
So, What do you think?

Women don't even have to create it, the eggs are there from birth.

I'm not sure how much vitality semen production takes out of a man. I have experimented with excess and abstinence and I think there is some truth to the idea of 'jing'.

#71 smilence

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Beijing, China

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

-testosterone can depress the immune system
-leftover stem cells from a pregnancy can be used by used by the mother
-I have an unproven hunch that frequent enough male ejaculation over time takes some essence out of a man. Is it spermidine, zinc, or something else?

“male ejaculation” really takes some essence out of man, the most valuable thing is the germ cell, which costs lots of your body energy to create them. So you have less energy to repair your body, comparing that of a woman. Woman create only one germ sell per month, but man, far more than that.
So, What do you think?

Women don't even have to create it, the eggs are there from birth.

I'm not sure how much vitality semen production takes out of a man. I have experimented with excess and abstinence and I think there is some truth to the idea of 'jing'.

Are you sure that the eggs of women are there from birth? I'm just not sure for that.

#72 smilence

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Beijing, China

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

Females might be more taxed by shedding of the endomitrial lining and blood loss. Unlike germ cells, those tissues are not immortal.

I think that there are probably some repair and maintenance signalling pathways involved that are turned up when a male is not getting sex, similar to CR, to preserve him for when it becomes available. Maybe that vitality is carried into the immune system. This is a deeply held belief in traditional chinese medicine. It might be that telomerase is expressed more in somatic cells when sexual functions go dormant.

Glad to talk to you!
I don't know whether the signal pathway of CR and that of "sex restriction" are similar, but there are some experiments show that CR will reuduce sexuality. It's now no doubt that excess sex can decrease our bodys' repairing activities. Chinese medicine here are concordant with modern medicine.
By the way, I come from China.

#73 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:34 AM

Let's look at it this way. How hard is it to get T from your doctor? How hard is it to get Estrogen? Big difference. Both hormones are better for lifespans in most cases but T is illegal and has social stigma and E does not. Women generally have more access with healthcare and are raised to put a higher value on it. Men have to have low T to get T, women just have to ask for E. It's a very simple answer and has nothing to do with cell proliferation. Point of fact. reducing ROS improves sexual function and can markedly increase both T and E. So why is ROS bad for us if lowering sexual function is good for us? Be careful, someone is going to hurt themselves with this kind of information floating about.

They have proven that eggs are constantly developing and splitting from ovarian cells. They have even been able to put stem cells from one woman into another after radiation therapy to restore fertility (although she wouldn't be having her own kids, so it's not quite there yet but...). The idea that ovums/ovas (sp?) are there when a woman is born is silly, this notion came out of marketing info from decades ago and just kind of stuck in our minds. It actually hurts us as a group to proliferate bad info.

#74 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:46 AM

Let's look at it this way. How hard is it to get T from your doctor? How hard is it to get Estrogen? Big difference. Both hormones are better for lifespans in most cases but T is illegal and has social stigma and E does not. Women generally have more access with healthcare and are raised to put a higher value on it. Men have to have low T to get T, women just have to ask for E. It's a very simple answer and has nothing to do with cell proliferation. Point of fact. reducing ROS improves sexual function and can markedly increase both T and E. So why is ROS bad for us if lowering sexual function is good for us? Be careful, someone is going to hurt themselves with this kind of information floating about.

They have proven that eggs are constantly developing and splitting from ovarian cells. They have even been able to put stem cells from one woman into another after radiation therapy to restore fertility (although she wouldn't be having her own kids, so it's not quite there yet but...). The idea that ovums/ovas (sp?) are there when a woman is born is silly, this notion came out of marketing info from decades ago and just kind of stuck in our minds. It actually hurts us as a group to proliferate bad info.


