67 replies to this topic

[reason]

There are a number of people, researchers and advocates, in the longevity science community who have a good understanding of present research and knowledge, but who then build on that understanding to assemble what look to me to be completely the wrong conclusions about how best to proceed towards extending healthy life spans. The fellow who writes Anti-Aging Firewalls is one such individual. He is very much in favor of dietary supplements and other presently available means of metabolic alteration to impact aging, which seems to me to be a huge waste of time and effort. It is massively complex, the data is always ambiguous, and nothing in this area can be demonstrated to approach calorie restriction and exercise in terms of benefits delivered.

Note that neither calorie restriction nor exercise, despite the proven benefits for human health, will reliably let you live to age 90. Three quarters of each new aging cohort will be dead by that point and that includes a majority of those who led exemplary lifestyles. So no, tinkering with supplements is not the path to the future of longevity. Instead all that wasted effort should be focused on supporting and expanding work like that carried out by the SENS Research Foundation: building the rejuvenation technologies that don't presently exist, and which could offer the ability to reliably live in good health to age 90 and beyond. Too many people spend their time in the futile search for something that works now, when they only thing that will do any good is to work on making the treatments that will work tomorrow.

So all that said, here are a pair of presentations where the first is really quite good, being an opinionated view of aging research and its prospects, and the second is not, being a dive into largely pointless approaches that can do little for long-term health even in the best of outcomes.

Aging is multilayered. The aging of a living organism is both a manifestation and a result of complex changes in composition, structure and function across all levels of biological organization from molecular pathways, cell components and cells, to organs and tissues, to whole-body systems. Yet it is rarely studied that way: almost all research investigations have been carried out at a specific single level of organization and often in isolation with a relatively narrow focus. Research is reductionist and highly focused. This is the methodology and culture that dominates biological and biomedical research across the entire spectrum of research activities internationally. This traditional strategy has unquestionably led to significant progress and remarkable insights. But a more integrated approach is needed if we are ever to have a fully developed, fundamental understanding of aging and longevity and their relationship to health.

So, how does science speak with regard to aging? With many tongues. Important findings about aging can come from cancer research, Alzheimer's disease research, genetics and epigenetics research, studies of animals and plants, population health studies, and aging research studies. They can come from just about everywhere in the life sciences. They can be inconsistent, pushing different viewpoints. The contributing scientists mostly do excellent work. But they don't always talk with each other. It is a Tower of Babel! Understanding aging takes us into just about every area of human biology and medicine. The field is incredibly broad and deep and consists of many disparate areas of studies. Most scientists are only partially aware of what other scientists producing related results are doing, and can be unaware that others have solved part of the problem that they are addressing. So, what is presented here is my own story of what is known about aging.

Link: http://www.anti-agin...non-scientists/

View the full article at FightAging

[niner]

 

Too many people spend their time in the futile search for something that works now, when they only thing that will do any good is to work on making the treatments that will work tomorrow.

 

That's easy for a young person to say.  Vince, who is in his eighties if I'm not mistaken, may have different priorities.

 

 

and nothing in this area can be demonstrated to approach calorie restriction and exercise in terms of benefits delivered

 

Perhaps true at the moment, as long as we ignore Baati.  I suppose that many prefer to consider a result to not exist until it's replicated in a different lab, and I guess that's one way to roll, but it seems to me to be dogmatic.  I would rather acknowledge the existence of the work and its consistency with a number of other less dramatic results that have been published over the years, while we wait for replication.

[Hebbeh]

He is very much in favor of dietary supplements and other presently available means of metabolic alteration to impact aging, which seems to me to be a huge waste of time and effort. It is massively complex, the data is always ambiguous, and nothing in this area can be demonstrated to approach calorie restriction and exercise in terms of benefits delivered.

 

 

The smart longevity student in today's world would be a fool not to utilize all the available tools which would include carefully chosen supplements with a desired MOA in addition to diet and exercise....especially if this student was no longer a pup and the candle is burning.  And I believe most serious advocates are following all these avenues.  Who said it had to be either or?  Not Vince, I believe.  You are intentionally misquoting and misrepresenting Vince's work and doing us all a big disservice, especially Vince.

[Antonio2014]

 

Perhaps true at the moment, as long as we ignore Baati.  I suppose that many prefer to consider a result to not exist until it's replicated in a different lab, and I guess that's one way to roll, but it seems to me to be dogmatic.  I would rather acknowledge the existence of the work and its consistency with a number of other less dramatic results that have been published over the years, while we wait for replication.

