Science of Ageing

Discussions on topics related to biochemistry and molecular biology, functional genomics, etc.

Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 10:39 pm 

BioWizard » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:38 pm wrote:Indeed. Any thoughts about aging ron?


Time dun it? :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 10:43 pm 

Seriously, mine are very simplistic and basic in comparison to yours and others in this thread Bio("wear and tear" etc.)
Last edited by ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby BioWizard on January 16th, 2017, 10:45 pm 

ronjanec » 16 Jan 2017 09:39 pm wrote:
BioWizard » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:38 pm wrote:Indeed. Any thoughts about aging ron?


Time dun it? :)


Passage of time is certainly necessary, but doesn't seem to be sufficient for aging to occur. For example, not all lifeforms exhibit the same hallmarks of aging. Why?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12578
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 10:56 pm 

BioWizard » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:45 pm wrote:
ronjanec » 16 Jan 2017 09:39 pm wrote:
BioWizard » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:38 pm wrote:Indeed. Any thoughts about aging ron?


Time dun it? :)


Passage of time is certainly necessary, but doesn't seem to be sufficient for aging to occur. For example, not all lifeforms exhibit the same hallmarks of aging. Why?


I was actually joking about the "time dun it" part Bio, because we recently had a discussion in the Metaphysics Forum, where some of the posters seemed to believe that "time" was somehow an actual physical direct cause of "ageing", and I tried to show the same posters why this was not true.

And in regards to answering your question, I don't know "why"?
Last edited by ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby SciameriKen on January 16th, 2017, 11:02 pm 

BioWizard » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:12 am wrote:
SciameriKen wrote: We live 77 years longer than a mouse because our genetic systems are just that much more effective.


Very good SK! Looks like your model is now returning it all to the genes as well, in some way or the other. You're more or less saying exactly the same things, but insist that they are called differently. Relative effectivess of our genes makes us live longer than mice? Close enough, I'll take it! I mean, I really don't care what you call it as long as you get it. Some people find it harder than others to accept that they were wrong about something. So whatever makes you feel better. Let's call it gene effectiveness instead of gene program. Rememeber that my model talks about diminishing equilibrium between replenishment and tear, so you've really not strayed far at all.

Excellent. Now, instead of thinking it can be done by doping on antioxidants or overexpressing telomerases, we can start digging for the underlying genetic programs (err I meant efficiencies sorry!) that make us age "more effectively" than mice (or make mice age "less effectively" than us), and try to figure out how to improve this "efficacy", and whether we can "switch it on" for extremely extended periods of time (perpetually?). Maybe while we're at it, we can also try to understand better how cellular aging, cellular turn over, tissue aging, and organismal aging all relate to one another instead of lumping them altogether and explaining them all in simplistic terms.

Great to be finally making progress!!!


We were actually on the same page for a few years now - but misunderstandings made things a bit challenging :D I hope to initiate a new thread to go into full detail of my model and a second thread to discuss current aging interventions in the very near future. I hope also to invite a few people from the aging community to join in! Maybe we can get Alejandro! (Unless he is too much of a superstar to talk to us now :)
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby BioWizard on January 16th, 2017, 11:05 pm 

ronjanec » 16 Jan 2017 09:56 pm wrote:I was actually joking about the "time dun it" part Bio, because we recently had a discussion in the Metaphysics Forum, where some of the posters seemed to believe that "time" was somehow an actual physical direct cause of "ageing", and I tried to show the same posters why this was not true.

And in regards to answering your question, I don't know "why"?


