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

Photo

Convergence of Two Aging Theories

aging adaptation maintenance theories evolution longevity

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#61 Santi

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Miami, FL
  • NO

Posted 22 January 2016 - 10:07 PM

"The only group of people that I know of that truly defy the aging process both visually and physically are the serious body builders. Muscle mass and strength and body composition go a long, long way towards mitigating the aging process."

The majority of benefits from calorie restriction are from methionine restriction. Serious body builders normally eat healthy, have low body fat, but supplement with extra protein which has methionine.

Methionine restriction decreases adipose tissue and increases brown fat. It also increases FGF21 which was shown recently to slow aging of the thymus. While methionine supplementation increases inflammation.

It would be nice to see the results of a study on the lifespan of serious body builders vs normal people with low body fat% who eat healthy. I am pretty sure that extra methionine will have negative effects on the lifespan of bodybuilders.
  • unsure x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#62 Rocket

  • Guest
  • 1,072 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Usa
  • NO

Posted 23 January 2016 - 02:23 AM

I'm not making statements about longevity and muscle mass, just quality of life. There's nothing to be had by living the cr way in terms of extra decades... Its wishful thinking. The 2 certainties of CR are skinny and weak in old age. My $0.02.
  • Good Point x 2
  • Agree x 1

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

#63 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 23 January 2016 - 09:19 AM

Wait so you basically are agreeing with me?   The whole point of my post was to highlight the potential for CR while drawing upon common criticisms. What do you mean by follow my own advice??? Please clarify

 

No, I don't agree at all. I say that CR effect on human life extension is very small or non-existent.

 

Follow your own advice means to know the technical data before predicting CR effects on humans. Particularly, this point:

 

However, we already know that larger complex organisms pretty much build off of the genetic and biological foundation of more primitive organisms. Biology is very "conservative" in that sense.  CR has been shown in species IE nematodes to mice and an array of other species.

 

You seem to say that, since biology is similar for all species, CR should affect us in the same amount than it affects worms and mice. But, anybody that knows a little about CR experiments also knows that, the longer a species lives, the less an effect CR has on it.


Edited by Antonio2014, 23 January 2016 - 09:20 AM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Good Point x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 23 January 2016 - 09:30 AM

It's not that simple.   CR in the past is related to malnutrition and lack of food those conditions are bordering on a harsh conditions scenario and although that might fall under CR by caloric intake may perhaps die early do to malnutrition and just overall lack of healthcare.

 

There are several religious orders that practiced CR, and no big effect on lifespan was observed.


  • Ill informed x 1

#65 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 January 2016 - 12:26 AM

 

Wait so you basically are agreeing with me?   The whole point of my post was to highlight the potential for CR while drawing upon common criticisms. What do you mean by follow my own advice??? Please clarify

 

No, I don't agree at all. I say that CR effect on human life extension is very small or non-existent.

 

Follow your own advice means to know the technical data before predicting CR effects on humans. Particularly, this point:

 

However, we already know that larger complex organisms pretty much build off of the genetic and biological foundation of more primitive organisms. Biology is very "conservative" in that sense.  CR has been shown in species IE nematodes to mice and an array of other species.

 

You seem to say that, since biology is similar for all species, CR should affect us in the same amount than it affects worms and mice. But, anybody that knows a little about CR experiments also knows that, the longer a species lives, the less an effect CR has on it.

 

 

No that's complete misinformation.

 

I said it would likely have some effect.  Did I say  anything about magnitude?  No

 

Did I say as If I already know whether or not CR has an effect other than speculation? No

 

When did I say it should affect us in the same amount??  When, please show us ,  because the quote you picked doesn't show it.

 

"Take my own advice" you're trying to say something insightful here when it's not a good fit.

 

CR having less of an effect on larger more complex species is so intuitively  obvious that I'm surprised you think others don't get this. 

 

  I never implied any of those assumptions you made.
 


Edited by Never_Ending, 24 January 2016 - 12:45 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#66 niner

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

Posted 24 January 2016 - 03:39 AM

 

 

Wait so you basically are agreeing with me?   The whole point of my post was to highlight the potential for CR while drawing upon common criticisms. What do you mean by follow my own advice??? Please clarify

 

No, I don't agree at all. I say that CR effect on human life extension is very small or non-existent.