 

 

That's not dogmatic, it's the scientific method.

 

 

 

The smart longevity student in today's world would be a fool not to utilize all the available tools which would include carefully chosen supplements with a desired MOA in addition to diet and exercise....especially if this student was no longer a pup and the candle is burning.  And I believe most serious advocates are following all these avenues.  Who said it had to be either or?  Not Vince, I believe.  You are intentionally misquoting and misrepresenting Vince's work and doing us all a big disservice, especially Vince.

 

 

Trying all the approaches, even the ones (or worse, mostly the ones) for which there is much evidence that they will produce little effect, if any at all, it's not smart, it's foolish.

[Hebbeh]

Trying all the approaches, even the ones (or worse, mostly the ones) for which there is much evidence that they will produce little effect, if any at all, it's not smart, it's foolish.

 

 

I hate to prove you wrong but I must be the healthiest but most foolish 57 year old I've ever met.

[Antonio2014]

That doesn't proves anything. If you reach 130 years old, that will start proving something.

[Hebbeh]

I'll trade for healthspan and enjoy living today.  And everybody I know always wants to know how I do it.  Including my MD...quote "I don't know what your're doing....but keep doing it".   There you have it...endorsed by my MD.  I am living proof.

[Antonio2014]

Whether you value healthspan more than lifespan is irrelevant. The topic of the article is the research about longevity and how to increase it, not merely better healthspan with an ordinary lifespan. You can't criticize the article for something that it doesn't say.

Edited by Antonio2014, 18 November 2014 - 02:21 PM.

[Hebbeh]

What would be foolish would be not expecting a positive effect on healthspan to not have some positive effect on lifespan.

[corb]

What would be foolish would be not expecting a positive effect on healthspan to not have some positive effect on lifespan.

 

To a degree you are correct.
In reality though very few lifestyle changes and supplements which have been proposed for slowing down aging are free of health risks.

 

Calorie restriction (especially the extreme case - fasting) means a lesser immune system.

Exercise is by no means completely safe. The older you get the more the risk stack up.  A broken bone at 70 pretty much means you lost the benefit you would've gotten from the exercise, etc.

And so on. It's always a tick for tock.
What people should do is take a step back and realize - we don't really have anti aging strategies and therapies now. They don't exists. Nothing should be advertized as such. Maybe some things will help some people be a bit healthier, maybe even give them an extra year or two, but none of those are universal.

 

 

That's easy for a young person to say.  Vince, who is in his eighties if I'm not mistaken, may have different priorities.

I understand that his priorities are more immediate. I would act the same in his shoes.

That being said there's not much that can help beyond taking a cryonics policy and going to church at that stage. Being an advocate for CR and fitness makes more sense if you're in your late twenties quite honestly.

[Antonio2014]

I got bored of you continuously changing your thesis. Bye.

Edited by Antonio2014, 18 November 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Mind]

It is a question of expected returns. Supplements, diet and exercise can increase your healthspan. But a person can go overboard in their expectations. If you are spending a couple thousand dollars per month on supps, IMO, that is too much (for diminishing returns), and you are doing it at the expense of funding current research that could return much more powerful interventions not too far into the future.

 

I focus on doing the easy and cheap things that are known too increase healthspan: diet, exercise. Very few supplements, and then I spend more time and money to support research, because the return on that investment (IMO) will be much greater. I am only in my 40s, so that plays a part as well.

[Hebbeh]

and you are doing it at the expense of funding current research that could return much more powerful interventions not too far into the future.

 

 

How long is "not to far in the future"?  Is this new research and technology going to make 130 the new 60?  How is this new technology going to be administered?  In a drug... as in a "supplement"?  Who is going to own the patents and profit from this technology paid for with our donations?  How much will this technology cost the common man or who will it be available to and who will be able to afford it?

[xEva]

a lively discussion for a change..

First, I have an issue with the OP's certainty that he got it right, while others come to:

"There are a number of people, researchers and advocates... who have a good understanding of present research and knowledge, but who then build on that understanding to assemble what look to me to be completely the wrong conclusions..."

This is not a thread to debate it, still, it's time to acknowledge that the accumulated damage theory of aging that has long been promoted by SENS is looking more and more doubtful with each passing year. IMO, it appears that there is no need to invent ways to repair the damage. Instead, there is a need to find ways to turn on the repair mechanisms that already exist but start failing with age.