T isn't illegal- it's trivial to get it from a doctor if you need it. You'd probably have a hard time getting a doctor to write you a prescription if you're 19 though. ROS are bad for us because they damage biomolecules. Maybe lowering ROS improves sexual function (I don't know if that's true or not) but that's not in conflict with lowering sexual function being good, assuming it's done right. CR will lower sexual function, for example. CR makes us live longer, or at least it feels longer.

The idea that ova are present at birth isn't silly- I'm pretty sure that's how it works. I don't think it's a "marketing" idea. The new news is that there are stem cells in the ovary that are capable of generating new eggs, though fertility still declines with age, apparently due to the decay of the stem cell niche.

#75 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:46 AM

Let's look at it this way. How hard is it to get T from your doctor? How hard is it to get Estrogen? Big difference. Both hormones are better for lifespans in most cases but T is illegal and has social stigma and E does not. Women generally have more access with healthcare and are raised to put a higher value on it. Men have to have low T to get T, women just have to ask for E. It's a very simple answer and has nothing to do with cell proliferation. Point of fact. reducing ROS improves sexual function and can markedly increase both T and E. So why is ROS bad for us if lowering sexual function is good for us? Be careful, someone is going to hurt themselves with this kind of information floating about.

They have proven that eggs are constantly developing and splitting from ovarian cells. They have even been able to put stem cells from one woman into another after radiation therapy to restore fertility (although she wouldn't be having her own kids, so it's not quite there yet but...). The idea that ovums/ovas (sp?) are there when a woman is born is silly, this notion came out of marketing info from decades ago and just kind of stuck in our minds. It actually hurts us as a group to proliferate bad info.


T isn't illegal- it's trivial to get it from a doctor if you need it. You'd probably have a hard time getting a doctor to write you a prescription if you're 19 though. ROS are bad for us because they damage biomolecules. Maybe lowering ROS improves sexual function (I don't know if that's true or not) but that's not in conflict with lowering sexual function being good, assuming it's done right. CR will lower sexual function, for example. CR makes us live longer, or at least it feels longer.

The idea that ova are present at birth isn't silly- I'm pretty sure that's how it works. I don't think it's a "marketing" idea. The new news is that there are stem cells in the ovary that are capable of generating new eggs, though fertility still declines with age, apparently due to the decay of the stem cell niche.


I don't think from an evolutionary standpoint that life long ova would be accurate, otherwise a woman would have less to contribute to the evolutionary process than a man who accumulates changes in leydig (sp?) cells. I think it is more likely that a woman's body selects the healthiest egg from the lot and goes through a process of renewal. A healthier woman will have better ova as will a man, if the ova were around for her entire life, a blip of obesity might have a lifelong effect on all of her ova. Do they have studies to prove that ova persist in vitro in any species? I thought eggs died with meopause, yet women are able to reverse menopause and get pregnant. CR doesm't appear to work in primates, I think it's just wishful thinking for us. There may be a study that comes out contrary to that, but I doubt they will c

I wasn't able to get T at 30 for being just above the low value for my age despite having symptoms of low T and a medical history that would suggest it also. My blood was tested first thing in the morning. T is a DEA scheduled substance and docs are afraid to prescribe it for fear of investigation. Even if they are allowed to use their best judgement they will think twice before doing it. Women living longer than men on average is a very new occurrence in history and doesn't seem to have happened until the advent of widespread E supplementation (birth control). Sure some die, but there are likely underlying conditions in these cases that we aren't aware of or the dose is just too high. Men with raw/rural diets live much longer have higher T levels sustained throughout the day. Can we get data from such studies to determine how it effects the difference in lifespan of men and women in those populations and city/processed food diet populations? I also think that there are more health services for women than men. They market treatments for more women's age related diseases than men's diseases.