 

Follow your own advice means to know the technical data before predicting CR effects on humans. Particularly, this point:

 

However, we already know that larger complex organisms pretty much build off of the genetic and biological foundation of more primitive organisms. Biology is very "conservative" in that sense.  CR has been shown in species IE nematodes to mice and an array of other species.

 

You seem to say that, since biology is similar for all species, CR should affect us in the same amount than it affects worms and mice. But, anybody that knows a little about CR experiments also knows that, the longer a species lives, the less an effect CR has on it.

 

 

No that's complete misinformation.

 

I said it would likely have some effect.  Did I say  anything about magnitude?  No

 

Did I say as If I already know whether or not CR has an effect other than speculation? No

 

When did I say it should affect us in the same amount??  When, please show us ,  because the quote you picked doesn't show it.

 

"Take my own advice" you're trying to say something insightful here when it's not a good fit.

 

CR having less of an effect on larger more complex species is so intuitively  obvious that I'm surprised you think others don't get this. 

 

 I never implied any of those assumptions you made.

 

It sure sounded like you were arguing that because CR shows LS extension in a wide variety of species, that it should work in humans too.  True, you didn't give specific values, but you also didn't qualify it by the decreasing trend in magnitudes that Antonio pointed out.  I don't see anything Antonio said in this post that qualifies as misinformation.  What part of it do you think is misinformation?


  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

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

#67 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:01 AM

CR might work. Jury's still out. The difference between past calorie restriction and present calorie restriction may be the optimal nutrition aspect that the CR folks of today also practice. It's not just limiting calories. It's also about maximizing nutritional quality. And that aspect of optimal nutrition combined with calorie restriction was most certainly not practiced by our ancestors or by the religious sects that ate less food.

But I agree with the point that CR makes practitioners skinny. But weak? Well, some of them are also lifting weights, working out, and keeping well-toned. Weakness here sounds like a moral judgement. Who's to define physical strength? What, if you can't lift some weighy barbell over your face then you're weak? I'm not sure I agree.

#68 niner

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

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:16 AM

But I agree with the point that CR makes practitioners skinny. But weak? Well, some of them are also lifting weights, working out, and keeping well-toned. Weakness here sounds like a moral judgement. Who's to define physical strength? What, if you can't lift some weighy barbell over your face then you're weak? I'm not sure I agree.

 

I know someone who does CRON, and they sometimes have difficulty doing practical things in life that take a little muscle.  Stuff that a normal person wouldn't have trouble with.  That's an n=1 observation, of course, but when you want to build strength, you need protein and caloric excess.  For the things that I want to do in life, I need a certain level of strength.  I'm not talking about showing off to the girls or whatever, I mean physical work (like shoveling snow..) or non-crazy athletic things.



#69 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:23 AM

^^^ Yes. I know what you mean. And that's frankly why I gave it up. But that's me and that's you. But that's not everyone. Some people really seem to thrive on calorie restriction. But I'm just too active to make it work. And that's a choice: activity today perhaps at the expense of increased longevity. But we don't know if it works in humans yet. So these CRON folks are pioneers. Self-experimenters. And as such, it's all good. We'll learn from the pioneers -- does it extend life by nothing or something?

#70 niner

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

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:34 AM

Yeah.  When I get home from the gym and eat a high protein meal, the thought usually crosses my mind that I'm working against a longer life.  It's a tradeoff.  Eventually we'll learn something when enough of our CR friends live to a ripe old age.  (or not...)  Of course, by that time we should have some ass-kicking rejuvenation therapies. 


  • Good Point x 1

#71 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:16 AM

I really wish the ass-kicking rejuvenation therapies would pick of the pace. Liz Parrish seems to brightest hope nowadays. Back to CR, though, it just seems logical that if it works in nearly every other species then it should work for us miserable humans, too. And certainly the blood test reports shared by CR practionioners look pretty damned good. I wish I could do it, but I just seem to whither away to nothing. And I admit to feeling weaker physically -- despite what I just wrote -- but weaker physically only sometimes. Other times I'd feel normal and strong. Our bodies are strange, and they do their own things despite what we may wish for or expect.

#72 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 January 2016 - 03:19 PM

 

 

No that's complete misinformation.

 

I said it would likely have some effect.  Did I say  anything about magnitude?  No

 

Did I say as If I already know whether or not CR has an effect other than speculation? No

 

When did I say it should affect us in the same amount??  When, please show us ,  because the quote you picked doesn't show it.