Cool. I, of course, knew you were joking, and was trying to refocus the discussion, especially given that a serious point could be made from the joke (seemed like a better alternative to splitting off the few divergent posts at the time).
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12578
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby BioWizard on January 16th, 2017, 11:10 pm 

SciameriKen » 16 Jan 2017 10:02 pm wrote:We were actually on the same page for a few years now - but misunderstandings made things a bit challenging :D I hope to initiate a new thread to go into full detail of my model and a second thread to discuss current aging interventions in the very near future. I hope also to invite a few people from the aging community to join in! Maybe we can get Alejandro! (Unless he is too much of a superstar to talk to us now :)


Oh yeah? Well that's great then! Must've happened sometime in the last 7 years when I wasn't looking. Though in that case, you'll need to stop calling it your model SK, lol. Having Alejandro here to discuss it would be very cool. Though I'm not sure my Spanish is up to par :]
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12578
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 11:11 pm 

BioWizard » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:05 pm wrote:
ronjanec » 16 Jan 2017 09:56 pm wrote:I was actually joking about the "time dun it" part Bio, because we recently had a discussion in the Metaphysics Forum, where some of the posters seemed to believe that "time" was somehow an actual physical direct cause of "ageing", and I tried to show the same posters why this was not true.

And in regards to answering your question, I don't know "why"?


Cool. I, of course, knew you were joking, and was trying to refocus the discussion, especially given that a serious point could be made from the joke (seemed like a better alternative to splitting off the few divergent posts at the time).


I doubt that I will be actually able to understand it after reading some of the posts in this thread, but what would the serious point be?(just in case it is true that miracles can sometimes actually happen)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby BioWizard on January 16th, 2017, 11:15 pm 

ronjanec » 16 Jan 2017 10:11 pm wrote:
BioWizard » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:05 pm wrote:
ronjanec » 16 Jan 2017 09:56 pm wrote:I was actually joking about the "time dun it" part Bio, because we recently had a discussion in the Metaphysics Forum, where some of the posters seemed to believe that "time" was somehow an actual physical direct cause of "ageing", and I tried to show the same posters why this was not true.

And in regards to answering your question, I don't know "why"?


Cool. I, of course, knew you were joking, and was trying to refocus the discussion, especially given that a serious point could be made from the joke (seemed like a better alternative to splitting off the few divergent posts at the time).


I doubt that I will be actually able to understand it after reading some of the posts in this thread, but what would the serious point be?(just in case it is true that miracles can sometimes actually happen)


Case in point ron :) The point was that aging isn't merely a passive process - it seems to be biologically encoded, differently in different organisms. That is, not all living things age similarly, and some not at all - in a sense. Though I suppose that's stating the obvious at this point.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12578
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 16th, 2017, 11:32 pm 

BioWizard,

That's the kind of response I was afraid of Bio :)

So if man could somehow be "biologically encoded" like the "not at all - in a sense", we could all possibly live a very long time, maybe even like Methuselah was said to have lived?

But even if this could again somehow be accomplished, how would that also...or even, physically effect and change the internal "culmlative wear an tear" physical ageing process in man?

Yeah, but on second thought, maybe what I just said here was really dumb, or my talking about dramatically changing the standard biological encoding of humans right from the very beginning of human life.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby vivian maxine on January 17th, 2017, 8:33 am 

I had never considered (or even realized the possibility) of genes being programmed to say how long we will live - if that is what you are saying. But I suddenly begin to wonder. We have all constantly read rules on how to live longer. We have constantly seen surveys that declare this or that --- happy people live longer; people who exercise live longer; people who stick to the Mediterranean (or other) diet live longer; vegetarians live longer; on and on and on. Then we also have all heard of people who defied every law of science in how to live longer. Yet those people were outliving all those who did follow the rules. I begin to think there must be something to the idea that we start out with programmed genes that will say how long we will live - provided, of course, that we still apply a modicum of common sense - don't walk down the middle of Hwy 270. Genes that are programmed to better deal with oxidative damage? Makes sense but apparently not everybody gets his share of those genes since a lot of people we thought perfectly healthy are still dying at that "average" age.

Very interesting thread. Thank you all.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 9:46 am 

vivian maxine » Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:33 am wrote:I had never considered (or even realized the possibility) of genes being programmed to say how long we will live - if that is what you are saying. But I suddenly begin to wonder. We have all constantly read rules on how to live longer. We have constantly seen surveys that declare this or that --- happy people live longer; people who exercise live longer; people who stick to the Mediterranean (or other) diet live longer; vegetarians live longer; on and on and on. Then we also have all heard of people who defied every law of science in how to live longer. Yet those people were outliving all those who did follow the rules. I begin to think there must be something to the idea that we start out with programmed genes that will say how long we will live - provided, of course, that we still apply a modicum of common sense - don't walk down the middle of Hwy 270. Genes that are programmed to better deal with oxidative damage? Makes sense but apparently not everybody gets his share of those genes since a lot of people we thought perfectly healthy are still dying at that "average" age.