If the purpose of this topic is to call attention to men's safety, then surely that is also a factor. Boys just aren't trained for it the way girls are and are more susceptible to cultural phenomena that place them at a disadvantage to learning the safe behaviors that more women learn. But beyond the (mis)learned behaviors and suicide rates due to cultural phenomena (I would assume it would be more taboo here not to address the issue, than too address the issue), there are just more health related benefits marketed to women than men and more products that get tested for women and then maybe men if someone writes the company and accuses them of sexism (the HPV vaccine is an example... it was available to women, but drs wouldn't let men get it cuz they weren't part of the test groups). So I guess in the end it comes down to having more research interest for women's health than men's. So women live longer. The most popular drug for men happens to be very deadly (Viagra), it's not the case for the most popular drug for women (E). So it comes down to our approach to healthcare for the genders. I don't blame viagra entirely. This unbalanced healthcare culture has persisted for a while, but acceptance of drugs like Viagra make it worse and indicate the direction in which we are heading. We need a men's healthcare revolution! IMHO

#76 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:57 AM

Are you making the argument that before the availibity of hormonal replacement therapy, there was no statistcally adjusted difference in lifespan?

I agree with you that there is a hormonal component. T is a necessary part of the hormone cascade, but high levels are not a universally good thing. Point of fact. CRed mammals have lower T levels in their younger years and higher average levels in old age compared to baseline. Higher levels of SHBG. Eunuchs have lower levels of T and live longer. I'm oversimplifying for the sake of keeping things short, but you get the point- It's more complex than a linear relationship, but lower average levels of unbound T are a good thing in otherwise healthy people, or they come about from disorders such as metabolic syndrome which skew the statistics into appearing that low T levels are bad. A reverse correlation. As I pointed out earlier in the thread that high T levels can depress the immune system.


You say that it has nothing to do with cell proliferation, are you also saying that T has a negligable effect of cell proliferation?

ROS are not universally bad for us either. Part of the benefit of exercise comes from the generation of ROS and the resultant hormetic response. Otherwise healthy people have lower levels of unbound T as well as low levels of ROS.

As for eggs, they are there from birth but in immature form. Thats high school level bio.

Females might be more taxed by shedding of the endomitrial lining and blood loss. Unlike germ cells, those tissues are not immortal.

I think that there are probably some repair and maintenance signalling pathways involved that are turned up when a male is not getting sex, similar to CR, to preserve him for when it becomes available. Maybe that vitality is carried into the immune system. This is a deeply held belief in traditional chinese medicine. It might be that telomerase is expressed more in somatic cells when sexual functions go dormant.

Glad to talk to you!
I don't know whether the signal pathway of CR and that of "sex restriction" are similar, but there are some experiments show that CR will reuduce sexuality. It's now no doubt that excess sex can decrease our bodys' repairing activities. Chinese medicine here are concordant with modern medicine.
By the way, I come from China.


Glad to talk to you too my friend. I think that chinese medicine was ahead of its time and has a lot that we can learn from.

#77 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:38 AM

Are you making the argument that before the availibity of hormonal replacement therapy, there was no statistcally adjusted difference in lifespan?

I agree with you that there is a hormonal component. T is a necessary part of the hormone cascade, but high levels are not a universally good thing. Point of fact. CRed mammals have lower T levels in their younger years and higher average levels in old age compared to baseline. Higher levels of SHBG. Eunuchs have lower levels of T and live longer. I'm oversimplifying for the sake of keeping things short, but you get the point- It's more complex than a linear relationship, but lower average levels of unbound T are a good thing in otherwise healthy people, or they come about from disorders such as metabolic syndrome which skew the statistics into appearing that low T levels are bad. A reverse correlation. As I pointed out earlier in the thread that high T levels can depress the immune system.


You say that it has nothing to do with cell proliferation, are you also saying that T has a negligable effect of cell proliferation?

ROS are not universally bad for us either. Part of the benefit of exercise comes from the generation of ROS and the resultant hormetic response. Otherwise healthy people have lower levels of unbound T as well as low levels of ROS.

As for eggs, they are there from birth but in immature form. Thats high school level bio.

