"We are on the verge of a revolution in medicine: understanding, treating, and ultimately preventing the causes of degenerative aging. But medical revolutions only happen if we all stand up in support of funding and research. We did it for cancer. We're doing it for Alzheimer's. We can do it for aging - and create an era of longer, healthier lives!"

Email Contact
reason -at- fightaging -dot- org

  
Search

The Causes of Aging
Accumulating AGEs
Buildup of Amyloid Between Cells
The Failing Immune System
Declining Lysosomal Function
Mitochondrial DNA Damage
Senescent Cells
Other Causes of Aging

Required Reading
Calorie Restriction
The Community, Visualized
Cryonics
Engineered Negligible Senescence
Envisaging a World Without the FDA
Healthy Life Extension Explained
Introductory Articles
Longevity Meme Newsletter
The Odds of Human Longevity Mutations
The Need For Activism and Advocacy
Stem Cells, Regenerative Medicine
Twelve Ways to Extend Mouse Life Span
The Vital Debate in Aging Research
What is Anti-Aging?

Initiatives
Biogerontology Research Foundation
Campaign Against Aging
Campaign for Aging Research
LifeStar Institute
Immortality Institute
Maximum Life Foundation
Methuselah Foundation
Mprize for Longevity Research
Science Against Aging (Translate)
SENS Foundation

Benefiting From Medical Research
How to Read Scientific Research
Researching Therapies and Clinical Trials

Objections Answered
Boredom
Inequality and Economics
Overpopulation
Stagnation
Being Older for Longer?
What About Retirement?

Recent Entries

  • The Conservative View of Progress in Applied Cancer Research
  • More on Stem Cell Technology and the Rise of Medical Tourism
  • Resting Metabolic Rate and Aging, Another of Metabolism's Complexities
  • Capabilities in Stem Cell Science Are Advancing Rapidly
  • Incentives and Cryonics
  • Videos From the Foresight 2010 Conference
  • A Steady Flow of New Donors at the Methuselah Foundation
  • Manipulating Fat in the Context of Slowing Aging
  • On Medical Tourism For Stem Cell Therapies
  • Cells, Hearts, and Brains
  • Rapamycin Research Rolls Onward
  • Reversing Blindness in Retinitis Pigmentosa With Stem Cells
  • The Body Does Work to Break Down Damaging Aggregates
  • A Few Cancer Stem Cell Articles
  • The Latest on Mitochondrial Uncoupling
  • Longevity Research at the Science Network
  • Journalists Are In the Business of Gathering Eyeballs, Not Truth
  • @ging, a New Aging Science Blog
  • Redefining Bionics Again
  • Encouraging Transparency in Life Science Fundraising

    Blogs of Interest
    @ging
    Accelerating Future
    Ageing Research
    Alcor News
    Al Fin Longevity
    April's CR Diary
    Andart
    Biology of Aging
    Biosingularity
    CRON Diary
    Cryonics Society
    Depressed Metabolism
    Distributed Republic
    Ethical Technology Blog
    Existence is Wonderful
    Foresight Institute
    Future Current
    FuturePundit
    grailsearch.org
    green light go
    HumanPlus
    In Search of Enlightenment
    Marginal Revolution
    Maximum Life Foundation Blog
    Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
    Metamodern
    Methuselah Foundation Blog
    Mises Economics Blog
    Ouroboros
    Overcoming Bias
    Pimm - Partial immortalization
    Responsible Nanotechnology
    ScienceBlogs
    Sentient Developments
    Singularity Hub
    Singularity Institute Blog
    Sonia Arrison
    The Speculist
    The Technological Citizen

    Archives (Monthly)

    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    July 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004
    October 2004
    September 2004
    August 2004
    July 2004
    June 2004
    May 2004
    April 2004
    March 2004
    February 2004
    January 2004

    Creative Commons

    Creative Commons License

    Fight Aging! is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. In short, this means that you are encouraged to republish and rewrite Fight Aging! content in any way you see fit, the only requirements being that you (a) link to the original, (b) attribute the author, and (c) attribute Fight Aging!.

  • Friday, March 9, 2007

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Antioxidants

    In the wake of more attention being drawn to the general ineffectiveness of ingested antioxidants as even a marginal tool for health and longevity, Randall Parker remarks in passing:

    Biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey makes what to to my mind is a persuasive argument against the expectation that antioxidants will deliver large health benefits: The metabolic cost of making and retaining antioxidants in the body is pretty low. If antioxidants could deliver benefits as large as some of their advocates claim then natural selection would long ago have selected for mutations that boost body antioxidant levels. So why expect consumed antioxidants to deliver a big benefit?

    So (I hear you asking) why wouldn't the body make more detoxifying enzymes even in the absence of foods consumed that up-regulate detoxifying enzymes? My guess is that those enzymes are more metabolically expensive to keep around.