 

"Take my own advice" you're trying to say something insightful here when it's not a good fit.

 

CR having less of an effect on larger more complex species is so intuitively  obvious that I'm surprised you think others don't get this. 

 

 I never implied any of those assumptions you made.

 

It sure sounded like you were arguing that because CR shows LS extension in a wide variety of species, that it should work in humans too.  True, you didn't give specific values, but you also didn't qualify it by the decreasing trend in magnitudes that Antonio pointed out.  I don't see anything Antonio said in this post that qualifies as misinformation.  What part of it do you think is misinformation?

 

 

That's exactly my point It was to say it shows LS extension,  and CR(to a certain degree) would potentially have a positive LS effect on humans.

How can one assume I implied the same MAGNITUDE/PROPORTION...  (I don't need to qualify magnitude because I never made a statement on magnitude, furthermore I didn't even mention the magnitude on animals either,  for a reason).

 

By him saying I implied the same magnitude is bringing up a common blunder that I NEVER MADE in the first place. Yes there are people in support of CR that might make that assumption that the magnitudes would be proportional but I'm not one of them.     That's the part I mentioned was misinformation(it's still the case even if it was well weaved into his sentences)

 

 


Edited by Never_Ending, 24 January 2016 - 03:50 PM.


#73 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 January 2016 - 03:55 PM

I really wish the ass-kicking rejuvenation therapies would pick of the pace. Liz Parrish seems to brightest hope nowadays. Back to CR, though, it just seems logical that if it works in nearly every other species then it should work for us miserable humans, too. And certainly the blood test reports shared by CR practionioners look pretty damned good. I wish I could do it, but I just seem to whither away to nothing. And I admit to feeling weaker physically -- despite what I just wrote -- but weaker physically only sometimes. Other times I'd feel normal and strong. Our bodies are strange, and they do their own things despite what we may wish for or expect.

 

Yes one would have have to do it reasonably , many things are a double edged sword if we do it extensively it could make us weaker and therefore have a bad effect on us.    It's all about handling the different aspects in a way that is helpful to the the human body.

 

I recall seeing one of your posts that talk about aging being a little bit of both factors some perhaps damage related some perhaps something DNA linked (maybe fixable but we'll see) and who knows what other factors there are.  I hope to see more therapies and advancement coming at a growing pace. :)


Edited by Never_Ending, 24 January 2016 - 03:59 PM.


#74 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:13 PM

Telomere length is definitely some sort of clock as eventually cells which divide reach the Hayflick limit if their telomere length is not extended. However looking at the evidence I think most people can agree that telomere length is not the main diver of aging. However the epigenetic clock is very highly correlated with mortality risk, even higher than age. Also my understanding is that cells taken from older individuals and have their epigenetic "program" reset become like young cells again. I have to look for sources to verify that this is the case in all types of cells. I know in neurons it was said that when their epigenetic program is reset they were "indistinguishable between young and old derived samples."  

 

 

 I realized later that it's quite profound what you brought up and I will read upon it.  Also instead of a reset perhaps the Germ cells dont undergo the same epigenetic degeneration so therefore it only needs to change a little bit to be all new again.   Anyhow I think this and things like telomeres are interrelated and the epigenetic variation can perhaps be influenced by certain compounds etc and lifestyle habits.


 



#75 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:08 PM

 

 

 You dismissed the article only by who is his author, not even reading it, nor discussing any of its points. In the article, your de Pinho's article and others are discussed and put in context. It demonstrates that the rejuvenation claims of de Pinho and Blasco are unfounded. And if you had read it, you would know that the author is Michael Rae, not Aubrey de Grey.

 

 

 

 

 

That's not what my point was,  regardless of the author SENS is against telomerase lengthening and that has been Aubrey De Grey's view it and effects which articles they choose to feature.  I never said that your article is disregarded I simply said I would have to quote a source with an orientation of pro telomerase (which their are many) for it to be an even field. I was merely noting this.
 

Also I very much like and respect SENS as well as their views on most areas of aging I simply disagree when it regards telomeres.

 

 

That is incorrect.
Aubrey isn't against telomere lengthening. He's generally against therapies that do it in vivo for the proposed cancer risk that they pose. Even so he's on the advisory board of Bioviva as I've pointed out before.

