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

Photo
* * * - - 1 votes

Most bang for buck for achieving immortality


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

Poll: At the moment, which alternative gives most bang for buck for achieving immortality, for me individually? (98 member(s) have cast votes)

At the moment, which alternative gives most bang for buck for achieving immortality, for me individually?

  1. Donating to MPrize (44 votes [46.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.81%

  2. Buying supplements (50 votes [53.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.19%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589 ₮
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:13 PM

1) Live 50 years in misery, then let me know if you still think you'd rather live like that. Some people do it, some people don't. Obviously, across the world, people live in utter deprivation and continue to survive and continue to have the will to live. In truth, I do too--all I said was that I'd rather have a shorter lifespan that was of quality than a longer one that was of misery, but I am in no hurry to die. On the other hand, I also have no fear of death and don't mind the concept. This is a philosophical position and nothing more; I definitely fear pain and I fear many of the illness and frailties associated with old age, but not death in it of itself or "oblivion" (I am an atheist). And to answer the question, before it is asked: Why am I here? Because I find the topic(s) fascinating, figure I can learn somethings and perhaps enjoy a healthy lifestyle all in all. Moreover, if given the choice, I'd prefer to have the option to live an extended lifespan and choose the time of my own death, not have it chosen for me. I dont question why your here, you have great ideas and offer a lot. Im just splitting hairs here on this perspective that I think may actually be crucial.

2) If a scientist "cured aging" or discovered something along those lines, um, anything the Mprize could offer said scientist/scientists would be minuscule in comparison to the riches and fame they'd get from a gazillion sources. As for motivation: A scientist is going to be motivated towards the field of anti-aging out of their own curiosity and interest, or they won't be--the possibility of some money via the Mprize is dwarfed by the sort of money they could make much more reliably in other fields. Finally, a scientist who had a real legitimate basis for a grant towards a cure to aging wouldn't need the Mprize--there are so many firms and government grants that'd line up for them in a second.

3) I've seen some press for the Mprize and it doesn't exactly stir me. I think if we want to get publicity for our efforts, we need to hire A) A good PR firm. B) Target specific groups/scientists/etc in different fields for very specified grants. The combination of good PR with intelligent placement of grants is better than the Mprize, which to me, is only marginally better than a publicity stunt. But PR, lobbying, celebrity spokesmen, etc--would all pay better dividends, in the field of communication, than the Mprize. So would solid grants to a diverse set of scientists in varying fields working towards (via different methods and ideas) the goal of "curing aging".

4) You're an optimist on a scale that is heart-warming, on one hand, but not justified on another. It would be an understatement to say I do not share your optimism, especially in human nature. I'll leave it at that.

5) I dislike the D-Day analogy. I dislike most analogies, because they oversimplify the argument, while attempting to lend it legitimacy, but I find the D-Day analogy especially trite. Sorry, it just doesn't work for me. That doesn't say you can't buy into the D-Day analogy and send your money to the Mprize, but short of hard, verifiable results, I am not buying this.


1. This reminds me of one of the best books Ive ever read, Victor Frankls, "Mans Search for Meaning". Frankl was in a concentration camp for many years. The whole point of the book was that he found that those frail and sickly people who survived seemed to always be the ones that had something to live for, something they wanted to get back to really badly, that they thought was really important, like their wife, or a book they were writing, or something. He found that the people who gave up and died were the ones that didnt really see anything with enough value to compensate for the suffering now, in getting back to. Those that tended to bear through to the end did have something in mind, could hold on through extreme hunger and rash, vomiting, stomach spasms, frost bitten feet, dislocated bones from sleeping on wood on their sides, and then working heavy grunt labor in those conditions. Well if they could hold on through that for their wives or book projects or things like that, then I would think that we could shoud would all hold up through similar or lesser suffering for the chance at what I call the big 8. This whole concept that Im going over here is a big reason why I think that a list of concepts like that "big 8" or something similar to it needs to be memed in some how. Im working on outlining some ideas for it in this simple projects list that a bunch of us are getting ready to launch to life extension minded people, on line #34. I dont question why your here, you have great ideas and offer a lot. Im just splitting hairs here on this perspective that I think may actually be crucial.