 
 
@corb: I agree with you overall, xcept this little bit:

Calorie restriction (especially the extreme case - fasting) means a lesser immune system.

It's the other way around. Unlike sustained CR, repeated cycles of prolonged fasting can rejuvenate immune system. See Valter Longo of June 2014 Fasting triggers stem cell regeneration of damaged, old immune system (years ago I thought it was the case; how sweet it is to have it finally confirmed )
 
 
@Hebbeh: I'm with you man. That healthspan can buy a few extra --quality!-- years is the only certainty at the moment.

Edited by xEva, 19 November 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[Antonio2014]

This is not a thread to debate it, still, it's time to acknowledge that the accumulated damage theory of aging that has long been promoted by SENS is looking more and more doubtful with each passing year.

 

Talk is cheap, show me the data.

 

 

 

IMO, it appears that there is no need to invent ways to repair the damage. Instead, there is a need to find ways to turn on the repair mechanisms that already exist but start failing with age.

 

Then, you don't know anything about SENS, because a great part of what SENS does is precisely that (for example, removing excess of T cells that fight non dangerous diseases so that the organism can produce more usefull T cells).

 

And no, CR will not make you live longer.

Edited by Antonio2014, 19 November 2014 - 08:12 AM.

[Kalliste]

I think Reason makes a good point. There is a huge amount of billions of dollars wasted on supplements each year. In a magical fairyland all this money would be donated by logical people to research aimed at stopping aging. But in reality that doesn't happen. We want to believe these pills do something for us.

My personal belief is that you should:

1. Move as much as possible, grab every opportunity.

2. Don't overeat. Possibly periodic fasting or CR.

3. Spend some a few months looking into supplements but stop it there. Spend the excess time and energy promoting anti-aging research.

I've tried to "donate" my free time to comment on articles, websites and mail researchers. I've donated some money to SENS.

[corb]

This is not a thread to debate it, still, it's time to acknowledge that the accumulated damage theory of aging that has long been promoted by SENS is looking more and more doubtful with each passing year.

 

This is not something to be smug about.
I am planning on becoming a life extension advocate in the future and the prospect of going into debates with the religious majority if aging turns out to be mostly caused by our genetics is terrifying. Any ethical committee will rip you apart in that case.
You think talking about life extension is taboo now? Consider what's going to happen if someone comes up with actual scientific crosschecked proof of programmed aging. You live in the States you should have a general idea how that's going to go. Europe is a bit more open minded but just a tad bit, not enough to make a difference.

And no, there's no concrete evidence to disprove wear and tear yet.

If anything all the research done so far especially extremes like genetically treating mice with telomerase transporting viruses, parabiosis experiments, over-expression of tumor suppressors and so on only shows, genetic and epigenetic tampering only gives marginal benefits.

[xEva]

@Antonio2014: not sure what you mean by 'data' that would show that the accumulated damage theory of aging may be wrong. I'd like to ask you in turn, Where is the data that makes it right? This past spring I wanted to start a thread challenging the central tenet of this theory but got distracted. It sounds something like "damage occurs and keeps accumulating from the moment we are conceived and is invisible until it manifests as aging". I do not believe that "invisible until" part. Where is the evidence for it? I claim that aging is plainly visible, at a first fleeting glance.

 

IMO, it appears that there is no need to invent ways to repair the damage. Instead, there is a need to find ways to turn on the repair mechanisms that already exist but start failing with age.

 
Then, you don't know anything about SENS, because a great part of what SENS does is precisely that (for example, removing excess of T cells that fight non dangerous diseases so that the organism can produce more usefull T cells).
 
And no, CR will not make you live longer.

To the contrary, I'm familiar with this already year and a half old article and also know of a better way of "removing excess of T cells". It's called prolonged fasting and the Longo research published this June (mentioned above) speaks just about this. This is what works for this issue now. And what exactly do SENS have to offer for it now? To my knowledge, all they have is ideas, many of which, I'm sorry to say, I find untenable, certainly not in the near future. Lastly, I'm not into sustained CR. I'm into fasting, which is not quite the same, though the total caloric intake for a year may end up being the same.
 

@corb: you sound as if there is only 1 alternative to the accumulated damage theory, and that is the programmed aging. At the moment I'm undecided about it nor do I have another theory to offer. It's only that lately I'm getting more and more certain that accumulated damage theory is wrong. 'Damage is invisible until' is centuries-old idea. It is so old that we grew accustomed to it and accept it as 'self evident', even though the evidence for it is.. well, invisible.

