Want To Be A Centenarian

Off Topic
101

[quote]ZEB wrote:
biglifter, if you look at how long Jack Lalanne lived (96) I’d say keep doing what you’re doing. Maybe throw in more antioxidants. He didn’t make 100 but he was darn healthy for about 94 of those years. I’d say that’s a win.

Here are the 7 theories of aging:

"Why do we age? Currently, there are seven theories on the aging process. Actually, we do not have a good scientific explanation for aging. We just know that our bodies were designed to grow old. There are seven major theories about why we age. All of them have some credibility.

The first is that our genes program ourselves to divide a certain number of times and once this division has reached the maximum number our bodies will begin to fail. This is the Telomar Theory. These are genetic elements that are controlling the number of allowable cell divisions.

The second is the general degradation of the neuroendocrine system. The neurological and hormonal systems that regulate the body finally wear out and make us susceptible to a host of diseases.

The third is that our body builds up so many toxins and other waste products that our systems begin to shut down. This toxic waste build up can even affect the structure of our genes.

The fourth is the wear and tear theory that living itself causes our joints and body parts to wear out.

The fifth theory is the free radical damage of aging. The body builds up free radical oxidants that damage our organs and our DNA causing us to age quickly.

The sixth theory is the glucose toxicity theory, which also has to do with waste build up, and the poor utilization and control of glucose within our physiological system.

The seventh theory of aging derives from the law of entropy that means that in the universal there is continual movement from order to disorder and that in our bodies this movement is marked by aging."

[/quote]

Thanks for the breakdown Zeb.

102

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/01/texas.oldest.person.dies/index.html?hpt=T2

According to the GRG, there are 85 “supercentarians” in the world – people with verified ages of 110 or older. Of those, 80 are women and only five are men.

104

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/01/texas.oldest.person.dies/index.html?hpt=T2

According to the GRG, there are 85 “supercentarians” in the world – people with verified ages of 110 or older. Of those, 80 are women and only five are men.

[/quote]
This is because women have higher estrogen levels, and lower iron levels. Estrogen is more cardio-protective, so things like heart attack/stroke will generally show up later in a woman’s life, if it does occur. The key player is iron though. Women tend to be iron deficient due to blood loss from their periods… “Iron plays a very important part in the reactions in our cells that produce damaging free radicals, which glom onto cell membranes and DNA, and may translate into aging the cell.” So women age less… not chronologically but biologically.

OK, so you want to live longer biglifter?

  1. Consider becoming a vegetarian, though I’ll call you stupid for it. Red meat has loads of iron, and well, I explained that already.

  2. Caloric restriction - reduce your calories by 40% while still maintaining nutrition essentials.

  3. Take GH/IGF-1 - age related decrease in IGF-1 leads to loss of bone density, lean mass, skin thickness, memory/learning, and immune function.

  4. Prevent oxidative damage from ROS (reactive oxygen species) - oxidative stress can significantly accelerate DNA damage, particularly mtDNA… decreased mitochondrial function → increased ROS production → increased mitochondrial damage → decreased mitochondrial function (i.e. the cycle continues). Avoid ROS by avoiding environmental stress (emissions, heat exposure, etc).

  5. Exercise.

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

…On the other hand, someone like myself who still approaches life with a childlike optimism and playfulness seems much younger than my 48 years to most people I meet…
[/quote]

I’m 50 and I’m with ya, brother.[/quote]
From seeing the pics of where you live and all I’m betting you’ll live to 114.

106

[quote]Nards wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

…On the other hand, someone like myself who still approaches life with a childlike optimism and playfulness seems much younger than my 48 years to most people I meet…
[/quote]

I’m 50 and I’m with ya, brother.[/quote]
From seeing the pics of where you live and all I’m betting you’ll live to 114.
[/quote]

That, AND his “playfulness”. :wink:

107

By my lifestyle and where I live I was supposed to have died in 1968.

I wasn’t even born till '73!

108

[quote]RBlue wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
How did they conclude that eating a calorie restricted diet leads to longer life? I can see someone who is obese and their only form of exercise is putting food into their mouth is shortening their life span. But compared to someone who exercises buring as much caloires and they consume, I would expect they would be in the same boat as people who are on calorie restricted diets.

[/quote]

heres a study that deals with your point. Its all fucking rodent and housefly shit anyway. I hate science.

