Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#121

Post by spenczar5 »

kgin wrote: post #117
flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #13

It just dawned on me that getting old and dying is most likely an evolutionary chicken and egg problem. If you didn't get old and die, evolution of your species would grind to a halt. Getting old and dying is required for evolution to transpire. I can't see any reason why it must be an absolute truth.

Dying isn't required for evolution. It's just that after you reproduce and get your offspring on their own feet, continuing to live is optional (for evolution), so no optimizations evolved to continue life far beyond that. Evolution isn't trying to kill you, it just doesn't care about helping you beyond reproductive age.

Wouldn’t that mean there is evolutionary pressure to keep reproducing as long as possible (and so, evolution should lead you to live forever and keep making babies)?

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#122

Post by codyb »

tptacek wrote: post #114
webmaven wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating the same amount of food in a much shorter period is also a great way to train your stomach to accept (and unfortunately, expect) more food before feeling full.

Is that a well-documented truth, or just something you think seems right? The opposite has been true for me for the last few years of sort of informally fasting: I hit uncomfortable satiety faster when fasting.

I will add my personal anecdote to that.

Generally after not eating for a long time I’ll be pretty hungry, but a lot of times things won’t seem appetizing. And when I do eat I usually fill up quick. And have to wait a bit to eat anymore.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#123

Post by huherto »

01100011 wrote: post #120
toomuchtodo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

36 year old male here. Using metformin to artificially lower my blood sugar level to help keep weight off and for life extension purposes (asked my doctor for a prescription at my annual physical, said "sure, go for it"). Highly recommend it.

Metformin is great. A doc even recommended it to my friend while he was fighting a glioblastoma(brain cancer). I'd love to take it but I tried berberine, which is supposedly similar in effect, and got major low blood sugar. The only issues with Metformin are occasional digestive issues(diarrhea) and the slight chance of lactic acidosis.

Sorry about your friend. How is Metformin helpful for glioblastoma ? My sister has this. How is your friend doing? Any lessons?

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#124

Post by copperx »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #116
nanomonkey wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much are you taking? Do you use it to stay in ketosis, along with Intermittent Fasting, or something else? Is there any good literature for using this outside of it's intended use for diabetes? Thanks!

500mg once daily, one meal a day intermittent fasting (dinner). Only coffee, Coke Zero, and water outside of dinner.

Have you had low energy with it?

I bought a 6 month supply of 850mg Metformin when I went to Mexico because I intended to take it long term for anti-aging benefits, and although the GI issues were almost non existent, my energy levels after waking up plummeted. I felt physically tired after waking up, and the only thing I wanted was to go back to bed.

I then tried 425mg and had the same problem. I wonder if it's a symptom of low blood sugar? I didn't feel much hunger in the morning. It was a weird experience and I'm a bit sad I had to discontinue it.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#125

Post by solotronics »

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #13

It just dawned on me that getting old and dying is most likely an evolutionary chicken and egg problem. If you didn't get old and die, evolution of your species would grind to a halt. Getting old and dying is required for evolution to transpire. I can't see any reason why it must be an absolute truth.

This is only true if you have limited resources and still expand the population by reproduction. When we start colonizing space living forever would not be a problem.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#126

Post by carlivar »

efoto wrote: post #87
01100011 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

44 yo male. DHEA is amazing. In times of stress, it restores my libido and ends my depressive cycle. I don't take it every day, but I definitely keep it close by.

"Studies have shown quality control of this supplement to often be low." [1] -- which one are you using? [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-dhea/art-203641...

That Mayo Clinic link has a giant red light "avoid" rating.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#127

Post by copperx »

WhoBeI wrote: post #75
zarkov99 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a mutation occurred in an individual such that it would not age, while everything else remained the same, that individual would have more reproductive opportunities and so would its offspring, but there would still be differential success, that is not all individuals would reproduce at the same rate. So you would still have reproduction, heredity and differential reproductive success. So evolution would continue.…

Buildup of damage due to radiation, chemicals and the like would introduce more errors/damage into offspring.

I like David Sinclair's idea that while DNA can be considered digital data, copying it is an analog process and we end up with copies of copies of copies, each a little worse than the previous one, while DNA is still intact.

It sounds too simple to be true, but it's an interesting information theoretical based hypothesis.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#128

Post by joe_the_user »

vilaca wrote: post #95
joe_the_user wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My body weight puts me barely above underweight when I eat as much as I feel like. I don't think regular week long fasts could be very healthy for me.

Sounds like you could successfully fast very easily by eating the same amount of food in shorter period of the day, like 16h fasting and eating in the remaining 8h of the day. Without changing the amount of daily calories you wouldn't experience weight loss. Obviously saying 'could' is not the same as saying 'should' and it's not very safe to do drastic changes to your diet without consulting a MD.

I sometimes do this out of sloppiness. I'm not sure if there are any health benefits.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#129

Post by nikolay »

James_Henry wrote: post #103
nikolay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the placebo being so strong, sample size of 9 is too small for any conclusion.

Do you know how strong the placebo works on Horvath's epigenetic clock? I don't think that research has been done, but it will be soon I am sure and it will be incredibly interesting to find out. Even without knowing that though, I'm surprised, and so is Horvath himself, that they found a full-on reversal of the clock. I don't think anyone was expecting that. I'm betting we won't see that kind of reversal in a future…

The placebo itself is magical enough so it could be extended to pretty much anything and that's why quality studies are done certain way. If can understand the placebo, then and only then we can then explain what it could do and it can't do.

Re: In a small trial, drugs seemed to rejuvenate the body’s ‘epigenetic clock’

#130

Post by nikolay »

ALittleLight wrote: post #111
nikolay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the placebo being so strong, sample size of 9 is too small for any conclusion.

The article mentions the effects persisted even a year after treatment. That's far beyond the placebo effect for anything I'm aware of.

The placebo effect can definitely extend beyond the end of the trial.
Post reply on HN