Very interesting thread. Thank you all.


Vivian,

You always seem to be hearing about people who lived well into their nineties, despite having eaten bacon and eggs for breakfast every morning, were smokers, and drank like a fish, and then someone credits this to them having "good genes".

And then on the other hand, and like you just mentioned, you also hear about people dying in their forties and fifties who appeared to follow all the rules.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby vivian maxine on January 17th, 2017, 10:04 am 

Exactly, ronjanec. That is what I am saying. Do you remember the famous runner?

So, if there is something to the programming theory, it may be that the programming is enabling the cells to fight off the damage in some of us better than in others of us. Inherited genes? "Runs in families"? Maybe.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby SciameriKen on January 17th, 2017, 10:13 am 

vivian maxine » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:04 pm wrote:Exactly, ronjanec. That is what I am saying. Do you remember the famous runner?

So, if there is something to the programming theory, it may be that the programming is enabling the cells to fight off the damage in some of us better than in others of us. Inherited genes? "Runs in families"? Maybe.



Jeanne Calment has the distinction of having the longest documented lifespan when she died at 122 years. She smoked until 117 years of age and at 3lbs of chocolate a week.

Emma Murano, the current longest lived person, also enjoys chocolate daily with a daily shot of brandy. She attributes her longevity to consuming raw eggs every morning.

And for men? Longest lived man was Jiroemon Kimora who died at 116 years of age - his secret? Sweet potatoes :)


These stories are fun to hear - but really do not tell us much about the secret to longevity for the simple reason that had Jeanne Calment not smoked - could she possibly have lived to 140? We will never know :)
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 10:20 am 

vivian maxine » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:04 am wrote:Exactly, ronjanec. That is what I am saying. Do you remember the famous runner?

So, if there is something to the programming theory, it may be that the programming is enabling the cells to fight off the damage in some of us better than in others of us. Inherited genes? "Runs in families"? Maybe.


I sure do, and I (again) also remember many other examples of people dying at an early age despite appearing to follow all the rules.

But I am honestly trying to temper my enthusiasm for all of this Vivian, until someone like Paralith, BioWizard, or SciameriKen makes some additional comments on this(Or waiting for the hammer to fall in other words) :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby BioWizard on January 17th, 2017, 10:26 am 

Vivian,

Phenotype is the interplay between genotype and environment. Genes set the range of possibilities, and then happenstance chooses where you end up within that range. That's why you see variations within every trait in any given specie, but you also see clustering of traits for each specie (ex most chickens have wings and live ~10 years, while most humans don't have wings and live much longer).

Naturally, the bigger the range of possibilities, the more variation you will find if you look at just one specie. For example, you're going to detect a bigger variance in lifespan for a specie that can live up to 100 years compared to a specie that can only live up to 2 months. It's just a matter of scale and probability.

Beause biology is so variable, it's important to put things in perspective by comparing not only within species, but also across. That's when you really start to understand what differentiates a specie from the others. I doubt a chicken can alter its diet and do enough yoga to lose the wings and live 80 years. Know what I mean?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12578
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby vivian maxine on January 17th, 2017, 11:01 am 

Right, Biowizard. I am not thinking cross-species at all. You are far beyond me there. I am stuck at within our own species. And you are right there, also, about the law of averages. I think my one serious question about the pre-programming is what is it programming? Is it simply programming longer lives for our species? Or is it programming the ability to fight the oxidative damage we do to ourselves along the way? Why do some of our lines seem to get "better" programming than others? I know it has to do with our inheritance. Just interesting. I'll think on it.

