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

Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#11

Post by amelius »

This paragraph summarizes the theory behind the pill.

> The theory behind Basis is in part an evolution of the theory behind drinking red wine: One of its main ingredients, pterostilbene, is considered a more powerful version of resveratrol, with a more convincing track record in the lab. As for NR, by increasing NAD levels in our cells, it in turn appears to reverse mitochondrial decay. In a 2013 scientific paper, Sinclair announced that a single week of injections of an NAD precursor into elderly mice had made their muscles look young again, though without restoring their strength. Both compounds aim to activate sirtuins, and the hope is that together they might amplify what each does individually.

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#13

Post by amelius »

monochromatic wrote: post #4

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

> anyone who starts talking about “detoxification” and “toxins” is likely to be a quack. It’s a buzzword, something that plays to peoples’ mistaken ideas about medicine and biochemistry, that there are all these toxins from the environment that have to be flushed out somehow for you to be healthy.

Is this true? Waste products need to be transported out of the cells and their environment, right? And they can be toxic. Why is this a controversy?

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#14

Post by beagle3 »

amelius wrote: post #13
monochromatic wrote: post #4

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

> anyone who starts talking about “detoxification” and “toxins” is likely to be a quack. It’s a buzzword, something that plays to peoples’ mistaken ideas about medicine and biochemistry, that there are all these toxins from the environment that have to be flushed out somehow for you to be healthy. Is this true? Waste products need to be transported out of the cells and their environment, right? And they can be toxic.…

The word "toxins" induces guilt by association because most who use it are quacks. However, there definitely are substances that are toxic and get stored e.g. in adipose tissue and only removed under specific circumstances. But we have to find new names for those substances and processes because of that guilt by association.

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#15

Post by agumonkey »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #7
p1esk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tldr?

Probably Reason says that there will never a pill against aging, because aging is a complex process and it cannot be solved by a quick and dirty trick. (I am just trying to summarizing, not giving my own opinion)

same for telomeres, a senescence panel at a public talk did agree that telomere weren't a silver "button"

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#16

Post by sndean »

amelius wrote: post #13
monochromatic wrote: post #4

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

> anyone who starts talking about “detoxification” and “toxins” is likely to be a quack. It’s a buzzword, something that plays to peoples’ mistaken ideas about medicine and biochemistry, that there are all these toxins from the environment that have to be flushed out somehow for you to be healthy. Is this true? Waste products need to be transported out of the cells and their environment, right? And they can be toxic.…

If you have a functioning liver, then you're fine. There are also some popular "detox" methods that can themselves be harmful [0]. Legitimate detoxes are done for people who are opiate-dependent, and a few others (who probably have a malfunctioning liver from their substance abuse and are consuming large quantities of substances that are toxic) [1].

[0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-...

[1] internal medicine fiancee who sees a lot of those patients

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#17

Post by tchaffee »

monochromatic wrote: post #4

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

Because of the wording of the marketing? As soon as the author sees the word detoxification, he is triggered?

While seeing the word "detox" in marketing materials might be a good heuristic if you need to make a snap decision, there is enough time to evaluate the scientific claims and make a decision based on that. If you're going to put a substance in your body on a daily basis for the rest of your life, one would hope you would use more than a heuristic when making that decision.

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#18

Post by amelius »

beagle3 wrote: post #14
amelius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anyone who starts talking about “detoxification” and “toxins” is likely to be a quack. It’s a buzzword, something that plays to peoples’ mistaken ideas about medicine and biochemistry, that there are all these toxins from the environment that have to be flushed out somehow for you to be healthy. Is this true? Waste products need to be transported out of the cells and their environment, right? And they can be toxic.…

The word "toxins" induces guilt by association because most who use it are quacks. However, there definitely are substances that are toxic and get stored e.g. in adipose tissue and only removed under specific circumstances. But we have to find new names for those substances and processes because of that guilt by association.

But there's a whole scientific field called "toxicology".

Anyway, I don't like the phrase "anyone who ... is likely to be ..." in the linked article. It's basically an ad hominem attack, and not very scientific in itself (unless you take it literally, but in that case the author should have been more explicit imho, to avoid confusion/insinuation).

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#19

Post by monochromatic »

amelius wrote: post #18
beagle3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "toxins" induces guilt by association because most who use it are quacks. However, there definitely are substances that are toxic and get stored e.g. in adipose tissue and only removed under specific circumstances. But we have to find new names for those substances and processes because of that guilt by association.

But there's a whole scientific field called "toxicology". Anyway, I don't like the phrase "anyone who ... is likely to be ..." in the linked article. It's basically an ad hominem attack, and not very scientific in itself (unless you take it literally, but in that case the author should have been more explicit imho, to avoid confusion/insinuation).

How about "anyone trying to sell you a supplement who talks about toxins"?

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

#20

Post by monochromatic »

tchaffee wrote: post #17
monochromatic wrote: post #4

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/25/sub... I'll pass.

Because of the wording of the marketing? As soon as the author sees the word detoxification, he is triggered? While seeing the word "detox" in marketing materials might be a good heuristic if you need to make a snap decision, there is enough time to evaluate the scientific claims and make a decision based on that. If you're going to put a substance in your body on a daily basis for the rest of your life, one would ho…

Except the scientific claims won't be resolved anytime soon.
Post reply on HN