2. Ive heard Aubrey outline it in videos many times, your reasons are some of the main reasons why the mprize is a great concept. There are no firms lined up for these good ideas, and nobody wants to work in the bio gerontolical engineering field if they can go and get a grant to make softer toilet paper and make millions off that someplace else. You say they will be motivated by their own curiosity or interest, or they wont be, but Aubrey says, and I agree, that to the contrary, they will be motivated by whatever is going to put money in their pockets and house payments in the bank, and food on the table. The mprize isnt a sure fired thing, but it does definently offer an great incentive in that direction that would other wise not be there. You say if they cured aging they would be rich and famous anyways, true, but they arent asking them to cure aging, they are asking them to beat the previous mouse longevity record. This news, the greater they beat the record by, will be more and more extrodinary by degree, and will create more and more of a hype and buzz in the minds of the world as it does. This buzz will motivate people to donate more and to put life extension on political platforms, making it harder and harder to get elected unless you support further breakthroughs.

3. I know what you mean though, and I know your not a "pessimist, dragging down the cause," Im just saying. Also, mprize may not stir you now, but it certainly will when the first radical longevity breakthroughs from it are put in the newspapers. That is the whole point of the mprize. To garner exposure. Although, persuing other avenues along with it like the ones you suggest are certainly needed avenues. A bunch of us outline projects, or the begining of projects for things like that here. That page is rough draft. We are working on cleaning it up, and readying it for launch to a wider base of indefinite life extension volunteers. You could either work with us to help get it going, or contact Mind and Bruce and Susan, they were talking about that exact thing at the Convergence conference. You can see the video here.

4. This reminds me of the concept that "Whether you think we can or we cant, you are right." You are the change that makes the difference, with out all the pessimimists coming to our side it will be a lot harder, but if all the pessimists would not use their pessimism as a reason to not step up more, then we would be a lot better off. If half the soldiers of d day used their pessimism about its potential success as reason to back out then we probably wouldnt have won. Now you I imagine would say something like, "well this is different and complex in different ways and we cant say that banding together and creating a good outcome in one place is any indication that it will work here." Well of course, we dont know that anything is going to work until we put our all into it. We can though be certain that it going to be slower going in correlation to the degree that our all isnt going into it. This equation just occured to me, it seems you could put it that potential plus optimism equals aptitude.

5. That is what some people often say about analogies. But you are missing the point, it is an analogy. Their purpose is to over simplify the argument. Their point is not to lend legitamacy but rather to be inspiring. Hard battles can be won when the people go all out. They are not won when they dont. Imagine Eisenhowers men using an analogy to d day, "Men, we are embarking on a great mission, they told Henry Ford that a mechanical horse could never work or replace the horse, but they banded together and made it happen." (I cant think of a profound analogy that Eisenhowers men might use so bear with that one)

"But that doesnt lend this invasion plan any legitamacy." Its not meant to persay, its meant to inspire.

Edited by brokenportal, 24 November 2008 - 10:42 PM.


#92 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155 ₮
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:23 PM

My thoughts: Innovation comes from a number of sources, but a large percentage is based in either the government or corporate sectors with grants offered from either of those sectors. You'll also see advancements arise, by accident, from the military industrial sector (while researching or developing something else entirely) or other related fields, like NASA.

I think we should expect a "cure to aging" from one of those sources--especially if big money can be made off of it and there is real science to back it up.


you are absolutely correct. However those above aren't working on it. Our small successes will be hopefully enough to jump start the rest of society. You know why I got into engineering approaches to treating aging myself? I went to a few biogerontology conferences and saw for the most part those guys are getting huge grants to do pretty useless stuff. Even the useful ones are just generating more puzzle pieces, hardly anyone is trying to put the pieces together. There is a lot of low hanging fruit just waiting for someone to come along and pick it. I really wish everyone would get their ass in gear so I could go do something else.

Even if you only think you can help out in a tiny way, the leverage is enormous. Every minute you move the time forward when the damage of aging can be repaired saves 700 people.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#93 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10 ₮

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:32 PM

My thoughts: Innovation comes from a number of sources, but a large percentage is based in either the government or corporate sectors with grants offered from either of those sectors. You'll also see advancements arise, by accident, from the military industrial sector (while researching or developing something else entirely) or other related fields, like NASA.