SK, I definitely go for that daily chocolate. Nothing better than a Hershey bar and a glass of orange juice. But we all know chocolate is good for us. So, we'll skip that. As you said, good stories to hear but doesn't solve this riddle of to what do we attribute our species' longer life span.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby Braininvat on January 17th, 2017, 11:15 am 

And living forever like those Japanese jellyfish would involve a developmental cycle that stripped away our central nervous system, a stage that would, for humans, effectively undermine our concept of immortality. Species that maintain an equilibrium between cell repair and cell damage tend to be morphologically much simpler than mammals.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby BioWizard on January 17th, 2017, 11:40 am 

Vivian, my thought is that aging is coordinated with other biological programs/schedules/efficiencies for each specie, including development and sexual maturity. For example, it would make no sense for a specie to age and die before it reaches sexual maturity (no reproductive chance - they go extinct). Similarly, species that reproduce very quickly can't have very long lifespans. That would cause the population to explode and consume all resources, destroying the carrying capacity of their ecosystem and again leading to their extinction. Conversely, species that reproduce very slowly (or have extremely small infant survival rates) need to live long enough to be able to sustain population size. That said, I find it difficult to think of aging rate and lifespan as being unregulated, or for that regulation to have evolved independently of the survival strategy of each specie.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12578
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 12:26 pm 

Braininvat » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:15 am wrote:And living forever like those Japanese jellyfish would involve a developmental cycle that stripped away our central nervous system, a stage that would, for humans, effectively undermine our concept of immortality. Species that maintain an equilibrium between cell repair and cell damage tend to be morphologically much simpler than mammals.


Biv and everyone,

I know that most(or all) of you have absolutely no use for religion or the Bible, but what if those stories in the Bible about people living to 800 or 900 years or so were actually true?

"That's impossible!" Maybe so, my point actually being that maybe humans like those Japanese jellyfish(and in spite of our much different biological makeup), could still have the potential to also live for a very long time, possibly with the right scientific advances in the far future in gene programming or reprogramming?(this also possibly negates my personal concerns about the cumulative internal "wear and tear" issue here)

"That's not much to go on?" I know, but if I had the very advanced knowledge about this kind of thing like some of you here, that would certainly not stop me from making one heck of an effort trying.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby Braininvat on January 17th, 2017, 1:04 pm 

You know this is the biochemistry forum, not the biblical interpretation forum, right? Sure, we could explore the scientific basis for 100 angels dancing on the head of a pin, or Mary of Nazareth achieving parthenogenesis, or dead men teleporting through solid rock walls of burial vaults, but that might be somewhat off-topic, doncha think?
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby vivian maxine on January 17th, 2017, 1:18 pm 

Braininvat » January 17th, 2017, 10:15 am wrote:And living forever like those Japanese jellyfish would involve a developmental cycle that stripped away our central nervous system, a stage that would, for humans, effectively undermine our concept of immortality. Species that maintain an equilibrium between cell repair and cell damage tend to be morphologically much simpler than mammals.



I did not think of that. Would not have realized it.

Biowizard, lots of food for thought there. Thanks again. I'll try to not narrow it down again. I think I was applying the basic idea to my own family. We do that sometimes, don't we?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 17th, 2017, 2:15 pm 

Hi all,

Aging is the span between Birth and Death and I see obvious patterns when observing my family.

All my bloodline family died natural deaths (no accidents etc). My wife's family (seven siblings and parents) all died prematurely in their 50's, usually related to obesity and diabetes. Everyone in my bloodline made it past 80 (some to late 90's). So obviously, inherited biology seems to have played a key role. No one in my bloodline (both sides) have died of cancer back as far as 3 generations that I know of. Most had pretty crappy lifestyles (smoked and drank).

All the men in both (maternal/paternal) bloodlines died from Brain Aneurysms.. and all the women died from Heart Attacks.

Note: My father was an exception but he worked in a toxic Iron Smelting plant for 20 years after my birth. While generally healthy, most of his internal organs had a cascaded shutdown when he hit about 50.

Anyway..

Thus (barring accidents or infections) it would seem I am fated (programmed) to reach mid 80's and die from a Brain Aneurysm.