In the SENS view it's much safer (and efficient) to introduce stem cells with lengthened telomeres to replace old senescent cells with short telomers.

 

There might be some unknown quality control mechanism which efficiently culls completely hopeless cells which get their telomers lengthened to protect us from cancer. That could make such technologies safer than envisioned before, but still we have to remember people get cancer regardless of all the safeguards we have in place so the caution of SENS isn't unfounded.



#76 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:10 PM

Yes one would have have to do it reasonably , many things are a double edged sword if we do it extensively it could make us weaker and therefore have a bad effect on us. It's all about handling the different aspects in a way that is helpful to the the human body.


Sure, and one question is what is reasonable CR? None? 5%? 10-30%? In people we don't really know. And since the mantra is it's just too damned hard to study CR in long-living, free-living, diet-lying, diet-misremembering people, we'll "never know." Which is sad.

So CR people are sorta forced to be self-experimenters. Do it yourself, see how it works. If you can't handle (and I can't) then we still won't know if it works to extend human LS in others or not. But to say it makes us skinny and weak, to say I saw some pictures of old people on CR and they look just as old as anyone else their age, therefore CR doesn't work, is a little off. Because a person is 60, is on CR, and appears skinny and weaker at 60 than others doesn't mean very much. That person may live longer. Or not. We don't know because "the science is too long and hard to provide answers."

We need AI. We need better brains than ours to solve the complexities of human aging.

#77 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2016 - 08:13 PM

I used to practice a CR diet all the time, until I realised my diet was lacking certain components. Energy comes from minerals, that is the idea in ancient Chinese philosophy. Without the salts, enzymic catalisation doesn't happen.
So, one feels great doing some CR. That's probably the salts from your unused digestion leveling mineral deficiencies, or the euphoria from all the stress hormones.

I found the biom gets starved, but ketogenics helps to have the same good biological effects as CR, but without the risks CR imposes.
My theory is, aging don't exist. There is only structural changes brought about by deficiencies and of course biological imbalances. Deficiencies of, vital food substances, exercises, light, beliefs/emotions, genetic protection and spiritual acception. You could add shelter and hydration, but they are more obvious short term survival elements. If ones environment is that harsh, maybe some relocation would help!
My cats keep dying of Gluten related problems(there are hundreds!), they don't get old, they just have a sudden demise, unless I intervene!
The aging theories are about as compete as blackhole theories. Without completion and realistic effortless addition from other subjects they are just words and numbers.
I'm glad we cleared that up. I wish I could be in USA when Sanders gets presidency, he might pass some sort on Anti BS legislation lol.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 4

#78 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2016 - 09:40 PM

When you exercise the cells are ripped open, and spill their nutrients to share with the body. The intense intimacy the central nervous system has with the body during exercise has a pronounced biological stimulation that forms a biological foundation though homeostasis over time and mind. Coupled with stem cell activity the body can adapt extremly. Muscle memory is an artifact of homeostasis, but memory is memory at the end of the day. Bodybuilders look young, and fitness experts look ageless if they are doing it right, results are 80% diet 20% work as they say.
Ai computing is great for engineering proteins, and can create divine predictions of sorts. So how are we going to protect ourselves from idiots, when industry sides with them? Someone who demands that they are correct are essentially a phsychopathical idiot. They don't know it, they will deny it, and ultimately put competition as a goal for their ends, and expect you to play!
Being a happy human is about harmonising, disharmony leads to bad things. Come on! Everyone knows this as a basic understanding of logic, logic transcends time/race/language/species does it not?
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#79 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:07 PM

Methionine is an amino acid that competes with Histidine. Rice is a good source of Histidine. Methionine is a good catabolic agent and in mediocre doses can cause repetitive strain injuries quickly, when exercising.
It's uses around the body include, the stomach lining, adrenaline production, testosterone production, serotonin production ( 3 stress hormones!), antibody cell function, stomach acid production, liver function, lung health, cell energy production, nerve functions and structure directly or indirectly it can make tremendous inroads to a healthy life. I nearly forgot Methionine's ability to chelate some heavy metals during detox, Olive leaf extract has amazing benefits in detox to.
Over the years I have gone through many bottles of Methionine, but I feel collagen health and the related amino acids/nutrients used are far more important that the essential amino acids, but finding good sources of Sulfur is hard to come by. I'm currently a meat eater, but I see essential amino acids as very important for quick health recovery for vegetarians (not that they get unhealthy that often!).

