Asking the Right Question: Do You Want to Live Longer, if Good Health is Guaranteed?

Historically, the public at large has shown themselves to be quite disinterested in living longer. Over the years I've been aware of the longevity science movement, it has always been a challenge to expand the community towards greater acceptance, support, and funding. As an example of attitudes we observe, you might look at the Pew survey of attitudes to life extension from a few years back, in which the people surveyed generally agreed that they wanted to live a few years longer than their peers - in the same sort of way as a house should be just a little bit larger than those of the neighbors, to make the point, but not so much so as to be gauche. Humanity is ever petty in the details when conducting any of its grand madnesses; we can see that in even a cursory glance across a lengthy history of what is, by modern standards, a series of sweeping, cruel insanities. Yet we will be judged just as harshly by those yet to come.

Are we asking the right questions? It has long been thought in our community, though gathering supporting evidence for this hypothesis is ever a difficult proposition, that people are on the whole unenthused by the prospect of longevity because they instinctively feel that a longer life would mean becoming ever more decrepit and sick. They think that superlongevity would mean a collapse into an exaggerated caricature of a wizened elder, unable to do anything other than suffer ever more bitterly. This hypothesis for the public rejection of longevity science for so many years was outlined more than a decade ago, and brought up again at the time of the aforementioned Pew study.

Yet "older for longer" is not the outcome that rejuvenation therapies will achieve. It was never the plan, and no researcher has ever claimed to be working towards that end. Functional, working rejuvenation biotechnologies based on periodic repair of the cell and tissue damage that causes aging will instead postpone aging in the young, and restore health and youthful ability to the old. They will turn back age-related disease. The future is not being older for longer, but rather being younger for longer. This has proven to be a very difficult message to deliver; it has been repeated over and again, and never seems to stick.

Yet in the past few years, a few small surveys have shown that if you ask the right questions in the right context, then ordinary, everyday people will say that they want greater longevity. The right question is whether or not one would want to live longer if health is guaranteed for those additional years. Focus on the health, and people inch towards wanting more time. We have yet to collectively figure out how this should translate into our advocacy for rejuvenation research - it isn't quite as straightforward as one would hope. After all, the message we have delivered for years is exactly that we want to extend health as well as overall life span, and that in fact the only practical way to achieve longevity is to provide greater and longer-lasting health.

People say they want to live longer - if in good health

Longevity is a such a pervasive goal in public health policy and even popular media, but individually most people only want to live long lives if they will be healthy, according to a new study. "People in three cultures from around the world are reluctant to specify their desired longevity. To me this is interesting because longevity is such a valued public health objective, but at the individual level, longer lives are a goal 'only if' I remain healthy."

The results of these interviews reinforce previous findings from this research group that revealed many older adults - in various cultures - think of life as not a smooth continuum of time but segmented into different states. The researchers refer to four "ages" or stages of life, including the third age, which is an active retirement where people leave traditional work and family roles, followed by the fourth age. "People seem to view one part of the future as wanted and another as not wanted, typically the 'fourth age' which is basically the period when one might experience a disability or a potential health decline."

For this study, the researchers interviewed 30 people in each country, and they recruited the sample with sex and age quotas to reflect a range of experience with retirement. About one-third of respondents did not express aspirations for a longer life. "Some felt their lives had already reached a stage of completion, and others as a form of fate acceptance." A larger number of respondents did mention they wanted to extend their lives. Yet less than half of that group noted a specific amount of time they desired to live. The strongest opinion among that group was the desire to live longer only if they maintained their current or what they deemed to be acceptable levels of health.

Is longevity a value for older adults?

The human desire to prolong life and postpone death has a long history. In modern times, population longevity, as measured by the statistical estimate of life expectancy, is taken as a measure of nations' progress and development. The promotion of longer lives, principally through reduced mortality at younger ages, is a prominent goal of public health policy and research. Academic units concerned with gerontology have been adding the term longevity to their titles - a center for longevity, a longevity institute. Presumably, this skirts the negative connotation of aging and aligns the organization with a desirable end. Longevity can be an organizational mission in a way that aging cannot.