And I certainly do not think that talking about life extension is a taboo. Neither do I find debating aging theories terrifying. Sounds like we live in parallel universes And what do you mean by this:

Consider what's going to happen if someone comes up with actual scientific crosschecked proof of programmed aging.

Are you saying that, should aging turn out genetically programmed, we should suppress this info, for it may compromise our cause? Don't know about you man, I just want to know how it really is.

Edited by xEva, 20 November 2014 - 02:38 AM.

[Antonio2014]

@xEva: You was the one that started saying that "accumulated damage theory of aging that has long been promoted by SENS is looking more and more doubtful with each passing year", so you should have some kind of proof or data that supports it, itsn't?

 

 

 

To the contrary, I'm familiar with this already year and a half old article and also know of a better way of "removing excess of T cells".

 

The article I posted has nothing to do with removing excess of T cells.

 

 

 

It's called prolonged fasting and the Longo research published this June (mentioned above) speaks just about this. This is what works for this issue now.

 

The article you posted has nothing to do with removing excess of T cells specialized in non dangerous diseases. Their result is about increasing the regeneration rate of all T cells, while the SENS therapy's purpose is to alter the balance between different kinds of T cells.

 

I think you don't understand SENS at all.

 

 

 

Edited by Antonio2014, 20 November 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[corb]

@corb: you sound as if there is only 1 alternative to the accumulated damage theory, and that is the programmed aging. At the moment I'm undecided about it nor do I have another theory to offer. It's only that lately I'm getting more and more certain that accumulated damage theory is wrong. 'Damage is invisible until' is centuries-old idea. It is so old that we grew accustomed to it and accept it as 'self evident', even though the evidence for it is.. well, invisible.
 

The other theories are just an addendum to accumulated damage, it doesn't matter if it's caused by oxidative stress, your mitochondria or an infectious agent, it's damage that accumulates.

 

 

And I certainly do not think that talking about life extension is a taboo. Neither do I find debating aging theories terrifying. Sounds like we live in parallel universes And what do you mean by this:

You've not talked to a lot of randomly selected medical professionals or in general random people with differing views. Even on this forum there's enough people against hard life extension - I'm not sure you are for it yourself, let alone going into a completely randomized group of people. Which I have done - both on the internet and off, I wanted to see what the general views would be, and I can tell you right now - the majority of people either don't want to talk about it or are against it. The ones which do like to talk about it are mostly the ones which are against it. Doesn't matter what nationality, religion, or political views they have. So it's obviously taboo across every group.

 

 

Are you saying that, should aging turn out genetically programmed, we should suppress this info, for it may compromise our cause? Don't know about you man, I just want to know how it really is.

You're misreading what I said.
First I don't think it's possible to suppress the information anyway and I don't see how that's going to help, when we need research to get anywhere.

If we disregard what the public opinion would be at that point (although we shouldn't because that's going to be a tremendous detriment on it's own), all I've read about programmed aging lately and unlike the sugar coated versions a couple of gerontologists have produced recently, is this - if aging is programmed there wont' be an aging gene or a true biological clock. The whole system will act as a clock. Every gene. Every process. Every cell. All will have a predetermined path of failure. Both in concert with neighboring structures but also on their own. So if we're talking about unattainable  objectives I think anti-aging in a programmed aging system is about as unattainable as you can get for modern science.

So even if scientists somehow got the funding, they'd still prefer to not even touch something that is guaranteed to produce no or minimal results for centuries.

 

The beauty of SENS is you're targeting the indicators of aging so regardless of the aging mechanism at work it will produce positive effects, the underlying causes and processes will only determine the efficacy, SENS is after all a stepping stone to a more targeted anti aging and as such is well thought out. Naturally attacking the main cause of aging directly will be the most effective - but considering we don't know what that is at the moment and considering SENS ties in into mainstream medical research nicely I'd say it's still the best theoretical (and hopefully experimental) work on anti aging we have at the moment.

 

Now to finish, I don't have anything against what you believe in. If you want to maximize your lifespan with fasting, diets, exercise and supplements, I'm completely ok with that, but I'm personally not into "healthy" aging, and I would never call what you're doing anti aging, because it's not. Which is what the initial argument was about.

Edited by corb, 20 November 2014 - 09:55 AM.