Edited by Multivitz, 24 January 2016 - 11:27 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • like x 1

#80 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:41 PM

Almost all foods eaten have a glycemic index value. These are turned into sugar, this sugar presence can cause crosslinking in collagen synthesis and a break from eating may keep protien synthesis improved. The biomarkers are a guide from a medical point of view, but until there is a realistic modern guide to health parameters, I'm going to stick to the ancient guides based on symptomatic life performance and appearance.

Edited by Multivitz, 24 January 2016 - 11:43 PM.

  • unsure x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#81 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 25 January 2016 - 12:45 AM

Yes methionine is not always as bad as people say it is.    For someone with good methylation it might be bad for Lifespan but for someone who has poor methylation it serves to detoxify histamine and might even help with lifespan.     

 

I'm somewhere in between so even though I usually try to restrict dietary methionine, there are times where it serves a purpose


Edited by Never_Ending, 25 January 2016 - 12:46 AM.

  • Needs references x 1

#82 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -47
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2016 - 02:40 AM

I wouldn't take any amino without adiquate vitamins. I only took 500mg with a protien shakes no large amounts. The Histamine problem is attributed to ill formed collagen leaving it open to parrasite cleaning/inflammation. But the aminos, vitamins and minerals resposable for collagen growth are also resposable for a correct immunological response to allergens. It's so easy to cure hay fever, there's no need for drugs imo.
DNA has to respond to it's environment, how would controlling it's methylation be of use? I thought there was enzymes that go up and down to maintain the codes integrity. There's lots of foods that contain protiens that have potential to alter human coding, is there a reputable list anywhere online? I have removed garden peas and peanuts from my diet, I did notice the difference.
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#83 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 January 2016 - 03:40 PM

 

 

 

 You dismissed the article only by who is his author, not even reading it, nor discussing any of its points. In the article, your de Pinho's article and others are discussed and put in context. It demonstrates that the rejuvenation claims of de Pinho and Blasco are unfounded. And if you had read it, you would know that the author is Michael Rae, not Aubrey de Grey.

 

 

 

 

 

That's not what my point was,  regardless of the author SENS is against telomerase lengthening and that has been Aubrey De Grey's view it and effects which articles they choose to feature.  I never said that your article is disregarded I simply said I would have to quote a source with an orientation of pro telomerase (which their are many) for it to be an even field. I was merely noting this.
 

Also I very much like and respect SENS as well as their views on most areas of aging I simply disagree when it regards telomeres.

 

 

That is incorrect.
Aubrey isn't against telomere lengthening. He's generally against therapies that do it in vivo for the proposed cancer risk that they pose. Even so he's on the advisory board of Bioviva as I've pointed out before.

In the SENS view it's much safer (and efficient) to introduce stem cells with lengthened telomeres to replace old senescent cells with short telomers.

 

There might be some unknown quality control mechanism which efficiently culls completely hopeless cells which get their telomers lengthened to protect us from cancer. That could make such technologies safer than envisioned before, but still we have to remember people get cancer regardless of all the safeguards we have in place so the caution of SENS isn't unfounded.

 

 

Hold on a second, true he's not against it in terms of the end goal because they're all going for life-extension in the end. But If we were to categorize I think SENS is not so much wanting telomere lengthening therapies at the moment(in light of the reason you said). So although I agree with your correction , really my statement was just for brevity and practicality sake and it still holds, was already aware of what you mentioned.

 


Edited by Never_Ending, 27 January 2016 - 03:44 PM.


#84 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 657
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 11 February 2016 - 06:39 PM

it's not obvious that lots of people can get the lifespans that a guy like Spindler gets

 

Speaking of which, have we all concluded that NGDA was the one compound in Spindler's survey which he hinted improved lifespan, or do we think there's something else up his sleeve?

 

Spindler SR et al. 2015. Nordihydroguaiaretic acid extends the lifespan of drosophila and mice, increases mortality-related tumors and hemorrhagic diathesis, and alters energy homeostasis in miceThe Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences70(12), pp.1479-1489.



#85 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 18 February 2016 - 04:49 PM

Well, I think you already know my take on this. I made a thread about this a while ago..

http://www.longecity...volution/page-3

It's a bit manic but there's gold in there IMO
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#86 Gern

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Home

Posted 12 March 2016 - 12:32 AM

Aging is probably a mix of different things. The best way to attack it is the engineering approach that Aubrey defends.

