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

Does the human lifespan have a limit?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 227 posts

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#181

Post by hourislate »

gmadsen wrote: post #169
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am willing to wager that Dr Sinclair is just peddling nonsense to make his million bucks and exit quickly.

considering he leads a research group at Harvard that publishes in high profile journals, you could actually look at the peer reviewed research, instead of relying on your "hunch"

It's old news but did you know, He did fuck GSK for 750 million? Basically no one could ever replicate his study. GSK should have done thier homework so boohoo for them but still all is not what it seems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFnD27ffqE

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#182

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

inglor_cz wrote: post #154
paulcole wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole Blue Zones thing is pretty funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone Only Loma Linda seems like it might not be the result of fraud — and that’s only because it’s a haven for a kooky religion. The whole life-extension thing is funny. I wonder if people realize what the world is going to be like 70+ years from now and how miserable it’s going to be for anyone over 100 who’s not rich? I think about my 95…

Rural Greek Orthodox tend to have a lot of fasting days (IIRC about 200 in a year), and caloric restriction (CR) is a well known mechanism that slows down aging in many animals. Of course, humans are long lived by natural standards, so the effect of CR on lifespan may be much smaller than in mice or worms, but I would still expect someone-who-fasts-regularly-but-isn't-malnourished to be healthier than an average West…

Fasting is one thing. Living in a rural environment is another. In the old days Greeks didn't have cars (there weren't even any roads) so they had to walk - a lot. 20 kms a day maybe. The people of the Aegean island of Icaria are famous for their long lives, but in the past they would walk from one village to the next over mountainous terrain, where today there are tarmac roads and cars. This according to my grandmother's boyfriend who died in his late 90's. He was active until the end, never able to sit unoccupied after a lifteime of hard work- and he was sound enough of mind to teach me backgammon.

I mean to say, diet is often not the only thing that sets these rural populations apart from city-dwellers. Not many office jobs in the countryside, I guess.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#183

Post by ck2 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #153
ck2 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't bother. Sinclair is considered a quack by even some life-extension enthusiasts. He owns part of the company that makes patented NMN which is just another form of NR which is a another form of very cheap Niacin. He also owns part of the company that claims he is rolling back his biological clock. That's not science, that's marketing and profiteering. NAD production slows down with age and illness. All he is doin…

I am doing some experiments with NR (no Sinclair in the business chain AFAIK) and pterostilbene and my ability to exercise has improved noticeably. I am 43 and I used to be fairly sore after a strenuous 60 minute exercise - especially my sinews were bad. This wasn't getting any better with more exercise, actually it was slowly getting worse with age, to the degree that I wasn't able to exercise in two consecutive day…

Note I am not disputing NAD supplementation, only the limits of what it can do and who can benefit from it.

The key to NAD supplementation is the people who need it are older or ill.

There are a lot of other processes in such bodies that become deficient too.

None of the supplement methods for NAD, Niacin, NR, NMN will boost levels beyond what your body will use.

This is what the NAD cycle looks like, you can see NA (niacin) vs NR vs NMN are each closer to production but the end result is the same of what ends up in the blood vs organs like liver.

https://www.lifespan.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NAD_schem...

There are wild arguments, even with scientific rigor, about NR vs NMN ability to get into cells. It is more likely that genetics matters and it varies from person to person and what else is in their diet.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#184

Post by rembicilious »

xeromal wrote: post #167
markb139 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in my 50’s and I’m a much better golfer than I was in my 20’s. Partly club technology has enabled me to hit the ball more consistently and partly I now don’t try and hit the cover off the ball each shot :)

I don't think the post is talking about golf. If you look at physically demanding sports, most players don't last past 40 unless they're an incredible athlete.

This only applies to professional athletes. Plenty of older people play sports as talented enthusiasts.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#185

Post by xeromal »

rembicilious wrote: post #184
xeromal wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the post is talking about golf. If you look at physically demanding sports, most players don't last past 40 unless they're an incredible athlete.

This only applies to professional athletes. Plenty of older people play sports as talented enthusiasts.

I actually see that as the other way. If humanity's best athletes and most incredibly gifted people physically can't make it, who can?

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#186

Post by tomxor »

radu_floricica wrote: post #84
tomxor wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point What does that end up looking like though, Logans Run? :D I can't see a voluntary version of it working because of the very psychological issue you mention, we are inherently self preserving creatures in all but the most unbearable conditions. The other thing with these very personal choices,…

Uh, I meant it the opposite way :) Unaliving yourself at 90 is a personal choice which I of course support, but I'm mostly talking about making sure we can live healthy lives over the current limit. The psychological issue is that even though we as individuals cling to life (sometimes too much), trying to rouse support for life extension sometimes feels like urinating in public.

whoops, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by "breaking this".

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#187

Post by carapace »

camillomiller wrote: post #91
radu_floricica wrote: post #66

There's an old quip that the greatest correlation for a country to have supercentenarians is them not issuing proper documentation at birth 120 years ago. So yeah, currently there's a hard limit - around 100, more or less, but with life seldom being worth living after 90. I really wish we'd start investing in breaking this. I'll happen at some point, the only question is when, and I'd think it's obvious why we'd want…

Please explain to me and try to convince me why we should. I’m serious, I just can’t understand why extending our individual lifespan should be a goal of our age, instead of focusing on making our life much better when it’s more worth living.

It seems much easier and more feasible than inventing an FTL space drive. If you could live to be 10,000 or 100,000 years or more you could visit interesting places.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#189

Post by gpsx »

trendoid wrote: post #163
qvrjuec wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty intuitive to also consider limits on lifespan as a function of conserving resources on a family or tribal level. At a certain point, the utility a population could gain from labor or knowledge of older members is outweighed by the burden of taking care of them and providing for them.

Yes but from what i recall, evolution doesn't work like that at the level of population.

That is a good point that it is not like many other factors that affect evolution. I think there could be an evolutionary impact if the high cost of resources for one tribe, in tribe versus tribe competition, or a family, in family versus family competition, put the tribe or family at a disadvantage.

Re: Does the human lifespan have a limit?

#190

Post by snowwrestler »

gratalis wrote: post #168
snowwrestler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great viewpoint emotionally, but physically you can’t do at 50 what you could do at 25. There’s a reason pretty much every sport (even golf!) has a “masters” class for older players.

This is incorrect or at least incorrectly stated with respect to the word "you". I didn't start running regularly until my late 40's and I loathed nearly every step for the first year but my fitness and enjoyment levels slowly improved especially after discovering trail running. I started participating in ultra trail races after a couple years and found a wonderful community of people enjoying an activity all around…

If you had followed the exact same fitness regimen when you were 25, you would have seen better results: higher speeds, more endurance, shorter recovery times, etc.

That’s why I mentioned sports: even people who have worked out their whole lives, at the top of their sports, see declines in physical performance as they age.

Congrats on getting in shape. Relative improvements in physical fitness are beneficial and possible for many people. But it doesn’t reverse aging.

Post reply on HN