Females might be more taxed by shedding of the endomitrial lining and blood loss. Unlike germ cells, those tissues are not immortal.

I think that there are probably some repair and maintenance signalling pathways involved that are turned up when a male is not getting sex, similar to CR, to preserve him for when it becomes available. Maybe that vitality is carried into the immune system. This is a deeply held belief in traditional chinese medicine. It might be that telomerase is expressed more in somatic cells when sexual functions go dormant.

Glad to talk to you!
I don't know whether the signal pathway of CR and that of "sex restriction" are similar, but there are some experiments show that CR will reuduce sexuality. It's now no doubt that excess sex can decrease our bodys' repairing activities. Chinese medicine here are concordant with modern medicine.
By the way, I come from China.


Glad to talk to you too my friend. I think that chinese medicine was ahead of its time and has a lot that we can learn from.



Not so much that hormones are the major player, just that healthcare has had more benefits to offer women than men. Virtually no women die in child birth these days, but it was once more common. The emergence of modern medicine has had a huge beneficial effect on the lifespans of women. Perhaps this is a cause of men not being as concerned (except for women not wanting to date men w/o healthcare) about healthcare because it just doesn't offer enough personal benefits. Men have traditionally been providers of it rather than consumers, giving it to their families, perhaps the men of the past never wanted it for themselves. However the nature of it, and it's transition to being universal or at least quasi-universal has changed the playing field. Healthcare must now benefit men and women to the same extent. It can't choose an unbalanced effort. It there is disparity in lifespan, it creates inequality and men have the same right to live longer/healthier and more full lives as a result of healthcare as women do.

I don't think such genocidal abberations as eunuchs or such far off circumstances should at all be part of the argument for lower sexual hormones equaling longer lifespans. CR is no more than a short term gain in terms of immortality. It's something that offered a glimmer of hope, but now we need to move on because CR is just too limited for our purposes. CR seems to dominate our mindset however and despite showing no lifespan benefits in primate tests, people still cling to it as though it should be part of the argument. We really just don't know enough about CR consider the changes it causes in rodents to be beneficial phenotypes for us to aspire to. I think that despite being oversimplified, the argument still can't be corrected for the loss of human experience and existence. To live is to be swept up in the chemistry that determines us. The lowered sex hormone lifestyle is IMHO much more conducive to selfishness. Obesity leads to selfishness and if an overweight person starves, they often become less selfish. It was common practice for starvation to be used as a form of punishment and this is why. Obesity also lowers the levels of sex/gender specific hormones by diffusion into greater mass and what I'll call metabolic noise for lack of a better education. So optimally, a life consists of higher sex/gender hormones and an optimal weight or a higher sex/gender hormone to weight ratio. This results in a greater enjoyment of life and existence. Pressing one way or another is sub optimal for the purposes of indefinite LS. To me calorie restriction is about having a greater sensitivity to a more pure body chemistry. Even when I fast or when I get sick, I make sure to eat to increase my sex hormone levels. It just seems to be the best for my body and my existence. Put it this way, when we are younger, almost all of us experience higher levels of sex/gender hormones and we find it very enjoyable. We get older and life is less enjoyable, so we seek to hold on to our youthful phenotypes, esp. those of us here. Distancing ourselves from gender specific and sexual health is just plain unhealthy. I feel like I may be rambling... it's getting late here.

Quick answers:
I'm saying that for the purpose of immortality hayflick limits are useless, they are just giving us a number to beat or perhaps an optimal number of base pairs for telomere length. I think the study with rats that had a kill switch for senescent cells is more useful to us and that a tighter control and more frequent flicking of that kill switch will preserve youth, reverse aging, and contribute to much longer indefinite lifespans in the endgame.

I'm not familiar with the hormetic response as a term, but I'm quite certain that the body has a mechanism or habit for performing incomplete repairs which leads to senescence and that process needs to improved or fixed in a way that has a negligible or non interfering effect on human existence/experience.