[Hebbeh]

 I'm personally not into "healthy" aging, and I would never call what you're doing anti aging, because it's not. Which is what the initial argument was about

 

 

You couldn't be more mistaken about that.  What I (and others) are doing is exactly healthy-aging...as compared to the general population (and apparently you) doing the same ole same ole unhealthy aging.  And compared to virtually everybody I know personally, it is apparently impressive anti-aging too.  I still have physical capabilities that probably 80-90% of the guys 10-15 years younger have lost...and I show no signs of slowing down.  And everybody I know agrees and wants to know how I do it....of course they don't want to make the effort.  And if your intention is to become immortal....well good luck with that...but it will never happen if you don't take care of business first.

[niner]

 

 

Perhaps true at the moment, as long as we ignore Baati.  I suppose that many prefer to consider a result to not exist until it's replicated in a different lab, and I guess that's one way to roll, but it seems to me to be dogmatic.  I would rather acknowledge the existence of the work and its consistency with a number of other less dramatic results that have been published over the years, while we wait for replication.

 

 

That's not dogmatic, it's the scientific method.

 

You misunderstand the scientific method.  Pretending a published result (that is consistent with results in other species, no less!) doesn't exist isn't the "scientific method", it's sticking your head in the sand.  A scientist would look at the result and think about it, then design experiments to replicate the original work and to test hypotheses that arise from it.

 

I hope everyone is helping to fund rejuvenative research through FightAging's Triple-Matched fundraiser.

[corb]

 

 I'm personally not into "healthy" aging, and I would never call what you're doing anti aging, because it's not. Which is what the initial argument was about

 

 

You couldn't be more mistaken about that.  What I (and others) are doing is exactly healthy-aging...as compared to the general population (and apparently you) doing the same ole same ole unhealthy aging.  And compared to virtually everybody I know personally, it is apparently impressive anti-aging too.  I still have physical capabilities that probably 80-90% of the guys 10-15 years younger have lost...and I show no signs of slowing down.  And everybody I know agrees and wants to know how I do it....of course they don't want to make the effort.  And if your intention is to become immortal....well good luck with that...but it will never happen if you don't take care of business first.

 

 

And I think you're mistaking general fitness for something that's absolutely dependent on your aging.
My grandfather was chopping wood and hauling heavy loads 5 stories by stairs into his late 70s. Still died from stroke in his 80s.

My other grandfather who is still alive fills up and then lifts up a 6 feet wall about a hundred and fifty gallon and a half bottles of water to water his garden every week for 7-8 months every year. He's also in his 70s. And he does it for fun.

So you can be fit and old at the same time. That being said they were still much fitter and healthier when they were young.

 

As for my grandmothers. Both fasted for religious and other reasons. Still got cancer in their 80s and passed on. So xEva it is what it is.

 

Stop thinking you're somehow above age related pathology just because you're feeling slightly better than the next middle aged person. You know what? Let's get back to this conversation when you hit 70.

 

And as for "effort", heh well, I've been around 19 BMI my whole life and I've never been much for meat. So I can hardly call the CRonnie dogma an effort. If anything I'd probably have to start eating more if I want to follow it. And I own a bicycle instead of a car. So I take care of business, don't you worry about me.

 

Again if healthy aging is your thing by all means do it, but stop advertising it as something it's not.

 

 

 

And if your intention is to become immortal....well good luck with that

Do you see by the way? The taboo I was talking about is right there. Even the people supposedly making an effort to be healthy and to live longer consider the discussion about actual anti aging as something to joke about.

[xEva]

The article you posted has nothing to do with removing excess of T cells specialized in non dangerous diseases. Their result is about increasing the regeneration rate of all T cells, while the SENS therapy's purpose is to alter the balance between different kinds of T cells.
 
I think you don't understand SENS at all.

Sorry to say, but undue confidence in their own understanding of biology in general and aging in particular is the main characteristic of SENS and their supporters.


As for the link I posted, it was a "general public" version that should have prompted you to get interested in reading more on the subject. Then you would learn that the levels of all kinds of immune cells go down during prolonged fasting. This is what prompts the organism to regenerated them anew during the refeeding phase.

And, just in case you missed that part in your physiology studies, the newly created immune cells are generated in proportion to the current needed, iow with the emphasis on the ones that are required now -- as opposed to the ones that were necessary in the past to deal with a specific challenge. That's what generally causes a problem: the immune cells that linger in large quantities after the need for them is gone.