At the same time, longevity is not without shadows because modern medical care can maintain lives that are felt to be too long. At the population level, rising numbers of long-lived persons can pose societal challenges. Sheer longevity is also qualified by the age from which it is projected, for the hope of a long, full life is one thing at age 10 or age 20, but another in the seventh, eighth, and further decades of life. This latter stretch is the concern of our paper.

Longevity counts time from some point forward but it is also an individual perception about time left before the ultimate deadline of death. Deadlines are motivators and none more so than death. The question about future time left and one's goals can be reshuffled to ask another question: whether time left is itself a goal. Do older people value longevity for themselves? That is the focus of our analysis, based on conversational interviews with older adults in three cultures. The study of "desired longevity" (vs. expected longevity) has been quite limited, which is particularly puzzling given such theoretical interest in the end of life and gerontology's tacit assumption that most people want to live a long life. On the one hand, the modern promise of increasing health and vitality predicts an embrace of longevity. On the other hand, worries about late-life frailty and illness may make people hesitate to welcome extended lives.

Survey techniques have been used to ask adults about desired longevity, this in order to examine the distribution of replies (always contingent on respondents' ages) as well as associated factors that may explain the replies. One feature of these findings is a curious amount of non-response (refused to answer, don't know) to questions about desired longevity. Distributions of numerical answers about desired longevity also display another pattern: the "age heaping" of replies at five-year intervals, such as 80, 85, 90, etc. Taken together, approximate-age replies along with nontrivial amounts of response refusal suggest that older adults' longevity goals may not be sufficiently measurable by survey techniques.

In this study, we asked people in an open-ended way about their desire for longer life: Would you like to have more time? What age would you like to become? This was something more specific than asking about a preference for survival without reference to any length of time; about one's plans for the future; or whether people see the future as open or limited, as in studies of future time perspective. Our attempt was to discover whether there were preferred temporal spans with which older adults framed their futures and plans.

The two-question series about extra years and desired age ("How old would you like to become?") was designed to generate talk about extended life. Free to answer the questions in their own way, participants could say any number of things about longer life during the interviews. Amid these responses, our analysis capitalized on a pattern that was strongly apparent. When it came to desired longevity, most people did in fact want to live longer, but few supplied a numerical answer that was not also conditional on the maintenance of continued good health. The majority preference was for longer life but "only if."

The health stipulation was cited by three-quarters of the 57 cases who desired longer lives. This stance was a prominent pattern, and in the replies to our questions there were certain similarities: the conditional expressions (if, as long as, it depends), the anecdotes about others in poor health, and the reference to medical discourse about quality of life. The bundling of longevity desires with a health stipulation was common to all three research sites. Such similarities suggest to us that longevity expectations, while personal expressions, are also generated from social discourse of a kind that exists in the three cultures and that yields shared styles of talk about extended life. We posed questions to individuals and each replied in his or her own way, yet there was a consistent, cultural convention favoring health-qualified longevity.

Comments

You make good points, but I think there's more to it than just belief that longer life would mean prolonged suffering:

- Most people simply do not identify with their future (older) selves. Take, for example, that guy from Chicago who wrote that he hopes to die when he's 75. It's completely preposterous, of course: we do not see 75 year olds ending their life by suicide because they 'lived long enough'. It doesn't bother him. He, apparently, feels no emotional connection or empathy towards his future, 75-year old self.

- Younger people, in particular, on the emotional level (where it matters) feel that they will always be young. Just like they feel they are indestructible. There's nothing rational about it, it's absurd, yet that's how it is.

The only solution I see is to gradually make rejuvenation therapies available so that people can see the results and decide for themselves if they want the therapies or not (of course they do, once they start suffering from aging-related maladies).

Posted by: Jamie_NYC at December 11th, 2017 7:23 PM

Reason,

Thank you very much for your excellent blog. I am learning much.

The average person will go for longevity only with good health BUT only if it comes in pill form and they don't have to make a one single lifestyle change to do it.

Posted by: Lee at December 11th, 2017 7:23 PM

Of course, if you ask the question, 'Would you like eternal youth?' the answer will be, 'Yes.' If you ask someone if they would like to live longer they model the world around them and shrug. To most people to live longer means to be old and the word 'old' carries a lot of baggage. I think the attitude stems from acceptance of present reality. It will take some major advance in rejuvenation before the attitude changes.