Who cares. Eat a cheeseburger.[/quote]

I’m not gonna pretend I know much about studies done on this calorie-restricting idea… but if all the studies so far have been on insects, rodents, etc, extending it to humans is shaky.
[/quote]

The point is EVERY animal they’ve done it to has lived longer, up to and including rhesus monkeys. It therefore seems to be a general principle - one that’s easy to confirm in animals that live weeks or months; harder to demonstrate in humans who can live 70+ years anyway.

109

[quote]ZEB wrote:
biglifter, if you look at how long Jack Lalanne lived (96) I’d say keep doing what you’re doing. Maybe throw in more antioxidants. He didn’t make 100 but he was darn healthy for about 94 of those years. I’d say that’s a win.

Here are the 7 theories of aging:

"Why do we age? Currently, there are seven theories on the aging process. Actually, we do not have a good scientific explanation for aging. We just know that our bodies were designed to grow old. [/quote]

They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates.

If there was a genetic program to cause aging then someone somewhere (or an animal) would have a mutation in the gene(s) and therefore be unaging. Some animals do seem to be unaging, but as a whole species rather than odd individuals.

[quote]
The first is that our genes program ourselves to divide a certain number of times and once this division has reached the maximum number our bodies will begin to fail. This is the Telomar Theory. These are genetic elements that are controlling the number of allowable cell divisions.[/quote]

Telomeres aren’t genes and most cells haven’t reached the Hayflick limit (~50 divisions) when people die anyway. Cancer cells and stem cells don’t have this limit and brain cells don’t divide (generally speaking) so wouldn’t be affected by it.

Begs the question of why they wear out when cells can repair and replace themselves.

Resorting to vague “toxin” arguments is never very satisfactory.

As above. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be repaired. Dying old of cancer is dying of super vigorous cells that came from old cells.

The trouble with this theory is that some of the longest lived animals have lots of damage caused by free radicals (Google naked mole rats). It makes sense that damaged molecules are a bad thing, but it doesn’t seem to explain aging specifically.

Prolonged high glucose is definitely a bad thing, but more to do with heart disease, blindness and stroke than aging in general.

Life in all forms is an “up yours” to entropy and as an force for aging it would only really apply to closed systems - which the body isn’t.

110

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

[quote]RBlue wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
How did they conclude that eating a calorie restricted diet leads to longer life? I can see someone who is obese and their only form of exercise is putting food into their mouth is shortening their life span. But compared to someone who exercises buring as much caloires and they consume, I would expect they would be in the same boat as people who are on calorie restricted diets.

[/quote]

heres a study that deals with your point. Its all fucking rodent and housefly shit anyway. I hate science.

Who cares. Eat a cheeseburger.[/quote]

I’m not gonna pretend I know much about studies done on this calorie-restricting idea… but if all the studies so far have been on insects, rodents, etc, extending it to humans is shaky.
[/quote]

The point is EVERY animal they’ve done it to has lived longer, up to and including rhesus monkeys. [/quote]

Except for the ones that died of starvation.

111

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates. [/quote]

The “concept of grandparents” was only invented in the sense that my great-grandparents invented my grandparents and someone coined the word “grandparents”. They certainly didn’t come about to help with child-rearing. That is hard-wired into our species.

The instinct to help with child-rearing can be seen in primates (the entire troop looks after the young) and forms an integral part of our society. We didn’t wait for grandparents to live long enough to look after us. It was a communal thing and helped develop community and tradition. Otherwise we wouldn’t have hot, young Swedish au pairs. We don’t just hire them because they’re hot young and Swedish!! That’s ridiculous…

112

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

[quote]RBlue wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
How did they conclude that eating a calorie restricted diet leads to longer life? I can see someone who is obese and their only form of exercise is putting food into their mouth is shortening their life span. But compared to someone who exercises buring as much caloires and they consume, I would expect they would be in the same boat as people who are on calorie restricted diets.

[/quote]

heres a study that deals with your point. Its all fucking rodent and housefly shit anyway. I hate science.

Who cares. Eat a cheeseburger.[/quote]

I’m not gonna pretend I know much about studies done on this calorie-restricting idea… but if all the studies so far have been on insects, rodents, etc, extending it to humans is shaky.
[/quote]

The point is EVERY animal they’ve done it to has lived longer, up to and including rhesus monkeys. It therefore seems to be a general principle - one that’s easy to confirm in animals that live weeks or months; harder to demonstrate in humans who can live 70+ years anyway.[/quote]

Again, this is a quantity argument. Anyone ever try a restricted calorie diet? It’s fucking miserable. You’re weak, light-headed, and cold.