As for the problems with the accumulating damage theory, it deserves a thread of its own. Later

Edited by xEva, 20 November 2014 - 05:09 PM.

[Marios Kyriazis]

I agree with xEva about the inadequacy of SENS to provide viable solutions to aging. To be honest, I am amazed at how people still believe at the promise that SENS can deliver anything useful.

 

Apart from the technical and research issues, one of the most significant obstacles to their proposed therapies is translation (from laboratory research to clinical application). For example, a main therapy suggested by SENS is stem cell replacement through bone marrow transplant.  Currently, there are about 60 000 bone marrow transplants performed each year in the world. Experts believe that with adequate funding and development of facilities, our medical systems can cope with perhaps another 30 to 50 thousand. That's a total of 100 000 bone marrow transplants a year. In order to treat a mere 10% of humanity with SENS-inspired bone marrow transplants of stem cells, we need to reach 700 000 000 people. It doesn't make any sense (oops, excuse the pun!) 

[niner]

I agree with xEva about the inadequacy of SENS to provide viable solutions to aging. To be honest, I am amazed at how people still believe at the promise that SENS can deliver anything useful.

 

Apart from the technical and research issues, one of the most significant obstacles to their proposed therapies is translation (from laboratory research to clinical application). For example, a main therapy suggested by SENS is stem cell replacement through bone marrow transplant.  Currently, there are about 60 000 bone marrow transplants performed each year in the world. Experts believe that with adequate funding and development of facilities, our medical systems can cope with perhaps another 30 to 50 thousand. That's a total of 100 000 bone marrow transplants a year. In order to treat a mere 10% of humanity with SENS-inspired bone marrow transplants of stem cells, we need to reach 700 000 000 people. It doesn't make any sense (oops, excuse the pun!) 

 

 

If this is the best example of why SENS won't work, then it's even more likely to succeed than I thought.  First of all, they are not proposing to do bone marrow transplants.  Their ideas about dealing with cell atrophy are more sophisticated, and don't involve xenotransplants.  Whatever therapy we are considering, delivering it to the entire planet on Day 1 is not part of the plan, and has nothing to do with the validity of the therapy.  At this point in our history, we can't protect the entire population of the world from disease, starvation, war, mis-governance, or natural disaster.  That doesn't mean that our efforts to get better at all of those things are without merit.

 

If you want to cherry-pick the least plausible part of the entire SENS program, I suggest that you look at WILT.  However, that doesn't mean the rest of it can't be done.

[xEva]

@corb: in my understanding, people are not against "hard life extension" per se, they are simply reluctant to openly associate themselves with an idea which, they believe, is doomed to failure. And that's how it looks at the moment. Though yes, deep inside just about everyone wants to live 'forever' (while staying forever young, of course ) but to openly admit it is seen as being naive, unrelistic, impractical, in a word, stupid. But in practice, the moment some promising supplement, device or a technique appears, everyone jumps on it. So IMO people don't want to discuss "it", 'cause they see no point -- at the moment. But once there will be something to discuss, mark my word, they will readily embrace it.

Regarding this:

... if aging is programmed there wont' be an aging gene or a true biological clock. The whole system will act as a clock. Every gene. Every process. Every cell.

but that's how an organism operates as a whole. There is no such thing as one gene, one system or even a group or subset of genes solely responsible for a specific, stand-apart function. The old idea was that it was possible to achieve a specific goal by tweaking a few genes or modifying this or that molecular pathway. Hardly anyone believes it now. A living organism is a nonlinear system where everything is interconnected. Like you said, "Every gene. Every process. Every cell." That was the point Michael Rose was making when he insisted that the still prevalent reductionist approach to biology is not scientifically valid. Initially I too had difficulty with his idea, until I came across it in an entirely different context of nonlinear logic and nonlinear dynamics. ..and it was demonstrated on the example of evolutionary computer programs. That's when it finally clicked for me and I had my aha! moment. The point is, there are logical processes that cannot be broken down into reductionist, simply analyzable parts. A living thing is one such process.

But IMO this does not mean that, when it comes to aging, all we have is a predetermined path to failure (to paraphrase you a bit). The way I see it, the repair mechanisms exist and work just fine -- while we are young, that is, and that's why the damage that occurs daily remains invisible. It is when these repair mechanisms start failing that damage we associate with aging becomes apparent.