I think we should expect a "cure to aging" from one of those sources--especially if big money can be made off of it and there is real science to back it up.


you are absolutely correct. However those above aren't working on it. Our small successes will be hopefully enough to jump start the rest of society. You know why I got into engineering approaches to treating aging myself? I went to a few biogerontology conferences and saw for the most part those guys are getting huge grants to do pretty useless stuff. Even the useful ones are just generating more puzzle pieces, hardly anyone is trying to put the pieces together. There is a lot of low hanging fruit just waiting for someone to come along and pick it. I really wish everyone would get their ass in gear so I could go do something else.

Even if you only think you can help out in a tiny way, the leverage is enormous. Every minute you move the time forward when the damage of aging can be repaired saves 700 people.


Elrond, I totally agree: There is huge money given to some absurd things. But is the answer the Mprize? Or is the answer better strategies and tactics for researchers like yourself to capture said grants? I can see you clearly have the desire and passion for the field and I think it is not only commendable, it is essential. I just, eh, I just cannot buy that the Mprize is the way to go about it. I'd rather figure out some savvy tactics for large grants to be captured by forward thinking scientists and researchers.

Weirdly enough, I think the Mprize is simultaneously not thinking large enough and is not looking at things from the right direction (on a marketing basis--on a science basis, that's another issue altogether and I have my concerns there, too).


Err, I am curious where you got the 1 minute to 700 people ratio/theory? Is that how many people die of old age every minute in the world?

#94 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10 ₮

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:42 PM

1) Live 50 years in misery, then let me know if you still think you'd rather live like that. Some people do it, some people don't. Obviously, across the world, people live in utter deprivation and continue to survive and continue to have the will to live. In truth, I do too--all I said was that I'd rather have a shorter lifespan that was of quality than a longer one that was of misery, but I am in no hurry to die. On the other hand, I also have no fear of death and don't mind the concept. This is a philosophical position and nothing more; I definitely fear pain and I fear many of the illness and frailties associated with old age, but not death in it of itself or "oblivion" (I am an atheist). And to answer the question, before it is asked: Why am I here? Because I find the topic(s) fascinating, figure I can learn somethings and perhaps enjoy a healthy lifestyle all in all. Moreover, if given the choice, I'd prefer to have the option to live an extended lifespan and choose the time of my own death, not have it chosen for me. I dont question why your here, you have great ideas and offer a lot. Im just splitting hairs here on this perspective that I think may actually be crucial.

2) If a scientist "cured aging" or discovered something along those lines, um, anything the Mprize could offer said scientist/scientists would be minuscule in comparison to the riches and fame they'd get from a gazillion sources. As for motivation: A scientist is going to be motivated towards the field of anti-aging out of their own curiosity and interest, or they won't be--the possibility of some money via the Mprize is dwarfed by the sort of money they could make much more reliably in other fields. Finally, a scientist who had a real legitimate basis for a grant towards a cure to aging wouldn't need the Mprize--there are so many firms and government grants that'd line up for them in a second.

3) I've seen some press for the Mprize and it doesn't exactly stir me. I think if we want to get publicity for our efforts, we need to hire A) A good PR firm. B) Target specific groups/scientists/etc in different fields for very specified grants. The combination of good PR with intelligent placement of grants is better than the Mprize, which to me, is only marginally better than a publicity stunt. But PR, lobbying, celebrity spokesmen, etc--would all pay better dividends, in the field of communication, than the Mprize. So would solid grants to a diverse set of scientists in varying fields working towards (via different methods and ideas) the goal of "curing aging".

4) You're an optimist on a scale that is heart-warming, on one hand, but not justified on another. It would be an understatement to say I do not share your optimism, especially in human nature. I'll leave it at that.

5) I dislike the D-Day analogy. I dislike most analogies, because they oversimplify the argument, while attempting to lend it legitimacy, but I find the D-Day analogy especially trite. Sorry, it just doesn't work for me. That doesn't say you can't buy into the D-Day analogy and send your money to the Mprize, but short of hard, verifiable results, I am not buying this.