 

Well, the first step in an engineered approach would be to identify root cause (the cause for which there are no further underlying causes). It's important in engineering to differentiate cause from root cause, because you can't truly fix a problem without identifying  the root cause. To do so isn't really an engineering approach as much as it is a patchwork approach to fixing the problem. I'd say I haven't seen a single theory of aging yet which could definitively be called a root cause. For almost all of them there are underlying "but what is causing that questions."



#87 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 March 2016 - 01:52 AM

 

Aging is probably a mix of different things. The best way to attack it is the engineering approach that Aubrey defends.

 

Well, the first step in an engineered approach would be to identify root cause (the cause for which there are no further underlying causes). It's important in engineering to differentiate cause from root cause, because you can't truly fix a problem without identifying  the root cause. To do so isn't really an engineering approach as much as it is a patchwork approach to fixing the problem. I'd say I haven't seen a single theory of aging yet which could definitively be called a root cause. For almost all of them there are underlying "but what is causing that questions."

 

 

There are evolutionary theories that do address the root cause.  And also what if they were able to delay aging for someone to live to 500 but they're still struggling with root cause... I hope the 500 year old doesn't get too upset with not knowing the root cause.

 

But  I do agree with what you said and it is important to get the correct root cause. But what if the root cause is just a structure that does no damage of it's own but only something that other causes plug into.


Edited by Never_Ending, 12 March 2016 - 01:56 AM.


#88 niner

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

Posted 12 March 2016 - 02:22 AM

And also what if they were able to delay aging for someone to live to 500 but they're still struggling with root cause... I hope the 500 year old doesn't get too upset with not knowing the root cause.

 

Exactly.  The whole point of an engineering approach is that you don't have to understand every single pathway perfectly.  If we have to understand everything perfectly before we can fix it, we're going to need a lot of graves, dewars, or whatever we store our deceased selves in.


  • Agree x 2

#89 SearchHorizon

  • Guest
  • 167 posts
  • 28

Posted 11 October 2016 - 04:56 AM

So, I read many posts here. One topic I didn't see was about melatonin, pineal gland, etc.

 

What many experiments on pineal gland and melatonin suggest is that one aspect of aging process occurs through endocrinological degradation that originates from our central nervous system. That is, if we are to reverse aging, we may need to look at specific tissues that dictate aging of other tissues (at least for this specific mechanism). For example, if we are to investigate telomerase length as the major culprit for aging, it may be important to investigate their lengths in specific tissue types. 

 

At least in mice, experiments show that melatonin administration can extend their life by 30% or so. Unfortunately, it does not extend their lifespan by multifold - which basically says that the melatonin therapy increases "average lifespan" but not the maximal lifespan. This is different from CR, which can extend the maximal lifespan in proportion to body metabolism (or, perhaps, as some argue, the amount of methionine gunk around our DNA). There is some evidence that melatonin's pathway is linked to NAD metabolism. Coincidentally, a number of life-extension benefits based on improvements on NAD-related mechanisms, appear to be around 30%, like melatonin.   

 

In any case, if we had identified the "real culprit" in aging, we should have been able to see possibilities for extending our life not just by 20-30%, but by 100%, 200%, 300%, etc.

 

 


Edited by SearchHorizon, 11 October 2016 - 04:57 AM.


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

#90 Never_Ending

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 170 posts
  • 4
  • Location:United States

Posted 30 October 2016 - 11:58 PM


In any case, if we had identified the "real culprit" in aging, we should have been able to see possibilities for extending our life not just by 20-30%, but by 100%, 200%, 300%, etc.

 

Well I definitely think that melatonin and pineal function is important aspect of aging and must be taken into account.

 

I know it sometimes might feel that since one thing just makes a 30% or so difference than it's unlikely to be the "real culprit" however we have to realize that it's unlikely going to be 1 or 2 culprits... think about how complex the body is. Maybe 1 thing ON ITS OWN can make a 10 % difference and another maybe makes a  6% difference but together they make 40% difference, add 1 more unique factor and it happens to make a 100% increase (just an example). There might be some factors more important than others but I think there is in all likelihood many factors.


Edited by Never_Ending, 31 October 2016 - 12:04 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: aging, adaptation, maintenance, theories, evolution, longevity

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users