    Human metabolism certainly isn't the most effective possible from a perspective of longevity, but one would expect that any easily attainable and practical change that benefits health in youth would already have been selected over the generations. On the other side of the coin, simple changes that benefit health in old age and extend longevity do in fact exist, and have not been selected for - for example, mutations to boost the level of naturally occuring antioxidants in the mitochondria:

    The catalase soaks up some portion of free radicals before they can attack your vulnerable mitochondrial DNA. Damage to this [DNA] leads to an unfortunate chain of events that causes entire cells to rabidly produce damaging free radicals and export them throughout the body. But stop a fraction of the original mitochondrial free radicals from attacking their birthplace, and you have slowed the rate at which one cause of aging happens - you have slowed down aging, and extended healthy life.

    Evolution cares not for your old age - if you're past the point of reproductive fitness, you're on your own. So mutations that might help your longevity, but have little benefit in youth, are unlikely to have prospered and spread in the dark days of cave living, disease, parasites and short, brutish lives.

    It seems there is something to be done with antioxidants and advanced biotechnology in combination, given the evidence to date of the effectiveness of targeting to the mitochondria via gene therapy or other clever science. But the salesmen of the "anti-aging" marketplace - those folk energetically waving pills and potions in your face today - are most likely sitting on a pile of junk and nonsense rather than any even marginally effective product.

    Technorati tags: ,

    Posted by Reason

     
    Share |

    Posted by: Thomas at March 10, 2007 7:13 AM

    With due respect to Dr. de Gray I have to say I'm suprised that he would make such a statement. Most advocates of antioxident supplementation claim that they may extend life, not that will significantly enhance it at earlier ages(aside from those who say it helps the symptoms of the common cold etc) If anxtioxidents extend life after reproductive age there would be no selective advantage to enhancing their action. I know many people who have had their reproductive fitness enhanced by smoking or skydiving or doing lots of drugs and playing loud rock music, all of which will negatively effect lifespan. Evolution simply is blind to enhancing lifespan unless it is somehow related to increasing reproductive fitness.

    cheers!

    [Posted by: Thomas at March 10, 2007 7:13 AM]

    Posted by: Jay at March 10, 2007 9:33 PM

    Evolution, huh. Let's go back in time, back when humanoids were able to manufacture their own antioxiedent, namely l-ascorbic acid (vitamin C). At some point in our distant history a mutation occured since then humans have been carrying a defective gene for the production of the liver enzyme, L-gulonolactone oxidase. The pathway of the biosynthesis of ascorbic acid was elucidated at the end of the sixties (Nishikimi and Udenfriend, 1977):
    D-glucose =>(1)=> D-glucuronic acid =>(2)=> L-gulonic acid =>(3)=> L-gulonolactone =>(4)=> L-ascorbic acid
    Steps 2 and 3 are catalysed by enzymes in the liver. Step 4 is catalysed by L-gulonolactone oxidase, an enzyme in little microsomes. Animals which are scurvy-prone lack this L-gulonolactone oxidase activity


    The lack of this enzyme in the human liver produces an inborn error of carbohydrate metabolism which prevents us from synthesising our own ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in our livers. This synthesis is common and normal to all but a very few mammals and they produce large amounts each day. It is a stress-responsive process, and, under stress, mammals produce even greater amounts of ascorbic acid. The main function of this large ascorbic acid production during the evolution of the mammals was to maintain homeostasis during biochemical stress. Because of this defective human gene, man, through out his entire history, has been deprived of this important mammalian protective mechanism.

    We evovolved to survive with the mutation, which in and of it's self is pretty cool, because usually a mutation means that you've been selected against.

    The only animals on earth that get heart disease are those that don't manufacture their own l-ascorbic acid, humans, guinea pigs, a couple of monkeys and a couple of bats.

    Animals that do manufacture their own l-ascorbic acid do so in great volumes, typical l-ascorbic acid production is between 80-180mg/kg. That means a 160 pound man would need somewhere between 6 and 14 *grams* of l-ascorbic acid a day for optimal health. If that 160 pound man had any type of health problem his l-ascorbic acid requirements would skyrocket, 50, 100 grams, just like animals that make their own l-ascorbic acid. 300mg of l-ascorbic acid a day will just keep you from dying of scurvy.

    L-ascorbic acid is a stereoisomer, which means there is a mirror image, r-lascorbic acid, when vitamin C is made in a lab, you get both l and r, r is unusable by our bodies, which means when you buy vitamin C and it does not say l-ascorbic acid it means its a racemic, and you are getting both l and r, so a bottle of vitamin C that claim it's 500mg per tablet, you are only getting 250mg of usable vitamin C.

    The two people behind the majority of our understanding of l-ascorbic acid are Dr. Irwin Stone, and Dr. Linus Pauling the only two time solo noble prize winner and the father of modern chemistry. Until someone comes along who is a) as smart as Dr. Pauling, b) has the credentials of Dr. Pauling, and c) doesn't have a vested interest one way or the other I'm sticking with Dr. Pauling, and his theories.

    If you want to learn more about the biochemistry of l-ascorbic acid, check out my sources for this post:
    http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/197x/stone-i-orthomol_psych-1972-v1-n2-3-p82.htm

    http://www.whale.to/cancer/stone.html

    http://www.science.uva.nl/research/crystallography/franks/collageen/paginas/app1.html

    [Posted by: Jay at March 10, 2007 9:33 PM]

    Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Please note that comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.










    Remember personal info?