With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent • Hacker News Board

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#241

Post by Madmallard » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #235

Madmallard wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask your father about drug induced mitochondrial dysfunction. I had ciprofloxacin 4 years ago and my exercise tolerance swiftly dropped in the months afterward. Research tells me this is due to mtdna depletion and dna damage and I just want to know how to get better. I now have stage 1 diastolic dysfunction and a plethora of seemingly unrelated problems, coming from none before.

It's probably not fixable if it's really that. Even if mtDNA is fine the mitochondria have their own mechanism for senescence based on other damage, just like cells. It does not even have to be caused by radicals.

Why wouldn't it be fixable?

And would there be a way you think to test if that's really the case?

I have talked with some people who had like severe reactions to the drug who managed to get some kind of mitochondria testing and it would say stuff like "30% of the active sites are blocked on the mitochondria"

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#242

Post by skybrian » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:11 AM UTC

magduf wrote: post #240

skybrian wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying there is any new problem, just that the problems of aging may still be rather similar to today, just happening later. If life doesn't really go on forever and people still eventually die of some disease or other, that's a lot of old people who are on life support at some point in their lives, right? Just like today.

As AstralStorm said, you just made the argument for why it should be pursued. If you look at humans as economic units, we as a society invest an incredible amount of time and resources into every person to make them a productive adult: it takes a bare minimum of 18 years, and generally more like 22-26, with a lot of education and other resources. Then if they're too feeble to be productive by the time they're 70, tha…

Well, I never said it shouldn't be pursued!

I'm not sure I buy your arguments, though. For people who earn enough to retire and live off investments, this could mean more time in retirement, rather than more time working. (Still good, but not a productivity boost.)

Also, I don't see a reason to assume that an anti-aging treatment would delay the end of fertility in women past 35 or so, or make egg freezing work for longer. Those would be separate medical advances.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#243

Post by ekianjo » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:44 AM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #143

ekianjo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me CR is not so much interesting for the health benefits, rather the ability to self control and not submit to any feeling of hunger immediately.

I found stimulants (e.g. coffee or something stronger) achieve that quite well.

Indeed, coffee works well to cut the feeling of hunger. Also, just drinking a lot of liquid works too.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#244

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 8:43 AM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #23

hannob wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or get a gym membership, actually use it and eat less crap. This may only give you a few years, but chances that it'll actually work are much higher.

You don’t need a gym membership. For cardio you can go to any park for running or biking. It’s way more fun. For strength training you can do bodyweight strength training at home with no equipment required (calisthenics). Most people fall into the trap of paying for a gym membership, but then they never use it, because let’s face it, going to the gym wastes time and is uncomfortable. If you train at home by using the…

[deleted]

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#245

Post by magduf » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #242

magduf wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As AstralStorm said, you just made the argument for why it should be pursued. If you look at humans as economic units, we as a society invest an incredible amount of time and resources into every person to make them a productive adult: it takes a bare minimum of 18 years, and generally more like 22-26, with a lot of education and other resources. Then if they're too feeble to be productive by the time they're 70, tha…

Well, I never said it shouldn't be pursued! I'm not sure I buy your arguments, though. For people who earn enough to retire and live off investments, this could mean more time in retirement, rather than more time working. (Still good, but not a productivity boost.) Also, I don't see a reason to assume that an anti-aging treatment would delay the end of fertility in women past 35 or so, or make egg freezing work for l…

>For people who earn enough to retire and live off investments, this could mean more time in retirement, rather than more time working. (Still good, but not a productivity boost.)

Who cares? As long as they're not a drain on the system (compared to today), what's the problem? That sounds like a big plus actually: people getting to enjoy more time in their lives. Why would anyone not want that, unless they're some kind of religious nut who thinks this isn't "god's will" or something?

>Also, I don't see a reason to assume that an anti-aging treatment would delay the end of fertility in women past 35 or so, or make egg freezing work for longer. Those would be separate medical advances.

I don't think they'd be entirely separate. We can already freeze eggs, and women are able to carry children at older ages (sometimes not even their own children) thanks to IVF now. Anti-aging treatments should make this even better; women may routinely get their eggs frozen at 25, and then use them to make children at 75.