(Page 2 of 3)
TR: Has conducting these studies changed your own view on aging?
TP: Most people think, 'the older you get, the sicker you get.' But the reality is, the older you get, the healthier you've been. Living to 100 is an important marker of aging well and good health.
TR: What are the most important factors that influence aging?
TP: The keys to achieving extreme old age probably vary a great deal for different people. But we know from other studies what's needed to reach your eighties in good health. The best example is the Seventh-Day Adventist Health study. Seventh-Day Adventists have an average life expectancy of 88 years, the oldest life expectancy for any group in the United States -- ten years longer than the rest of the country. Because of their religious beliefs, they don't eat meat, smoke, or drink alcohol (though perhaps some alcohol is good for you). They set aside weekends for religious practice and family time, which may help them effectively manage stress. These habits are likely what it takes to get where most of us should be able to get to -- into our late eighties in good health.
TR: What about getting beyond that?
TP: We hope that our participation as a study center for the NIH's Long Life Family Study will help shed light on that. We will study families with at least several very old living siblings and look for factors that they have in common which might explain their abilities to achieve extreme old age. We go to the subjects' homes and collect some basic physical data -- height, weight, blood pressure, lung function and strength, as well as measures of cognitive function. We'll also draw blood for genetic and other tests.
TR: How does focusing the study on long-lived families help the search for genetic factors?
TP: With family members, we have a better chance of figuring out what these people have in common. It's more than just genetics; it's environmental factors like smoking, religion, obesity, the ability to handle stress.
We hope that collecting these environmental, medical, and behavioral data will ultimately help guide us in our choices of genes for further study. If you find everyone doesn't have diabetes, you might look at genes related to insulin signaling and fat metabolism.
Extremely old individuals will also probably lack certain genetic variations, such as those that increase the risk for early heart disease or cancer. And maybe they'll have genes that help them age slowly, have increased resilience, and escape or markedly delay age-related disease.
Scientists can predict who will live past 100 using a subset of 150 genetic variations.
A small population of dwarves in rural Ecuador could hold the answer.
Guest (Martin Cohen)
Sounds like Heinlein's "Methuselah's Children". Approximate quote: "The best way to live a long time is to have grandparents who lived a long time."
See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671577808/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_prod_9_0/103-8561885-8282224?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
(sorry about the long url)
Guest (Robert Young)
Yes, the boring, mundane world of proving 'everyday truths' like 'longevity is related to genetics'. It's not exciting like science fiction, is it?
Guest (Expert)
Yes, it is well known to scientists since 1930s that longevity runs in families.
See for example numerous scientific publications by Raymond Pearl on this very subject, including his famous books.
Not sure what is new here.
Guest (Methuselah )
What will my long life allow me to see and do?
I tried Perl's life expectancy calculator and found I'm good for another 38 years - not bad for someone who just turned 60. So I guess I should get out the topographical maps and start charting where the new ocean front property is going to be once Antarctica and Greenland melt. And I better find a place where I can walk where I want to go because we're running out of oil. And at a high latitude so the temperature is bearable.
Considering all the ill effects of FDA-approved drugs, I better continue to not take any prescription drugs. And stay away from politically hot spots so I don't become an innocent bystander.
Sorry guys, when you are preordained to live so long, you tend to focus on some of the other problems we don't seem to be able to get around to finding solutions for....
Guest (RK Murthy)
What will my long life allow me to see and do?
I agree, Methuselah, I agree. Just live along! You are destined to love so, live along! I always remember J Krishnamurti's teachings, that by "negation you reach positive". If you have to clean a surface, what you do is to remove (negate) the dirt from that surface. What remains is a clean surface! You had not been doing anything else except removing dirt! Similarly if you do not add up dirt in the ingredients of daily life concerning you, your life goes on!
Guest (Brett Bennett)
Obviously this research has grave errors, especially in regards to the study's leader's perspective on calorie restriction. By looking at the longest lived people across the world, usually eating a western based diet, the diet only considers people on a 'traditional' diet, which does not tell whether or not calorie restriction is important or not. Merely looking at the genetics of old people is fine--it tells us much--but if the base, i.e. the diet, is not ideal, the only thing gained by the study is the genetic characteristics of older people, which is important indeed, but it seems to lack in sophistication. But, the author does not categorically deny CR or any diet, and so he can be let off the hook slightly.
Guest (Robert Young)
We are not 'on your hook' or beholden to your 'CR agenda.' Also, you misinterpet much...we are finding that many of the supercentenarians do in fact practice reduced-portion diets, if not your definition of severe caloric restriction. Would you please stop the 'friendly-fire' and discuss these matters through private dialogue first?
Guest (Curious)
Brett Bennett wrote:
"Obviously this research has grave errors..."
Could you please elaborate more on this topic?
Guest (Robert Bradbury)
Disease predisposition vs. longevity genes
The problem is that the lack of disease predisposition genes does not equal extended longevity. Long lived people such as centenarians and supercentenarians could simply have hit the genetic lottery. All one will discover in such studies is that they lack the gene variants which predispose them to specific diseases. Because of the large numbers of genes involved large numbers of individuals will be required to clearly prove this. That is one of the major reasons that Aeiveos Sciences Group discontinued its Centenarian genotyping project in 1997.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Harvey S. Frey MD)
Longevity research
So is Pontin going to offer a prize to anyone who can demonstrate that this research isn't worth even discussing?
Reply
Guest (Jason Pontin)
Not So
On no occasion have I attacked legitimate anti-aging science as being, in principle, wrong. We are very interested in the potential of anti-aging science to compress morbidity, or even extend human lifespans. I was dubious that SENS was good science; and I remain convinced that its timelines are highly unlikely.
Reply
Guest (Robert Bradbury)
A non-aging genome
TR should ask better questions. If we can disassemble the human genome in less than 10 years for less than $3 billion why can't we assemble a non-aging human genome for similar amounts?
After all, are we not spending 10x that amount each year ($30+ billion in BigPharama R&D) to addict people to more drugs that fail to cure the fundamental problems (genome defects)?
A scientist might tell you that first you have to understand everything about a problem before you can fix it. An engineer will simply solve the problem -- even if they don't fully understand how they did so.
Reply
Guest (Robert Young)
Let's be honest, no one has given the NECS $3billion for this study...I'm sure a lot more could be done with that kind of money.
Reply
Guest
Ha! Well, by using deduction instead of induction, one is always more safe, but often, more conservative. SENS is right on. Without creativity we would know nothing of the structure of DNA, or other important biological functions. We must begin, or at least incorporate, SENS studies, Calore Restriction studies, and so on.
Reply