Posted by: Neal Asher at December 12th, 2017 4:20 AM

I can only repeat myself:

Once we have true rejuvenation going on, the ethical debate will be overwhelmed by the success of the therapies. It's important to advocate rejuvenation though because it can have a direct influence on funding, of course.

If I can be young forever, I want to live forever. I'm not stopping at 150 then, I think. What worries me a bit though, what will exceptionally long lifespans do with our minds? Can I live such a long life being happy all the time or do I more and more get nostalgic about old times? Will I get severe depressions at some point (the result often being suicide)? It seems to me to live a long life, you not only have to have a youthful body, but also a strong mind/personality (on the other hand, there's more than enough time to devlop it). Ok, I admit we're not at that point yet and it's a bit offtopic, but just wanted to share my thoughts.

Posted by: K. at December 12th, 2017 4:55 AM

K: Did you see "The Man from Earth"?

Posted by: Antonio at December 12th, 2017 6:59 AM

@Neal Asher: The response to variants of the eternal youth question has also been surprisingly negative or a matter of shades of disinterest in the past. I have to feel that getting the extended health part of the advocacy right is just one facet of the broader psychology. For my money, the rest of it has to do with the nature of conformity desires and time preference, that together these things erode any desire to be substantially different from the model of everyone else observed in the world and literature, erode any will to work to break the wheel of time and make future-you much better off.

Posted by: Reason at December 12th, 2017 7:30 AM

I think that the general population has a lot of inertia against changes of opinion and new ideas. Only a very few can go against the herd and have independent thoughts, be it life extension, nuclear energy or whatever. We must simply accept that we don't need to convince all people.

Posted by: Antonio at December 12th, 2017 1:15 PM

Admitting to wanting to be Forever Young also smacks of unbridled vanity, and most people would rather be called names I can't even mention on this site than be labelled "vain". In fact, that's even worse than being called selfish - one of the insults most hurled at those who aspire to live very long lives - since vanity's added shallowness engenders contempt.

Posted by: Barbara Torresi at December 12th, 2017 1:27 PM

I do not mind that people consider me vane. I am vane. Almost all people are vane. It is self deception to deny it.

Posted by: JohnD at December 12th, 2017 1:41 PM

@JohnD: 10% admit to plastic surgery, 90% won't do so on their death bed. You may not be vain but most people are.

Posted by: Barbara Torresi at December 12th, 2017 1:48 PM

@Antonio No, I haven't.

Posted by: K. at December 12th, 2017 2:53 PM

Hi all,

Altruistic individualism. IT's happening and will happen more later, we may be more egoist (ego) but life is like that you can help other (altruism) or save yourself (selfishism);because we are becoming indvidualistic societies ego and generosity clash, from one side you only have you and from the other side, you,Re not alone because we live in society. Sometimes I think the only solution is removing yourself from society, like in the old days (very old days), and live just like natives minus the tribe. More like voyageurs (they were people who stayed in forest alone and lived just like natives). Then again, that's no fun either, it means that we must prepare for more loneliness because some people won't like you living longer than them and thinking you don't deserve it - and should die - like everybody else - on clock at 122 tops.
Which, in my pov, is ridiculous because you don'T decide anything about someone's life or body. Yet I know govs will try to curfew that and do like china fo example (you can't have mor than 1 baby boy or 1 baby girl...so then it will be you can't have more than 2 homes, 2 cars, 2 this and that and also you can't live longer than 122 - if you do, you automatically are 'replaceable' as now you can't contribute to the society and we won,t let you Live Forever.
The gov may say : no more health care at 122 or no more SENS the day you turn 150....or some sh like that..

That is why we have to be careful because gov and people will batlle (literraly) to stop you from getting it or limit it, so living forever - is only possible if you can get the therapies the tools; and they will be regulated for sure because gov will See what ahppens with that - the burden of more Old people Alive on the finance etc...the services the infrastructutes..the resources basically.

Thus it,s survival, yet again. I hope we don't get back to stone age but it could be possible, and govs could disappear beacuse wars could be started over this (the same thing as going to live on other planets), and people will fight for 'their life' if they don't want to die

and the govs wants you die to let another 'young' one take your place.

My solution is finding place on other planets and govs will have to Listen to the people or else they will fall because they do no adapt and want to continue deciding for everyone (a bit like china example, you can't make more than 1 child or something like that...says who?...the gov says so.. because you are citizen and under that gov, thus under its rules. they may be broken later on with laws voted in/out and if nothing works and they wnat you dead by 150...wars will be started over this as finally we will be Able to live forever and someone/some entity decides you can't and that you Should/must die for the benefit of the society (benefit??? no really when you're gone you'Re gone), forever. They have no prob you being gone forever but a prob with you being here forever. It will be interesting and revolution age. I say adapt or fall. Individualism, yes, with some selfish degree but we can work out a sort altruism cohesion in this (cooperation) despite a pure competition altogether.
It's also possible capitalism will be destroyed and clash with eternal life. New models ahead.

Just a 2 cents.

Posted by: CANanonymity at December 12th, 2017 8:28 PM

PS: the china example is a perfect example on a small scale :
The have Overpopulation (over 1 billion people) what do they do - they curfew populace demographs by forbidding more than a number of child...this is Exactly what WILL happen in the future. And this is only a small taste of what's to come because it is 'obvious' that they would do that instead of saying 'OK ...overpopulation because people are Eternal ????...nah...have as many kids you want...and live Forever and fill the planet full-fill and abuse the resources'......no, it's ethics once again. And maybe later even eugenics or 'curfew your biology' with a 'tiny-clock limit à la johnny mnemonic cybord' we implant a chip in you so you die the day you turn 122.
Limits again.

Posted by: CANanonymity at December 12th, 2017 8:52 PM

PPS: Now imagine for a second, 1 billion people, in China, all immortal or - limited - and can't have that choice. what happens next . war on epic scale by these 1 bill poeple.

Posted by: CANanonymity at December 12th, 2017 8:56 PM

@CANanonymity if the aim is for childbearing practices to remain unchanged and control population through senicide (this is by the way a real word) the age they would limit human lifespan to is actually half of 120, it's 60. Children at 30, death at 60 perfect replacement rate. 120 would lead to a significant demographic explosions.

Also an idea - scrounge this blog and find every time you've typed 122. And donate that many dollars to SENS every year. By 2020 you'll be donation most of your income. *smiley face*

Posted by: Anonymoose at December 13th, 2017 1:54 AM

The emotion I feel the most is fear, fear of getting my hopes up. There are a million people out there promising all sorts of wonderful things will happen, eventually, if only you'll give them your time and money. People have been selling dreams all throughout history, so humans are by nature suspicious.

Posted by: Jim at December 13th, 2017 7:03 AM

In my opinion, DNA double-stranded breaks are not completely repaired, and result in mutations that are accumulated in the DNA of all cells. Eventually, the load of mutations, and continued DNA breaks causes disease and further aging as our DNA is weakened by the heavy load of mutations and breaks. Thus, by 120 or shortly after, everybody will be dead of these causes. I do not see any complete repair of the DNA, therefore death is inevitable.

Posted by: Biotechy at December 13th, 2017 7:31 AM

Jim: I don't think so. There is a LOT of people giving their time and money to dream-sellers. Think for example religions. And nearer to our field, there is a lot more people buying useless supplements than funding rejuvenation research.

Posted by: Antonio at December 13th, 2017 8:57 AM

@Anonymoose @Biotechy

Hi Anonymoose, Biotechy !

If 120 will lead to a demographic explosion, it will also lead to another explosion of the people; explosions are what happens in war and we must realize that people will fight for the life and fight to the death over this. There will be mass self-realization that the people are pawns and just 'clocked' to a certain age because 'it should be so' because 'the gov said so' and because huamsn 'have always died so 60/120 is perfect Perfect, Sign Me for My Death on the 60th birthday because I want to be replaced and not let the planet be filled too much; oh and donate my organs while at it'....

basically, like many people, I don'T want to be dead by 60 because the gov wants a perfect little world where peple die in line at 60 - Clocked. I think I have a right to live as long as my life permits it because that's the only one I have and gov might not care and see you as a 'number' on a list of 'born humans', it has a 'dead humans' list. I do not wish to join that list and I am sure am not some disposable number in a line. And I'm sure there are quite a few people who thnk the same and would defend their life over anything almost. With that said, we cannot be just sheeps and muttons whom just accept 'defeat' and say OK so that's how it's giong to be gov decides we are clocked to 60 or 120; that's it that's all. One word:

War. Revolution. Rebellion. Mutiny. Change. Adaptation. Hard-headed dictature. Destruction. Extinction. Life. or Death. ..Ok more than one word...

When one Entity decides for everyone you get into the monarchistic model, even if it's democratic; democratism fails and when laws don'T change for the best or rather SOME other peole think All Alike and Say YES please kill us by 60 we don't to live long lives...you have a problem because you don't Think that; you will have to get the people to change their views o therwise well democracy wil fail, the laws will not be voted in to force gov to Realize you CANNOT stop anyone from living however the fk long they want - you kill them if you stop them from living and that's murder like anythingelse (whether they come to get you/finish you (think like the film RepoMen) or they implant a limit in you to not go over 120), and some people will revolt until it will be a revoltuion (see French Revolution 1789 or American Civil War 1864 as small examples not even close; it will be FAR worse (1 billion people in China revolted could get to that in worse case, total anarchy and war/army will have to disband or change camp; again check French Revolution to see quickly things devolve in military or people; and also in humanity check the jewish people during WW2 whom would eat each other in the trains ebcause were so starved they fought each other cannibalistically to not die of hunger while the nazi kept them locked and starving to death before going to gaz chambers) than that because now you will touch on the essence of what human depends on to 'BE' and continue to 'BE': their life).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to live how long you wish, except other people will no; there is Everything wrong with living however long you want : you should die at 120, overpopulation, life is boring, we will kill you if you live 120+1, you must replaced, don'T be selfish, blablablabalbalbalva...more good feel ethics while you die a good person - at 120 or less. Who wantst to be GOOD when someone decides taht (many people or one person, behind a gov) on your life and your death, no one. I have gone through this, having atherosclerosis, I felt death like no one evert felt it; you know the being abd becoming back to life. I had it. now I won't do it again and will do everything to keep alive. I suggest other people talk with people who LIVED this - and nearly died of it - and can undesrtand and appreciate a Litlle more their life and preserve it a lil more. I don't think in terms of years, minutes or sec, I think in breaths.
Sorry if I repeat the 122, it's the limit of J.Calment, so far recorded in humans why I use it often.

@Biotechy

I could understand that point and makes a lot of sense; I think we have to be more 'open' to the idea of living life and that humans Could very well live above 120. I say this because other animals are a living proof that is possible and that mutations are Not all they are to be. They are causal and important, but they can be made to be inconsequential. Some animals, such as clams (500 years), great sea turtles (175 years), bowhead whales (211 years), greenland sharks (500 years), lobster (160 years), marlins (120 years), amazon parrots (111 years) show us Clearly that it is not something undefeatable for evolution defeated it in these animals; bowhead whales being mammal like us so it's plus (ok we are def not the same morphology but can see what I mean by that). Death is not Inevitable, the trick is Post-poning and trying to Circumvent the Limits (replicative senescence, epigenetics, mutataions and coupld of others whom stop things...trust me we will crack for sure because these other animals have cracked it for us; we just need to adapt this and 'make it work'; I know that sounds really easy and dumb to say; but it boils down to that). I wish that LEV is possible but so far not, But Post-ponin death for maybe 5 centuries (500 years) could be quite possible. The main poinf of SENS is that repairing damages 'enough' (all types) will allow a 'repeat' and as such you can 'post-pone' mortality 'infinetly' (which is impossible by cell limits but those limits we will find a way to circumvent them). So it is not Black or White, there are shades of Grey that are still undiscovered and will allow humans - I am 100% positive - to live at least 500 years; maybe not a 1000 years like AdG had said with a person being born now to live to a 1000 years - but 500 is feasible. Other animals have done it and prove it; it'S not mutations or anything else that will stop life from going over 122 (yes 122 Anonymoose smiley).

just a 2 cent : )

Posted by: CANanonymity at December 13th, 2017 3:03 PM

@CANanonymity

Well, the main question is why are these few animal species living so long. I would look first at those long-lived animals closest to humans phylogenetically and in lifestyle form, that is swimmers and not bottom feeders (lobsters and clams). We are what we eat in large part, so what is it that they are eating that allows them to adapt and live so long? Whales and sharks are near the top of the food chain so they must be concentrating certain elements in the food they eat to live so long. What is it? It could be a rather rare element like iodine, or maybe it is a rare super-antioxidant that they concentrate from their food sources such as the carotenoid astaxanthin.

Posted by: Biotechy at December 15th, 2017 4:56 AM

Hi Biotechy, thanks for the reply !

I think it really is a combination of things, I agree with you that we need to have more insight on the closets extremely-long lived models compared to us humans because we are also long-lived but not As long-lived as them. The closest one is the bowhead whale because it is a mammal while many of the others are not and fall into the mollusk/bivalve/shark/dolphinidea/non mammalian animals. There are very few studies on bowhead whales but basically it boils down to this:

- The krill they eat is antioxidant rich (astaxathin) because it produces astaxanthin/carotenoid on their body exoskeleton scales. That'S because krill is exposed to sun UVs in the ocean and produces melanistic barrier by making astaxanthin and hence why it is reddish/pinkish color. This 'dye' is protective and whales eat Tons of them so they get that - but that does not explain much of anything; many other whales eat that too and certainly don't reach 211 years old either.

-Environment : salinity and water temperature, affects metabolism and IGF/hormone axis; this makes a protracted 'slowed' growth seen in many late-developmental animals that have reduce IGFaxis and increased DAF-16/FOXO gene activation; basically they are developmentally 'slowed' and reach 'Adult-hood' very late (continuous neoteny means continuous replasticizin/remodelling this is seen in naked mole rats whom live 35 years and have continous brain remodelling over 15 years (protracted time to puberty/sexually capable adulthood).

-Whales are big, and body mass has a striking effect on IGF/developmental growth and cellular growth/cell dynamics. It is ironic because you would think since a Big Dog lives a shorter life than a small dog; and small human (dwarfism male/female or a normal sized woman body) lives longer than a very tall male. It means that IGF and hormones are behind this; and connect to CR (Calorie restriction - IGF/Developmental growth/DAF-/FOXO gene acivation and glucose/glycation which is in tandem with diabetse and accelerated aging (older people show increase glycation and failure of glucose disposal (failing IGF/DAF/FOXO/endocrinal hormone axis); it's all tied together to the 'speed' of aging and 'capacity of sexual reproduction'. Repair Resources (DNA repair/FOXO/SIR/DAF/autophagy......) vs Sexual Resources/Fitness (costly/diverted for reproduction/increasing Senescence/mTOR (mTOR increase fitness while reducing replicative lifespan as a tradeoff by increasing cell size (in micron size) until the cell is too large and commits senescence/thus reducing SIR/FOXO axis protecgive chromosomal longevity genes).
In large mammals such as bowhead whales there is an 'outlier' effect, just like humans, where
a small mouse - dies quick, small mass, little body, fast metabolism, fast IGF/metabolism axis
a huge bowhead whales - dies late, large mass, large body, slowed metabolism/reduced IGF/metabolsim axis. So mass as lot to do with it but it is not the whole picture because other whales don't live (as) long - thus it is why is far more 'muddied/gray' and why a Large Dog lives LESS long than a short dog; and why a TALL human dies quicker than a dwarf-centenarian one (again that is mainly due to IGF axis in these cases); though not all small people become centenarian because of Fitness (mTOR) vs Longevity (IGF); they die of frailty, thus you need Muscles to strive (sufficient mTOR/myofibril formation); but you don'T want to die to yougn from replicative failure (IGF activating mTOR excessively to get 'fitness' when being frail stature, geroconversion to senescence).

-Certain other polar aquatic animals alse live in these frigid waters - yet they never reach 5 centuries lifespan either...thus environment is only 30% or less of the equation.

-So what is the rest of the explanation...
For example in bowhead whales they have better vasculature (for deepwater dives in anoxia),
they have higher eNOS (endothelial nitric oxide (NO) synthase) production thus mo NO. production means better 'vasodilation' in their vasculature - extremely important because people die of heart failure/artery calcification...it is one of the biggest cause of death in long-lived people. The heart stops beating. Or in humans, the supercentenarians die of TTR transthryretin amyloid in their hearts. Artica islandica show us that they keep a heart beating for 500 years and also have very little protein aggregation; along with maintained redox and also have lipid reodering towards nill mitochondrial phospholipid lipoperoxidation. Or rather tehy have much better protection of their mitochondrial membranes. Not only that, they maintain solid autophagy, mitophagy and lysophagy (explaining why rthey accumulate little lipofuscin and also little protein aggregatets). Plus, they have better Folding/protection of already unfolded and damaged proteins (through LAMP, HSPs, HSF system); unfolded protein accumulation is fatal, along with aggregates frm that.

Still, it is hard to decipher what or which combination is best; also for example a new study on greenland shark (see number 7. below) showed conflictual results about oxidative stress and could not correlate GPX or red blood cell parameters to the animal's extreme Maximum lifespan (272 to 500 years). The problem, oftenly, with such oxidative stress studies is that they do not verify - Over Time; as in checking a 20 year old greenland shark, a 40 year old one, a 150 years old one and then a 500 year old one to see the changes over time. They have limited smaples because of the rarity of such animal thus limited study results that can't be full truth. This kind of result was found in extreme long-lived clamd...when later, studies demonstrated that Indeed they Were protected from oxidative stress (obviously makes a lot sense) and that Over Time they kept pristine biology; hency why they lived 500 years.

There are mainy reasons as aging, is multi-factorial. The problem, I believe, is that scientist don't act on the data. Like saying : Oh...so we found a clam that lives 15000 years, it has this and this mechanism....end of story. It'S very informative but useless if you don't build anything/a therapy or something from that. Insights are not enough we need scientific rejuvenation creations from nature'S insights.

Just a 2 cent,

The transcriptome of the bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus reveals adaptations of the longest-lived mammal
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247388/

Insights into the Evolution of Longevity from the Bowhead Whale Genome
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536333/

A Heart That Beats for 500 Years
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271020/

Low hydrogen peroxide production in mitochondria of the long-lived Arctica islandica: underlying mechanisms for slow aging.
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23566066

Extreme longevity is associated with increased resistance to oxidative stress in Arctica islandica, the longest-living non-colonial animal.
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486920

Long-lived species have improved proteostasis compared to phylogenetically-related shorter-lived species
6. http://zaf.biol.pmf.unizg.hr/Predavanja/Predavanje%20-%20Labe%C5%A1tije%20Split%201/Literatura/Starenje%20-%20Rak/Long-lived%20species%20have%20improved%20proteostasis%20compared%20to%20phylogenetically-related%20shorter-lived%20species.pdf

The Greenland shark: A new challenge for the oxidative stress theory of ageing?
7. http://bioold.science.ku.dk/jfsteffensen/Publications/Comp%20BiochemPhysiol_A_2016_Constantini.pdf

Posted by: CANanonymity at December 15th, 2017 7:37 PM

I've discussed this topic here at this site before. Twelve years of marketing an anti-aging pill has taught a lot of lessons.
1. People want to be young (thicker hair, smoother skin, viagra baby!), they don't necessarily want to live longer, given the negative image in their mind of a senile person, drooling at the mouth, confined to a wheelchair and diapered. I show a photograph of a man blowing out 100 candles on his 100th birthday and it evokes the same predictable response: "Oh, I never want to live that long!" So how does anyone successfully sell any anti-aging elixir?
2. Some people would opt to purchase an anti-aging pill, but want insurance to pay for it.
3. Longevity seekers could get ahead of the curve and adopt a resveratrol or metformin or mTOR inhibitor pill today. Given there are no side effects, their leap of faith could be advantageous. There are few innovators. Most are followers and late adaptors or laggards.
4. One early adaptor was Luigi Cornaro of Padua Italy (1454-1566 AD) who lived 102 years by adoption of a limited calorie diet + 3 glasses of unfiltered wine. His personal account is available online.
5. While many fear overpopulation, depopulation is a problem in Western Europe, Italy, North America and Japan.
6. Any successful anti-aging strategy would eliminate the need for many medications. It would be roundly opposed by modern medicine.

Posted by: Bill Sardi at December 17th, 2017 8:57 AM

Alvise "Luigi" Cornaro's birth year is not precisely known. He can have lived 102 years or 98 years. And, most importantly, a single data point is a very very very very poor sample.

Posted by: Antonio at December 17th, 2017 9:18 AM

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

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.