1. This reminds me of one of the best books Ive ever read, Victor Frankls, "Mans Search for Meaning". Frankl was in a concentration camp for many years. The whole point of the book was that he found that those frail and sickly people who survived seemed to always be the ones that had something to live for, something they wanted to get back to really badly, that they thought was really important, like their wife, or a book they were writing, or something. He found that the people who gave up and died were the ones that didnt really see anything with enough value to compensate for the suffering now, in getting back to. Those that tended to bear through to the end did have something in mind, could hold on through extreme hunger and rash, vomiting, stomach spasms, frost bitten feet, dislocated bones from sleeping on wood on their sides, and then working heavy grunt labor in those conditions. Well if they could hold on through that for their wives or book projects or things like that, then I would think that we could shoud would all hold up through similar or lesser suffering for the chance at what I call the big 8. This whole concept that Im going over here is a big reason why I think that a list of concepts like that "big 8" or something similar to it needs to be memed in some how. Im working on outlining some ideas for it in this simple projects list that a bunch of us are getting ready to launch to life extension minded people, on line #34. I dont question why your here, you have great ideas and offer a lot. Im just splitting hairs here on this perspective that I think may actually be crucial.

2. Ive heard Aubrey outline it in videos many times, your reasons are some of the main reasons why the mprize is a great concept. There are no firms lined up for these good ideas, and nobody wants to work in the bio gerontolical engineering field if they can go and get a grant to make softer toilet paper and make millions off that someplace else. You say they will be motivated by their own curiosity or interest, or they wont be, but Aubrey says, and I agree, that to the contrary, they will be motivated by whatever is going to put money in their pockets and house payments in the bank, and food on the table. The mprize isnt a sure fired thing, but it does definently offer an great incentive in that direction that would other wise not be there. You say if they cured aging they would be rich and famous anyways, true, but they arent asking them to cure aging, they are asking them to beat the previous mouse longevity record. This news, the greater they beat the record by, will be more and more extrodinary by degree, and will create more and more of a hype and buzz in the minds of the world as it does. This buzz will motivate people to donate more and to put life extension on political platforms, making it harder and harder to get elected unless you support further breakthroughs.

3. I know what you mean though, and I know your not a "pessimist, dragging down the cause," Im just saying. Also, mprize may not stir you, but it certainly will when the first radical longevity breakthroughs from it are put in the newspapers. That is the whole point of the mprize. To garner exposure. Although, persuing other avenues along with it like the ones you suggest are certainly needed avenues. A bunch of us outline projects, or the begining of projects for things like that here. That page is rough draft. We are working on cleaning it up, and readying it for launch to a wider base of indefinite life extension volunteers. You could either work with us to help get it going, or contact Mind and Bruce and Susan, they were talking about that exact thing at the Convergence conference. You can see the video here.

4. This reminds me of the concept that "Whether you think we can or we cant, you are right." You are the change that makes the difference, with out all the pessimimists coming to our side it will be a lot harder, but if all the pessimists would not use their pessimism as a reason to not step up more, then we would be a lot better off. If half the soldiers of d day used their pessimism about its potential success as reason to back out then we probably wouldnt have won. Now you I imagine would say something like, "well this is different and complex in different ways and we cant say that banding together and creating a good outcome in one place is any indication that it will work here." Well of course, we dont know that anything is going to work until we put our all into it. We can though be certain that it going to be slower going in correlation to the degree that our all isnt going into it. This equation just occured to me, it seems you could put it that potential plus optimism equals aptitude.

5. That is what some people often say about analogies. But you are missing the point, it is an analogy. Their purpose is to over simplify the argument. Their point is not to lend legitamacy but rather to be inspiring. Hard battles can be won when the people go all out. They are not won when they dont. Imagine Eisenhowers men using an analogy to d day, "Men, we are embarking on a great mission, they told Henry Ford that a mechanical horse could never work or replace the horse, but they banded together and made it happen." (I cant think of a profound analogy that Eisenhowers men might use so bear with that one)

"But that doesnt lend this invasion plan any legitamacy." Its not meant to persay, its meant to inspire.



You know what? This was a rather cogent and well-reasoned position. I'll give it some thought and take a second look at the Mprize. No promises that I'll suddenly reverse my position--I have a lot of reservations--but you've raised some valid points worth thinking over.

As an aside, don't take this the wrong way, but you should consider spell-checking your posts. You lose a little with the spelling errors. Just a polite suggestion.