So the converse means I won’t live as long? Bring it on! As has been said, a few comfortable years beats many miserable ones.

113

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

  1. HAVE SEX: It lowers cholesterol, boosts blood circulation and releases feel-good endorphin hormones. And do it in the morning �?�¢?? your blood-sugar levels are low then, so the body converts fat stores into energy.

  2. HAVE A LAUGH: Scientists say laughing for 15 minutes a day could add eight years to your life.

  3. EAT TOMATOES: A daily portion can slash your risk of heart disease by 30 percent.

  4. READ UPSIDE DOWN: Challenging the brain extends the cells�?�¢?? lifespan thus increasing life expectancy, researchers say.

  5. GO BACK TO YOUR ROOTS: Root vegetables are packed with goodness. Beetroot can help reduce the chance of a stroke and lower cholesterol, carrots are good for healthy vision, while parsnips reduce the risk of spina bifida and other birth defects.

  6. GIVE BLOOD: Male blood donors are 17 times less likely to have a heart attack. Scientists claim it gets rid of excess iron, an oxidant linked to heart disease.

  7. KNOW YOUR FAMILY: Being close to your mother halves your risk of high blood pressure, alcoholism and heart disease, experts say at Harvard Medical school.

  8. LISTEN TO THE CLASSICS: Beethoven calms the heart, lowers blood pressure and lessens muscle tension, say researchers at Oxford University.

  9. EVERYBODY SALSA: All dancing is good but with salsa you�?�¢??ll burn at least 420 calories an hour.

  10. GET MARRIED: A 20-year study found that married men typically live three years longer.

the entire list of 30 are at The Sun
[/quote]

Only thing is interesting is that Give Blood stuff. Anybody got more insight on that?
[/quote]

4 hour body, Tim Ferriss, chicks live longer than men, why?
they menstruate, Men don’t, we have our toxic metal whatever sh*t in our blood forever.
he spoke to, damn it I forget who they are, some smart people, doctors? scientists? who themselves give blood like every other month because they believe that will make them healthier and live longer

he also mentioned protein cycling, he does 18 hour cycle which is only 5% calories from protein, well that’s easy, its a 16 hour fast (sleep) and a carb breakfast.
I let someone borrow the book so I’m trying to recall stuff[/quote]

Toxic metal? Are you sure it wasn’t iron?
Some (not all) guys build up too much iron in the blood - it’s called ferritin, I think - and that in turn increases the odds of developing heart disease. Periodically donating blood helps to lower your ferritin levels.

The problem with some life-extension advice is that even if it works it may not be worth doing. For example, that stuff where you’re supposed to seriously under-eat for many years so that you get really scrawny and undernourished. Who would want to live like that? I’d rather live a really physically vigorous life into my 80s, rather than make it to some magical 100+ number as an invalid.

114

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

If there was a genetic program to cause aging then someone somewhere (or an animal) would have a mutation in the gene(s) and therefore be unaging. Some animals do seem to be unaging, but as a whole species rather than odd individuals. [/quote]

It doesn’t work that way. Most genetic aberrations in humans cause some kind of abnormality that reduces life expectancy:

Sometimes it’s hormonal like gigantism.

A ‘de-aging gene’ would likely bring its own problems. The reason is simple: it doesn’t happen because something is stopping it, so something is causing it.

Humans are designed to die in the same way they are designed to procreate: we are self-contained, static bags of flesh and bone that don’t possess the capacity to live and evolve to our environment over the long term, so we fuck a lot and let the future take care of itself (most of us anyway).

We are biological pawns in the sense that as individuals we are built to move forward.

115

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
biglifter, if you look at how long Jack Lalanne lived (96) I’d say keep doing what you’re doing. Maybe throw in more antioxidants. He didn’t make 100 but he was darn healthy for about 94 of those years. I’d say that’s a win.

Here are the 7 theories of aging:

"Why do we age? Currently, there are seven theories on the aging process. Actually, we do not have a good scientific explanation for aging. We just know that our bodies were designed to grow old. There are seven major theories about why we age. All of them have some credibility.

The first is that our genes program ourselves to divide a certain number of times and once this division has reached the maximum number our bodies will begin to fail. This is the Telomar Theory. These are genetic elements that are controlling the number of allowable cell divisions.

The second is the general degradation of the neuroendocrine system. The neurological and hormonal systems that regulate the body finally wear out and make us susceptible to a host of diseases.

The third is that our body builds up so many toxins and other waste products that our systems begin to shut down. This toxic waste build up can even affect the structure of our genes.

