Longevity / Anti-Aging Research Thread

[Anonymous No.12246526]

How does /sci/ feel about the current state of longevity/anti-aging research, NMN, Sirt genes, Resveritrol, David Sinclair, Aubrey De Gray, etc? I'm pretty fascinated by it all lately but I know it's also quite controversial still.

[Anonymous No.12246532]

>>12246526
You may die younger with than without, just commercial companies that want they bullshit on market, bullshit which they haven't tested for 150 years.

You should try eating spinach and cover yourself with monomolecular carbon oxide every now and then to reduce toxins from skin.

[Anonymous No.12246541]

It’s all bullshit

[Anonymous No.12246741]

>>12246541
That seems a bit extreme to say considering all the studies that show positive results.

[Anonymous No.12247292]

>>12246526
There isn't any. The fact that you fucking NPCs are STILL talking about fucking resveratrol proves there will NEVER be anything that adds even 1 YEAR to the maximum human lifespan. Resveratrol is a chemical that was based on fraud and fake "longevity experts" have milked like thirty fucking years out of that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12247298]

>>12246741
There are literally none. And all the ones that are claimed to show it literally show the opposite like the decades-long fasting monkey study. It 100% demonstrated that fasting will not add ONE FUCKING YEAR to your life, but all the NPCs still claim it "proved" the opposite.

[Anonymous No.12247681]

>>12247298
>It 100% demonstrated that fasting will not add ONE FUCKING YEAR to your life, but all the NPCs still claim it "proved" the opposite.
The only study I can think of or find at the moment that matches your description is this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812811/
But I'm not sure how you're drawing the conclusion from it that it won't extend life when it literally shows that the calorie-restricted animals have lower mortality rates at the same ages for both all-cause and age-related.

[Anonymous No.12247687]

>>12246526
Should I make an anti-longevity/anti-anti-aging research thread? In which we discuss how to make scientific funding go to other fields of study.

[Anonymous No.12247740]

>>12247687
Why do you want to prevent humans from improving quality and length of life?

[Anonymous No.12248830]

>>12247681
Lower mortality is not the same thing as life extension. THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT, YOU DUMB COCKSUCKER.

[Anonymous No.12249166]

>>12248830
>being more likely to live to an older age is not the same thing as life extension
So then what's your definition of life extension?

[Anonymous No.12249174]

>>12249166
>being more likely to live to an older age is not the same thing as life extension
Correct.

>So then what's your definition of life extension?
Why don't YOU put YOUR two IQ points together and see if you can come up with the answer. This isn't rhetorical. I genuinely want to know if you have the cognitive power to make even a pathetic attempt to figure out what the difference is.

[Anonymous No.12249193]

>>12249174
No, seriously, what's your definition of life extension? Because mine is living longer.

[Anonymous No.12249195]

>>12249193
You really are fucking retarded then. You couldn't even make the attempt. Living "longer" and still dying of a normal old age isn't life extension.

[Anonymous No.12249217]

>>12249195
>Living "longer" and still dying of a normal old age
What? If you would have otherwise died at one age and you take actions to die at an older age, you haven't extended your life? If you do things that stave off age-related illness and keep you from becoming bed-ridden at an earlier age, you haven't extended your life?

[Anonymous No.12249222]

>>12249217
Let me make this very simple for your retarded ass. If you just want to be healthier and die of old age, you can have a good diet and exercise frequently. That's it. Everyone go home. Life extension has been solved.

[Anonymous No.12249226]

You should really just start making these in /x/

[Anonymous No.12249240]

>>12249226
Seriously. This entire field is just a scam millionaires use to fool people out of cash.

[Anonymous No.12249293]

>>12249222
Yes, literally everyone will eventually die of old age. You're such an enlightened genius for figuring this out, anon. But if you die of old age AT A LATER AGE THAN YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE then you have, by definition, EXTENDED your LIFE. The goal of this type of research is to figure out how to radically extend human life expectancy well beyond what we currently consider normal. It's done in bits and pieces, a couple years here, a few more years there, honing in on the exact mechanisms and how to slow, halt, or reverse them. What I hear you say is, "You'll die eventually no matter what so it's all bullshit."
>If you just want to be healthier and die of old age, you can have a good diet and exercise frequently.
But is it not worth figuring out WHY that is the case? Figuring out WHAT constitutes a good diet? If and how we can distill those effects into some other delivery method or even simply amplify/enhance those natural effects to make your diet and exercise go even further in improving your health and slowing your aging?
You seem to think we have it all figured out, but even something as seemingly simple as "diet and exercise" is very complex and controversial.

[Anonymous No.12249322]

>>12246526
Anti-Aging research is a very good way to see our gaps of knowledge in the current cell/medical field.
We have diseases that can shorten your life span, either genetically or from some outside influence. Both of these open up another can of worms.
Then we have the accumulation of mutation and other failing systems until the body doesnt work anymore. Totally different than genetic defects.
These 3 very large domains need a whole lot more knowledge before the bigger picture comes into play. And I believe Sinclair is namely working in the last domain.
Much more research has to be done.

[Anonymous No.12249608]

>>12249166
>If you do X and Y you will likely live longer than if you did not
>But this does not mean that you lived longer
Semantics with a hint of dumdum

[Anonymous No.12251576]

>>12246526
Defy death indefinitely would be nice

[Anonymous No.12252558]

>>12246526
why does this guy always look so fake and sleazy to me? its like hes a slimy wax doll trying to look young and sell you his overpriced supplements that dont work

[Anonymous No.12252566]

>>12249222
Jesus you got BTFO brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12252702]

>>12246526
Completely retarded desire to have. Malformed worldview spastics chasing their own tail

[Anonymous No.12252730]

>>12252558
Him and guarente are both full of shit. They set the field back 10 years with sirtuins and NMD shit. Sinclair's most recent stuff on epigenetic reprogramming is promising though. The whole information theory idea of it is bullshit, but the core method he used was solid

I rank their stuff on the same level as the calorie restriction shit.

[Anonymous No.12252737]

>>12252730
sure he may be doing research on that, but he still pushes these supplements. he has founded literally over half a dozen random companies pushing this shit

[Anonymous No.12252744]

>>12247681
A mouse or a worm is not a human. They are fast living animals that are optimized to reproduce as soon as possible. Calorie restriction works on them because it simulates famine conditions. They go through an alternate development pathway where they age more slowly because they need to survive a bad year. If 1/3 of your life is spent in famine, it makes sense to evolve mechanisms to extend your life by 25%

Humans are already exceptionally long lived. Evolutionarily, there would be less pressure to avoid aging during a famine because those conditions are a small fraction of our lifespan. Not to mention, slowing down aging would be difficult mechanistically when we are already so optimal.

[Anonymous No.12252752]

>>12252737
They both have. Gaurente got bought out by some big pharma company I think. The project fell through, but I think he still managed to walk away with multiple millions.

On one hand, it's good that they are trying to put research in the hands of the public ASAP. On the other hand, they seem to be of the mindset "this kinda works in mouse/worms/yeast, I'm sure people will buy it" without any thoughts to what might be different in an organism with a x25 lifespan

[Anonymous No.12252770]

>>12252752
thats basically what they have do for every company. sell some super "promising" results and cash out quick before it turns into nothing. i'm sure he'll be doing it with the epigenetic stuff too

[Anonymous No.12252872]

>>12252558
>its like hes a slimy wax doll trying to look young and sell you his overpriced supplements that dont work
He literally doesn't sell anything, though, and he doesn't even make recommendations. He tells people what his supplement regimen is only because they bug him so much, but he doesn't even say what brands he uses or where he sources anything.