#95 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241 ₮
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 24 November 2008 - 11:43 PM

Personally I think lobbying will get most bang for buck, esp as the US gov is looking to pour up to $700 billion into the economy and Barack Obama is supposed to be fairly ok with investing in science (that is my understanding - sure someone will refute it :).

How much more is the M-Prize offering to researchers than winning the Nobel prize? Seriously the prestige of winning the Nobel dwarfs the M-Prize a thousand fold and more.

I strongly believe given my current age, health, lifestyle etc. I will live longer if I take a selected few supplements - not extend maximal lifespan, but increase average lifespan. I also believe that my health for the last few years will be better. I may only gain 2 or 3 years but then again, I may gain 20 or 30 years. Either way I am better off and have a greater chance of living long enough to benefit from new technologies.

M-Prize has a small chance of success but is but one tiny element in a huge research effort. Remember, lots of discoveries are accidental - look for one thing and find another. Also many drugs are found to have uses elsewhere.

Finally on the D-Day analogy, I would have got on the first safe passage to a non warring part of the world and let others fight it out. My personal survival is key here, selfish as that may sound. I will fight only when my back is up against a wall. Too many thought they were being noble when the went to kill and be killed - they were simply being used as pawns. If it made them happy/proud fine, but it doesn't work for me.

#96 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 145 ₮
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 25 November 2008 - 02:29 AM

I'm a member of "The 300," yet I still see SENS as a long shot in my lifetime. Therefore, I using everything I can that can help now: intensity training, low-carb paleolithic diet, supplements, HRT, and intermittent 24-hr fasting. Thanks to supplements, in particular, I've reversed a significant percentage of arterial calcification from my pre-40 years of fast food, processed carb Western diet consumption. I've been sick once in seven years, and my energy levels feel like they did when I was in my 20's. Aging seems to be a concept more than a reality for me -- maybe one day it'll hit me. But, in the mean time, I seem to be doing pretty well in my battle against it.

#97 shaggy

  • Guest
  • 282 posts
  • 4 ₮

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:52 PM

I'm a member of "The 300," yet I still see SENS as a long shot in my lifetime. Therefore, I using everything I can that can help now: intensity training, low-carb paleolithic diet, supplements, HRT, and intermittent 24-hr fasting. Thanks to supplements, in particular, I've reversed a significant percentage of arterial calcification from my pre-40 years of fast food, processed carb Western diet consumption. I've been sick once in seven years, and my energy levels feel like they did when I was in my 20's. Aging seems to be a concept more than a reality for me -- maybe one day it'll hit me. But, in the mean time, I seem to be doing pretty well in my battle against it.


Hi Duke
What supplements have you been using to reverse your atherosclerosis and what results have you achieved?

I currently take aged garlic extract, Vitamin K2, Vitamin D, Red yeast rice, sytrinol, ACAI, fish oil, Res, EGCg, pycnogenol, astaxanthin, NA-RALA & ALC as well as other bits and bobs for this. Do you think these are worthwhile - heart disease is very common in my family! :-(

Thanks for any advice...

#98 pycnogenol

  • Guest
  • 1,164 posts
  • 72 ₮
  • Location:In a van down by the river!

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:20 AM

Shaggy said:

"I currently take aged garlic extract, Vitamin K2, Vitamin D, Red yeast rice, sytrinol, ACAI, fish oil, Res, EGCg, pycnogenol, astaxanthin, NA-RALA & ALC as well as other bits and bobs for this."

Red yeast rice acts like a 'statin' drug and you increase the likelihood that your liver enzymes will rise, which is a sign of toxicity. Red yeast rice has the same liver-toxic molecules in it as the
prescription statin drugs. Because you take red yeast rice it is very important to have a doctor monitor your liver enzymes regularly to see if liver toxicity is a problem. I was on red yeast rice for
6 months and it lowered my cholesterol but spiked my liver enzymes so my doctor took me off the stuff.

Edited by pycnogenol, 03 December 2008 - 01:24 AM.

  • like x 2

#99 seleukos

  • Guest
  • 8 posts
  • 12 ₮
  • Location:Albany, NY
  • ✔

Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:24 PM

No supplement has EVER shown a demonstrable increase in maximum LS in normal, healthy, well-cared-for organisms -- ie, relative to a control group with mean & max LS of >900 & 1200 days, respectively, in mice. By contrast, this is routinely achieved in modern CR studies.