Is that a reasonable deduction or are these patterns just coincidences?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby SciameriKen on January 17th, 2017, 3:01 pm 

Dave_Oblad » Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:15 pm wrote:Hi all,

Aging is the span between Birth and Death and I see obvious patterns when observing my family.

All my bloodline family died natural deaths (no accidents etc). My wife's family (seven siblings and parents) all died prematurely in their 50's, usually related to obesity and diabetes. Everyone in my bloodline made it past 80 (some to late 90's). So obviously, inherited biology seems to have played a key role. No one in my bloodline (both sides) have died of cancer back as far as 3 generations that I know of. Most had pretty crappy lifestyles (smoked and drank).

All the men in both (maternal/paternal) bloodlines died from Brain Aneurysms.. and all the women died from Heart Attacks.

Note: My father was an exception but he worked in a toxic Iron Smelting plant for 20 years after my birth. While generally healthy, most of his internal organs had a cascaded shutdown when he hit about 50.

Anyway..

Thus (barring accidents or infections) it would seem I am fated (programmed) to reach mid 80's and die from a Brain Aneurysm.

Is that a reasonable deduction or are these patterns just coincidences?

Regards,
Dave :^)


#1 rule for longevity - choose your parents wisely :D

Not always true though - along with genetics - lifestyle is also relatively similar between family members so it does get confusing. All in all though I would say your deductions are spot on - and perhaps you could delay or alter course through lifestyle modifications
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 3:07 pm 

Braininvat » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:04 am wrote:You know this is the biochemistry forum, not the biblical interpretation forum, right? Sure, we could explore the scientific basis for 100 angels dancing on the head of a pin, or Mary of Nazareth achieving parthenogenesis, or dead men teleporting through solid rock walls of burial vaults, but that might be somewhat off-topic, doncha think?


No, I honestly did not think that this was "off-topic" Biv, because we were again talking about the possibility of science maybe greatly extending human lifetimes like the possibility of this already occurring in nature before.

By the way, where is "the biblical interpretation forum" Biv? I can't believe I never noticed this before in all the years that I have been here. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby SciameriKen on January 17th, 2017, 3:16 pm 

ronjanec » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:20 pm wrote:
vivian maxine » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:04 am wrote:Exactly, ronjanec. That is what I am saying. Do you remember the famous runner?

So, if there is something to the programming theory, it may be that the programming is enabling the cells to fight off the damage in some of us better than in others of us. Inherited genes? "Runs in families"? Maybe.


I sure do, and I (again) also remember many other examples of people dying at an early age despite appearing to follow all the rules.

But I am honestly trying to temper my enthusiasm for all of this Vivian, until someone like Paralith, BioWizard, or SciameriKen makes some additional comments on this(Or waiting for the hammer to fall in other words) :)


I would like to share what the significance of this recent cell paper that Bio posted means to me. Prior to this study which I saw about 2-3 weeks ago, I felt natural lifespan was the sum of the mechanisms of wear and tear and the genetic defenses we have against them. Breakthroughs and enhancements that target one such mechanism (e.g. telomeres) would only have a marginal impact on overall lifespan and we would surely succumb to the swarm of other hallmarks of aging (i.e. Telomere enhancement is helpful, but not if Genomic instability takes you down).
This recent study is a bit of a game changer. By over expressing genes that are normally repressed and silent, in almost all but stem cells, many hallmarks of aging were ameliorated! The most important thing this tells me is that the body has the potential for dramatic rejuvenation and repair, however these mechanisms are inhibited. They are inhibited by cellular programming in the form of epigenetics (heterochromatin formation) - thus unraveling such a code is, shall we say, challenging :)
I feel where I was before was that the efforts of life extension would have difficulty in breaking past 120 years. Now, I feel the potential is there to break well beyond that - just wouldn't expect that solution to be coming any time soon :)
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby SciameriKen on January 17th, 2017, 3:17 pm 

ronjanec » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:07 pm wrote:
Braininvat » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:04 am wrote:You know this is the biochemistry forum, not the biblical interpretation forum, right? Sure, we could explore the scientific basis for 100 angels dancing on the head of a pin, or Mary of Nazareth achieving parthenogenesis, or dead men teleporting through solid rock walls of burial vaults, but that might be somewhat off-topic, doncha think?