That's basically my issue with SENS. IMO, they did not identify the problem properly. The problem is not that damage accumulates -- that's not the problem but the consequence of the real problem, which is the progressive failure of the existing repair mechanisms. But SENS don't even seem to be aware of these mechanisms and that's why they feel that they need to invent new ways to do their job. But in my view, all that needs to be done is to turn on or to upregulate the already existing repair functions. This appears to me like a more practical and realistic goal.

Edited by xEva, 21 November 2014 - 03:07 AM.

[niner]

But IMO this does not mean that, when it comes to aging, all we have is a predetermined path to failure (to paraphrase you a bit). The way I see it, the repair mechanisms exist and work just fine -- while we are young, that is, and that's why the damage that occurs daily remains invisible. It is when these repair mechanisms start failing that damage we associate with aging becomes apparent.

That's basically my issue with SENS. IMO, they did not identify the problem properly. The problem is not that damage accumulates -- that's not the problem but the consequence of the real problem, which is the progressive failure of the existing repair mechanisms. But SENS don't even seem to be aware of these mechanisms and that's why they feel that they need to invent new ways to do their job. But in my view, all that needs to be done is to turn on or to upregulate the already existing repair functions. This appears to me like a more practical and realistic goal.

 
We can test this hypothesis.  If you are right, then the damage of aging will be very non-linear, and only start to accrue when the repair mechanisms fail.  However, this doesn't seem to be the case.  In the following paper, we find glycation increasing as a function of chronological age, so this form of damage accrual is linear.  As we get much older, various forms of damage might feed back on each other, causing a snowballing effect. 
 

Exp Gerontol. 2008 Jul;43(7):663-7. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2008.01.012. Epub 2008 Feb 9.
Glycation associated skin autofluorescence and skin elasticity are related to chronological age and body mass index of healthy subjects.
Corstjens H, Dicanio D, Muizzuddin N, Neven A, Sparacio R, Declercq L, Maes D.

Estée Lauder Companies, Biological Research Department Europe, Nijverheidsstraat 15, 2260 Oevel, Belgium. hcorstjens@be.estee.com

Glycation is the non-enzymatic reaction between reducing sugars and proteins that leads to the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs). In vivo skin autofluorescence (lambda(ex)/lambda(em)=370/440 nm) was used as a non-invasive clinical tool to study skin AGE accumulation in healthy panellists. Using multiple linear regression analysis, it was shown that for panellists below the age of 40, glycation associated in vivo skin fluorescence intensity increased as a function of chronological age and body mass index (BMI). Above the age of 40, the fluorescence was associated to age but not to BMI, suggesting that the effect of age became dominant over BMI. Since the accumulation of AGEs is expected to affect the biomechanical properties of the skin, in vivo skin elasticity data were gathered on a second panel. It was found that skin elasticity depended on age and BMI in a similar fashion as to what we observed for the skin fluorescence data. It is hypothesised that skin AGE accumulation contributes to the loss of skin elasticity in aged and/or overweight people.

PMID: 18334287

[Kalliste]

A somewhat confusing debate erupted here. Nobody really knows if programmed aging or accumulated damage is the leading cause of aging. Knowing how spaghetti-complex biology usually is I'm sure we got a bit of both in us. SENS seems to be the clearest path towards battling this today and in the nearby future.

 

Most people were hostile towards internet and cell phones not so long ago. My own father swore he would never own one and wanted to stop a young version of me from getting one. Today he is holding it every minute of the day connecting to the hateful intardnet...

Most people say they don't want anything to do with life extension and so on, today.

 

But once Brad Pitt goes on Oprah Winfrey 2029 and tells the world he has undergone a senescent cell clearing therapy or an anti-AGE treatment people will be falling over each other trying to get a hold of it themselves.

[Antonio2014]

You misunderstand the scientific method.  Pretending a published result (that is consistent with results in other species, no less!) doesn't exist isn't the "scientific method", it's sticking your head in the sand.  A scientist would look at the result and think about it, then design experiments to replicate the original work and to test hypotheses that arise from it.

 

I hope everyone is helping to fund rejuvenative research through FightAging's Triple-Matched fundraiser.

 

 

You misundertand what I said (or the scientific method, I'm not sure). In science, experiments must be independently repeated and confirmed. A single experiment proves nothing. That is what I pointed out. Then you called that dogmatic, but actually it's only the scientific method. The dogmatic view is thinking that a single experiment proves something.