For the moment, supplements can be a minor insurance policy, and there are a couple of exotics that might be worth the experiment (R(+)-LA, benfotiamine, pyridoxamine (if you can get it clean -- and I'm not aware of any such source at the moment), but they simply cannot be justified on an evidence-based, risk: benefit analysis. CR and the MPrize are the only reasonable investments for radical life extension.



For those capable of understanding, who do the research on deprenyl, and have an intricate insights into the aging process know deprenyl and CR diet are the most proven means of increasing lifespan in animals and hold the best promise of compounds currently available for helping to increase lifespan in humans. No single compound will ever stop aging, rather a multifaceted approach utilizing diet, drugs, supplements, stem cell, gene therapy, and nanotech will prove successive in my opinion.

R-ALA, Benfotiamine, and Pyridoxamine are compounds proven to intervene in known causes/factors of aging (quality is not an issue unless you buy them from a respectable source) I see no reason not to take them unless you simply want to help reduce the risk of age related diseases.

While few studies on supplements have shown a maximum lifespan effect (partly because very few people fund the research) the drug deprenyl has been studied with healthy mice showing an effect of increasing maximum lifespan.(1,2, see http://www.imminst.o...&f=199&t=384&s= for more research)

CR and the MPrize are the only reasonable investments for radical life extension.


The Mprize sounds like a good idea but the results will take a very long time to benefit anyone in the next 50 years in my opinion….I'd rather invest in what I know can benefit me now rather than ensure some mouse lives longer than I do.

CR is not a very reasonable approach in my opinion…considering most people will not do it at its full extent. I follow a modified CR diet combined with several compounds I take on a daily basis that I know will improve my mental/physical health and greatly reduce many of the known causes and factors of aging.


(1)
Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 1989;126:83-91
The pharmacology of selegiline ((-)deprenyl). New aspects.
Knoll J. Department of Pharmacology, Semmelweis University of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.

Male rats were treated from the end of their 2nd year of life either with saline (1 ml/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) or with deprenyl (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) three times a week until death. Whereas none of the two-year-old saline-treated rats displayed full scale sexual activity, this appeared in 64 out of 66 rats on deprenyl. The longest living rat in the saline-treated group lived 164 weeks. The average lifespan of the group was 147.05 +/- 0.56 weeks. The shortest living animal in the (-)deprenyl-treated group lived 171 weeks and the longest living rat died during the 226th week of its life. The average lifespan was 191.91 +/- 2.31 weeks. This is the first instance that a well-aimed medication prolonged lifespan of members of a species beyond their maximum age of death (182 weeks in the rat).

(2)
Life Sci 1989;45(6):525-31
Striatal dopamine, sexual activity and lifespan. Longevity of rats treated with (-)deprenyl.
Knoll J, Dallo J, Yen TT. Department of Pharmacology, Semmelweis University of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.

The influence of longterm deprenyl treatment on the sexual performance and lifespan of male rats was studied. One hundred and thirty two rats were treated from the end of their 2nd year of life either with saline (1 ml/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) or with deprenyl (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) three times a week until death. Whereas none of the two-year-old saline-treated rats displayed full scale sexual activity, this appeared in 64 out of 66 rats on deprenyl. The longest living rat in the saline-treated group lived 164 weeks. The lifespan of the group was 147.05 +/- 0.56 weeks. The shortest living animal in the (-)deprenyl-treated group lived 171 weeks and the longest living rat died during the 226th week of its life. The lifespan was 191.91 +/- 2.31 weeks. This is the first instance that a well aimed medication prolonged lifespan of members of a species beyond their maximum age of death (182 weeks in the rat). A close relation between sexual activity and lifespan was detected.


Deprenyl? As in the MAOI antidepressant Deprenyl? I mean... I know it's used for Parkinson's due to some anti-apoptotic effects on dopaminergic braincells but I've never seen anything suggesting an antiaging application, could you link me to a study?