By some explanations, every cell in our body was present from the time that we were an embryo. In any case, as it has been shown that egg cells can still be made later in life, we can no longer assume in any way that a woman is born with a finite number of eggs which makes HS Bio very misleading. I'm just not for filling fresh heads with nonsense.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 22 January 2013 - 06:55 AM.


#78 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:45 AM

We choose women for their health, and their outward appearance is often indicative of said health. If we choose otherwise it has most likely been a socialized choice. This is why some men are more attracted to foreign women than others (because they have been less socialized).


I don't see how preferring foreign women/men is a "social" concept -- there is some evolutionary advantage to picking a partner from a different gene pool. Just take a look at how good many of the children with parents from two different races look....
  • like x 1

#79 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:50 PM

I was saying it came from less socialization, check the quote :)

#80 Methos000

  • Guest
  • 144 posts
  • 18
  • Location:DFW

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:00 PM

Should I do my boob-staring before bed, along with taking my TA-65 and C60OO? I'm guessing that engaging in this practice with strangers might actually tend to decrease lifespan...?

http://www.theregist...tion_long_life/

...
The results, published in the journal Current Biology, show that eunuchs lived to an average age of 70, up to 19 years longer than their intact counterparts. Three of the eunuchs made it into triple figures, reaching 100, 101, and 109 years old - although it probably felt much longer. That's 130 times the rate of centenarians you'd expect to finds in a sample of humans today, and the team concludes that male sex hormones do have an effect on male longevity.


Searching for one's own physical gratification, companionship, or love, has its own varied intrinsic associated risks & stress ... :unsure:


Seems my previously posted research is in conflict with this one <chuckle>. Can anyone find the original journal article?
Posted Image



#81 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:04 PM

when you stop looking ------------------------------------------ your already dead,

#82 Methos000

  • Guest
  • 144 posts
  • 18
  • Location:DFW

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:11 PM

...or if you won't stop looking, and she's dating Chuck Norris.


when you stop looking ------------------------------------------ your already dead,



#83 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:15 PM

then you deserve to be dead
  • like x 1

#84 Methos000

  • Guest
  • 144 posts
  • 18
  • Location:DFW

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:22 PM

Ok, where can I collect my Darwin Award? I'll need some sort of consolation prize for missing out on the 'First Man to Live a Thousand Years' title.

then you deserve to be dead


Edited by Methos000, 05 March 2013 - 11:24 PM.


#85 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:25 PM

i wouldn't bother its being presented by Chuck Norris this year,

#86 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 06 March 2013 - 04:16 AM

So what does Chuck have to say about indefinite life extension?

#87 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:25 AM

Not a lot, he opens the envelope reads the card says, AND THE WINNER THIS YEAR IS XXXXX , then hands it to Mort, then exits stage left, sheesh don't you watch terry pratchetts oscars

Edited by pleb, 06 March 2013 - 08:30 AM.


#88 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:29 PM

IIRC, Suzanne Sommers and Chuck Norris were once connected in some kind of endeavor or another. It's something I saw in passing. I'm not of that time. But it would be interesting to know what CN thinks about IDL. Is he roundhouse kicking Aging? Will we still be hearing about his feats in the distant future?

#89 pleb

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 47
  • Location:England

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:38 PM

i have no idea if he is into longevity, but he is probably still a pretty fit guy, the whole thread started as a joke, and progressed from there,

Stallone is only a year younger than me and still does all his own stunts, he's on HGH I'm not sure how much he's on more than most old guys i would guess as most of his muscle has come since he started on it, plus weight training as part of his routine

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#90 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:56 PM

A quick review of google images shows that he looks pretty ripped for his age which is admirable, so the stuff works. I hope I'm at least as healthy by then if we haven't managed to reverse aging by the time I'm nearing 70. I wonder if Stallone would support us in our quest for indefinite youth.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users