Jim Pearce Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwriixIrwA5n7kQO_NJx.9w4;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1729048747/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fshowcase.casw.org%2fstories%2fpeer-review-post-mortem-how-a-flawed-aging-study-was-published-in-nature%2f/RK=2/RS=L9WbuoAsTYclLQ7NF1F4HOprFDM- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Not saying I believe or don't believe the Olshanski article. But there seems to be some pushback to be found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 (edited) Vaupel made compelling counter arguements in a pdf I found, but like you, I'd rather not get my hopes up too much.. Vaupel died in 2022 aged only 78.. Edited October 15 by Jim Pearce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted October 15 Author Report Share Posted October 15 Jim, I'm not sure what the critique you posted was trying to get at, but I will point out that it was written in 2017 about this 2016 paper in Nature by different authors: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19793 Olshansky's 2024 paper in Nature Aging that I pointed to: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00702-3 uses different analysis and comes to a similar conclusion - i.e. the rate of increase in life expectancy has been modest and decelerating in recent decades. The Vaupel paper I saw uses longevity data from the Guinness World Record database, which has issues, as pointed out by the critique you linked to. Here is the graph of oldest living humans over the years from Guinness that Vaupel based his analysis on: You can say the graphs are slowly going up, but for men, the slope is only about 0.5 years per decade, and even that seems dubious if you look at the data since 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 I didn't realize that. I was just looking for different perspectives. I'm not looking for another pair of rose colored glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 16 Report Share Posted October 16 The NIA monkeys in the control group that were fed a healthy diet but moderately calorie restricted. I wonder how their lifespan compared to the ad libitum monkeys that were fed a crappy diet, because I think the ad libitum monkeys that were fed a crappy diet are representative of most average Americans. That may give us some indication of how we might fare compared to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted October 16 Report Share Posted October 16 Jim - I think the goal for most here is healthspan with HOPE that future technology might extend life. There is a possibility that AI / machine super intelligence might somehow play a factor in all of this, but no one knows (you could almost as easily believe AI / machine super intelligence will end humanity, haha). I agree with Dean, do all the Dr. G you want, its not going to get you (or him) to 120. One thing you might want to track is your DunedinPACE which may indicate your rate of aging. This could in theory at least, give you a pretty good idea of how long you will live (without some yet to be available technology to change your pace of aging). https://www.rejuvenationolympics.com/dunedin-pace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 16 Report Share Posted October 16 I realize now I'm not likely to outlive Adventists by much if any, even though I will still watch for any findings that make Olshanski's conclusions less of a certainty. My family has people living on the SAD making it to 90, though, so I think I'll stay positive about having a realistic *hope* of seeing 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorF Posted October 17 Report Share Posted October 17 just 2 cents on primate studies and conclusions for humans, I came to similar some time ago and now I've found them in a compact lecture form in The New Science of Healthy Aging (https://www.amazon.com/New-Science-Healthy-Aging/dp/1094077011) The conclusion in the chapter on monkeys/apes and us in brief - we evolved to be much more prepared for constant movement (but not intensive sports, just be active several hours/day) and the price for it - our bodies are damaged by our metabolism if we live the modern way (with its food and modus operandi). The key to understand this (one of the most importnant) came from Hadza studies (+similar for other last available then natural people) and a discovery that they do burn the same energy as a modern person (not with extremely expanded body!) but their energy seems is spent differently (including creation of less molecule types that do the harm in studied ways to the body). IMHO it is better to live that way in any case, trying to keep the smallest healthy bodyframe from the very beginning of life (no dairy in younger ages!) because striping the body later will not switch all the complicated interacting networks of metabolic complexity to their best possible result (the familiar one that is limited by 120 years but seems only for small people, e.g. 140-160cm usually and never expanded to unhealthy weight zones). Br, Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.