No, I honestly did not think that this was "off-topic" Biv, because we were again talking about the possibility of science maybe greatly extending human lifetimes like the possibility of this already occurring in nature before.

By the way, where is "the biblical interpretation forum" Biv? I can't believe I never noticed this before in all the years that I have been here. :)


Ron if you could get me some DNA from any of these guys then we'll talk :)
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 17th, 2017, 3:27 pm 

Thanks SK,

Oddly, all the men had their Brain Aneurysms right after some physical exertion (pulling weeds, moving a refrigerator, carrying a crate.. etc). Being naturally lazy.. should I expect to live longer ;^P

Note: I'm an expert couch-potato.

And speaking of rapid aging.. how come when I'm lying down I feel like 20ish, when I sit up I feel 40ish, and when I stand up I'm suddenly 60ish. (I'm actually 66)

I suspect you will suggest I get more exercise.. and I suspect I'll accuse you of trying to kill me.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 3:28 pm 

SciameriKen » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:17 pm wrote:
ronjanec » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:07 pm wrote:
Braininvat » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:04 am wrote:You know this is the biochemistry forum, not the biblical interpretation forum, right? Sure, we could explore the scientific basis for 100 angels dancing on the head of a pin, or Mary of Nazareth achieving parthenogenesis, or dead men teleporting through solid rock walls of burial vaults, but that might be somewhat off-topic, doncha think?


No, I honestly did not think that this was "off-topic" Biv, because we were again talking about the possibility of science maybe greatly extending human lifetimes like the possibility of this already occurring in nature before.

By the way, where is "the biblical interpretation forum" Biv? I can't believe I never noticed this before in all the years that I have been here. :)


Ron if you could get me some DNA from any of these guys then we'll talk :)


Actually SK, if I could get some DNA from any of these guys, then the bidding will start! :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Science of Ageing

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 3:54 pm 

SciameriKen » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:16 pm wrote:
ronjanec » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:20 pm wrote:
vivian maxine » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:04 am wrote:Exactly, ronjanec. That is what I am saying. Do you remember the famous runner?

So, if there is something to the programming theory, it may be that the programming is enabling the cells to fight off the damage in some of us better than in others of us. Inherited genes? "Runs in families"? Maybe.


I sure do, and I (again) also remember many other examples of people dying at an early age despite appearing to follow all the rules.

But I am honestly trying to temper my enthusiasm for all of this Vivian, until someone like Paralith, BioWizard, or SciameriKen makes some additional comments on this(Or waiting for the hammer to fall in other words) :)


I would like to share what the significance of this recent cell paper that Bio posted means to me. Prior to this study which I saw about 2-3 weeks ago, I felt natural lifespan was the sum of the mechanisms of wear and tear and the genetic defenses we have against them. Breakthroughs and enhancements that target one such mechanism (e.g. telomeres) would only have a marginal impact on overall lifespan and we would surely succumb to the swarm of other hallmarks of aging (i.e. Telomere enhancement is helpful, but not if Genomic instability takes you down).
This recent study is a bit of a game changer. By over expressing genes that are normally repressed and silent, in almost all but stem cells, many hallmarks of aging were ameliorated! The most important thing this tells me is that the body has the potential for dramatic rejuvenation and repair, however these mechanisms are inhibited. They are inhibited by cellular programming in the form of epigenetics (heterochromatin formation) - thus unraveling such a code is, shall we say, challenging :)
I feel where I was before was that the efforts of life extension would have difficulty in breaking past 120 years. Now, I feel the potential is there to break well beyond that - just wouldn't expect that solution to be coming any time soon :)


Your personal comments here are obviously way above my pay grade SK, but I can at least appreciate the fact that there is obviously a whole lot more going on here in regards to human ageing than just primarily cumulative "wear and tear" inside our personal bodies. And I still find this subject very interesting, despite my not being able to understand the vast majority of it. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


PreviousNext

Return to Biochemistry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests