Men and women in the developed world typically live longer now (75 and 80 years, respectively) than they did throughout much of history (about 25 years) because human ingenuity—which brought us sanitation systems, vaccines, antibiotics and so on—has had phenomenal success in thwarting the infectious and parasitic diseases responsible for a great deal of premature death. We live longer now not because we have altered the way we age but because we have altered the way we live.
Though inevitable, aging is not, as some might think, a genetically programmed process, playing itself out on a rigidly predetermined time schedule. The way evolution works makes it impossible for us to possess genes that are specifically designed to cause physiological decline with age or to control how long we live. Just as an automobile does not have a built-in plan for decline written in its blueprints, we do not possess genetic instructions that tell our bodies how to age or when to die.
The logic behind this assertion goes basically like this: Genes perpetuate themselves by orchestrating the transformation of a fertilized egg into a sexually mature adult that produces offspring. Clearly, any genetic variant that compromises this developmental process would be self-eliminating. Conversely, evolution is totally blind to the consequences of gene action (whether good, bad or indifferent) after reproduction is achieved. Genes or genetic variants that prove detrimental in the postreproductive part of the life span can become commonplace, but only if they participate in important processes early on. For example, several genes that contribute to cancer in the later years are known to participate in growth and development early in life.
Without a doubt, a host of our genes influence aging, but they do so indirectly, as an inadvertent by-product of processes involved in growth, development, and the maintenance of health and vigor. The lack of a specific genetic program for aging and death means that there are no quick fixes that will permit us to treat aging as if it were a disease. A single genetic intervention in an organism as complex as a human being would have little chance of combating the probably vast array of genes and biological activities that play subtle, unpredictable parts in the timing of our ultimate demise.
False Claims Despite this complexity, some researchers believe that they may manage to find ways to slow the rate of human aging. If they succeed, many people will live longer than would otherwise be expected, and a few people might even surpass the modern longevity record of 122 years. But the primary goal of biomedical research and efforts to slow aging should not be the mere extension of life. It should be to prolong the duration of healthylife. Slowing the rate of aging could help postpone the onset of age-related diseases and infirmities, essentially enabling people to stay younger longer.
On what grounds do we assert so vehemently that no purported anti-aging intervention has been proved to modify aging? To assess whether an intervention has affected a biological process, researchers need a yardstick for measuring that process. In this case, no single or aggregate age-related phenomenon has proved to be a reliable indicator of the rate of aging in humans or other species. Without a yardstick, there can be no measurements, and without measurements there can be no assurance that an intervention was successful.
People eager to retain or restore their youthful biology might well recognize the paucity of proof but decide to try a putative anti-aging intervention anyway, thinking they have little to lose. They should think again. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require products sold as dietary supplements to undergo
the rigorous tests of safety and effectiveness that medicines must pass before they can be sold to the public. Consequently, these supplements come with no guarantees of purity or potency, no established guidelines on dosage, and often no warnings about side effects that may result when the products are taken along with approved medications.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentResearchers should be giving dstudyR
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers should be giving intensive scrutiny to staphylococcus radiofurans for its ability to maintain DNA functionality in very high ionizing environments. Could give a few clues to effectively enhancing vitality in the aged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishello buddy i read your comment i like it it's great comment dear i learn alot of things from your comment deaer i hope everybody likes your post dear thanx for this information
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===========================
Neil Johnson
==========================
<a href="http://www.skincareproducts101.com">Skin Care Products</a>-Skin Care Products
hello buddy i read your comment i like it it's great comment dear i learn alot of things from your comment deaer i hope everybody likes your post dear thanx for this information
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===========================
Neil Johnson
==========================
[url=http://www.skincareproducts101.com]Skin Care Products[/url]-Skin Care Products
I guarantee you, these scientist's are a bunch of old looking men! I personally can prove them wrong! The Fountain of Youth, really does exist! I am living proof!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarius Wright, 50year old pres. Fountain of Youth, fitness and health, LLC
The fountain exists, its a dissapointing 9 dollars. It is a simple well. Nothing more. If you were wanting to see it, dont waste your time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSirtris Pharmaceuticals has this to say about their sirtuin research, which derived from caloric restriction studies and the gene complexes stimulated by that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sirtris is currently evaluating SRT2104 in multiple Phase IIa clinical trials in patients with Type 2 Diabetes, inflammation and cardiovascular disease."
Granted, their research is oriented toward treatment of specific diseases but they happen to be those most commonly associated with the degenerative processes implicated with aging.
GAry 7
51 guys that work for the FDA ... No one is ever going to listen to anything that an american scientist has to say because we know who pulls your strings little puppet. How can any human being live their life being a puppet for anyone??? Cowardly humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree 100% and disagree as well! But there is the exception to every rule, is that the existence of an
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexception is in some way evidence that the rule exists!!!
I respect what the Scientists have to say, yes I agree
on the anti aging products! But read every word, the
clues esp. about genes, health, "cells", and saying's
(quote them: We live longer now not because we have altered the way we age but because we have altered the way we live.)
The point I got from this is: no skin care product works
its about the body and brain within itself PERIOD!!!
Aging predisposes cells, tissues and organs to the diseases of aging. Experiments, particularly the parabiosis studies of the Conboys, et al, the recent work of Villeda et al. restoring mental functioning to aged rats, the validation that changing a cell into induced pleuripotent stem cell fully rejuvenates it, even when starting with the cells of centenarians, the knowledge that the nucleus of a senescent cell can provide complete information for the birth of perfectly normal cows - all show that aging is not the result of the accumulation of 'wear and tear' but a programmed process that can be reversed. The cellular age-phenotype can be reset - and we know how to do it. Does this mean eternal youth is 'just around the corner'? Maybe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this