[Anonymous No.12254930]

>>12252730
>Him and guarente are both full of shit. They set the field back 10 years with sirtuins and NMD shit.
ok then show the alternatives

[Anonymous No.12255075]

>>12249166
The whole point of a life extension is to keep you from being vulnerable to the shit old people are vulnerable to. If you need to be saved from that shit then it's not extending shit.

[Anonymous No.12255086]

should anti-aging in terms of skin health, hair health, etc. and anti-aging in terms of life expectancy be treated as if they're the same?

[Anonymous No.12255100]

>>12249293
You're talking about two different things. Having a healthy life isn't the same as having your life extended. The latter means to literally solve the hard problem of age and make it so you DON'T AGE. This is likely not possible unless we become Jellyfish.

[Anonymous No.12255244]

>>12255086
Healthspan =\= Lifespan

[Anonymous No.12255261]

>>12255100
>The latter means to literally solve the hard problem of age and make it so you DON'T AGE.
What if we slow the process of aging such that life expectancy increases, just not infinitely? I don't see why anything short of completely solving aging can't be considered life extension.

[Anonymous No.12255416]

>>12254930
There's a lot of promising stem cell work. We also get better at growing organs and replacing arteries every day. Not to mention the alzheimer's treatments that relieve the brain of protein aggregate build up.

Even if there were no alternatives, the sirtuins research is just not useful in humans. Also, the NMD supplements is akin to noticing that there is engines run low on oil over time, and solving it by pouring oil on the roof.

[Anonymous No.12255515]

>>12255244
Half a thread's worth of semantic squabbling could've been avoided if people understood this

[Anonymous No.12255557]

>>12255515
But doesn't increasing healthspan inherently involve increasing lifespan? If you delay age-related illness you delay the decline of health in old age and thus delay the date of death which is an increase of lifespan.

[Anonymous No.12255567]

>>12255557
>doesn't increasing healthspan inherently involve increasing lifespan?
Not inherently, but it's highly correlated.

People talking about extending lifespan mean removing barriers to supranormal longevity.

[Anonymous No.12255609]

>>12255557
I take it you didn't see the tales from the crypt where the guy was brought back to life and couldn't die, but he was already embalmed.

[Anonymous No.12255645]

>>12255609
I would say that increasing lifespan doesn't have to involve increasing healthspan. We can definitely keep people alive and bedridden on dozens of medications as they rot away for many more years than they otherwise would. But increasing healthspan leads to increasing lifespan by virtue of delaying age-related negative effects that lead to age-related death.

[Anonymous No.12256432]

does anyone here know why anti-aging has been popular here recently?

[Anonymous No.12256451]

>>12247292

But look at the branding! The new stuff isn't regulated and isn't allowed to make any specific health claims, but the bottle looks so amazing it must be more valuable than gold!

[Anonymous No.12256611]

>>12256432
Nice milkers!

[Anonymous No.12257038]

>>12255416
tldr so you dont actually have any alternative to his research

[Anonymous No.12258284]

>>12246532
>You should try eating spinach
I'll take ecdysterone directly instead (or rather in addition).
Also please just shut up if you have nothing to say.

>>12246526 Activate Ampk for longevity or not? I don't think the guys you named are sincerely interested in efficiency.

[Anonymous No.12258339]

>>12246526
Nobody cares about preclinical trials. These people just want attention and your money for their new book.

[Anonymous No.12258914]

all of this research just doesn't seem revolutionary and it wont lead to antiaging solutoins, am i the only one that feels this way?

most of the research rn, esp. resveratrol, revolves around administering an existing organic compound at high doses. isn't that a pretty uncreative solution? its been the pharma paradigm for years now and while it worked for its time, modern results are dismal, a revolutionary advancement requires a revolutionary method no?
people are just searching for the next novel chemical but i think it will take more than some pill to cure aging

[Anonymous No.12258941]

>>12258914
Natural compounds are easy to bottle and sell. They also rarely need to be FDA approved. FDA doesn't even allow clinical trials with the goal of "fighting aging"

[Anonymous No.12258991]

Is dasatinib+quercetin legit?