#100 Kevnzworld

  • Guest
  • 885 posts
  • 306 ₮
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 01 March 2014 - 03:54 AM

" Deprenyl? As in the MAOI antidepressant Deprenyl? I mean... I know it's used for Parkinson's due to some anti-apoptotic effects on dopaminergic braincells but I've never seen anything suggesting an antiaging application, could you link me to a study? "

Deprenyl ( selegiline ) has been studied and used as an anti aging supplement for years. I take 5 mg every other day.
It also boosts sexual function ( not a bad side effect )
http://deprenyl.net/...deprenyl-37.htm
http://www.antiaging...com/50-deprenyl
http://www.selegiline.com/

Edited by Kevnzworld, 01 March 2014 - 03:57 AM.


#101 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000 ₮
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 March 2014 - 11:51 PM

Now that this thread has been roused from the crypt, it prompts me to ask "what's up with deprenyl, anyway"? Was the Knoll paper ever replicated? Considering the radio silence on this topic, I'm guessing that it wasn't.

#102 Kevnzworld

  • Guest
  • 885 posts
  • 306 ₮
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2014 - 12:43 AM

Now that this thread has been roused from the crypt, it prompts me to ask "what's up with deprenyl, anyway"? Was the Knoll paper ever replicated? Considering the radio silence on this topic, I'm guessing that it wasn't.

It seems like interest in Deprenyl as an anti aging substance has declined over the last decade as " newer " supplements became more popular and are more readily available commercially. ( You can't buy it in the US ) Most of the current research has focused on its use to treat Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease as a patented transdermal patch.
The MOA suggests that it might be useful as an anti aging substance. I'm not aware of any newer longevity studies with Deprenyl....
" Age-related protective effect of deprenyl on changes in the levels of diagnostic marker enzymes and antioxidant defense enzymes activities in cerebellar tissue in Wistar rats."
" Deprenyl also exerted an antioxidant effect against aging process by hindering lipid peroxidation to an extent. Moderate rise in the levels of reduced glutathione and activities of glutathione-dependent antioxidant enzymes and antiperoxidative enzymes was also observed. The results of the present investigation indicated that the protective potential of deprenyl was probably due to the increase of the activity of the free radical scavenging enzymes or to a counteraction of free radicals by its antioxidant nature or to a strengthening of neuronal membrane by its membrane-stabilizing action."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....enyl selegiline

This study in 1997 suggests that it may help dogs live longer !
http://deprenyl.net/...deprenyl-15.htm


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#103 Castiel

  • Guest
  • 410 posts
  • 94 ₮
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 March 2014 - 01:26 AM

No supplement has EVER shown a demonstrable increase in maximum LS in normal, healthy, well-cared-for organisms

Resveratrol increased the lifespan of yeast, and fish(unless one assumes these were not well cared for it stands as an example)

Resveratrol also increases SAMR1 mice lifespan which are sometimes used as controls. They're called senescence resistant, but I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that.

Rhodiola increased lifespan in flies in a manner that was additive with CR.

There is also glycine which under conservative methionine intake increases lifespan, by mimicking methionine restriction.

The mutations inhibited key molecules involved in insulin signaling (IIS) and the nutrient signaling pathway Target of Rapamycin (TOR). Lead scientist and Buck faculty Pankaj Kapahi, PhD, said single mutations in TOR (in this case RSKS-1) usually result in a 30 percent lifespan extension, while mutations in IIS (Daf-2) often result in a doubling of lifespan in the worms -- added together they would be expected to extend longevity by 130 percent. "Instead, what we have here is a synergistic five-fold increase in lifespan,"-sciencedailyhttp://www.scienceda...31212123309.htm

If multiple interventions with a 30-40% increase are found and combined the result may very well be a synergistic explosion.

I think the gateway to greater lifespan, substantial, may not be as hard some believe. Look at bonobos 40yr lifespan. If we asked how to increase that to SENS proponents and didn't know about humans, it would be said that most of the easy longevity fixes were implemented and we NEED SENS or no REAL improvement could be attained, maybe modest few years. Yet DID NATURE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT MOST OF SENS to basically triple lifespan in humans to 110-120 from bonobos? It doesn't seem so, we share it is said over 98% of our genes, small modifications mostly to gene expression tripled lifespan, and I believe similar could offer us substantial lifespan gains if we only knew the necessary gene expression changes.
  • like x 1




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users