The fourth is the wear and tear theory that living itself causes our joints and body parts to wear out.

The fifth theory is the free radical damage of aging. The body builds up free radical oxidants that damage our organs and our DNA causing us to age quickly.

The sixth theory is the glucose toxicity theory, which also has to do with waste build up, and the poor utilization and control of glucose within our physiological system.

The seventh theory of aging derives from the law of entropy that means that in the universal there is continual movement from order to disorder and that in our bodies this movement is marked by aging."

[/quote]

Zeb

These all seem valid. However, I wonder how much our thought processes influence our quality AND quantity of life. I’ve known some 30-somethings who had such “old” minds and views of things. Subsequently they seemed older than their actual age. On the other hand, someone like myself who still approaches life with a childlike optimism and playfulness seems much younger than my 48 years to most people I meet.
Indeed it seems the body follows the mind.
[/quote]

I think you are spot on with that one my friend.

116

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/01/texas.oldest.person.dies/index.html?hpt=T2

According to the GRG, there are 85 “supercentarians” in the world – people with verified ages of 110 or older. Of those, 80 are women and only five are men.

[/quote]
This is because women have higher estrogen levels, and lower iron levels. Estrogen is more cardio-protective, so things like heart attack/stroke will generally show up later in a woman’s life, if it does occur. The key player is iron though. Women tend to be iron deficient due to blood loss from their periods… “Iron plays a very important part in the reactions in our cells that produce damaging free radicals, which glom onto cell membranes and DNA, and may translate into aging the cell.” So women age less… not chronologically but biologically.

OK, so you want to live longer biglifter?

  1. Consider becoming a vegetarian, though I’ll call you stupid for it. Red meat has loads of iron, and well, I explained that already.

  2. Caloric restriction - reduce your calories by 40% while still maintaining nutrition essentials.

  3. Take GH/IGF-1 - age related decrease in IGF-1 leads to loss of bone density, lean mass, skin thickness, memory/learning, and immune function.

  4. Prevent oxidative damage from ROS (reactive oxygen species) - oxidative stress can significantly accelerate DNA damage, particularly mtDNA… decreased mitochondrial function → increased ROS production → increased mitochondrial damage → decreased mitochondrial function (i.e. the cycle continues). Avoid ROS by avoiding environmental stress (emissions, heat exposure, etc).

  5. Exercise.[/quote]

All good stuff Andy. But, there is a new theory on why women live longer and that is their HDL is naturally higher. HDL is the “good” cholesterol, the cholesterol that carries the bad cholesterol out of the body. For a man a level of 50 is the gold standard. But women are routinely at a level of 80, and some even higher (my wife is always at 90+ and her work outs are sporadic and very light). This would also account for less heart attacks and strokes in women. Perhaps having less iron accounts for less deaths from cancer, this I do not know.

117

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
biglifter, if you look at how long Jack Lalanne lived (96) I’d say keep doing what you’re doing. Maybe throw in more antioxidants. He didn’t make 100 but he was darn healthy for about 94 of those years. I’d say that’s a win.

Here are the 7 theories of aging:

"Why do we age? Currently, there are seven theories on the aging process. Actually, we do not have a good scientific explanation for aging. We just know that our bodies were designed to grow old. [/quote]

They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates.

If there was a genetic program to cause aging then someone somewhere (or an animal) would have a mutation in the gene(s) and therefore be unaging. Some animals do seem to be unaging, but as a whole species rather than odd individuals.

[quote]
The first is that our genes program ourselves to divide a certain number of times and once this division has reached the maximum number our bodies will begin to fail. This is the Telomar Theory. These are genetic elements that are controlling the number of allowable cell divisions.[/quote]

Telomeres aren’t genes and most cells haven’t reached the Hayflick limit (~50 divisions) when people die anyway. Cancer cells and stem cells don’t have this limit and brain cells don’t divide (generally speaking) so wouldn’t be affected by it.

Begs the question of why they wear out when cells can repair and replace themselves.

Resorting to vague “toxin” arguments is never very satisfactory.

As above. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be repaired. Dying old of cancer is dying of super vigorous cells that came from old cells.

The trouble with this theory is that some of the longest lived animals have lots of damage caused by free radicals (Google naked mole rats). It makes sense that damaged molecules are a bad thing, but it doesn’t seem to explain aging specifically.

Prolonged high glucose is definitely a bad thing, but more to do with heart disease, blindness and stroke than aging in general.

Life in all forms is an “up yours” to entropy and as an force for aging it would only really apply to closed systems - which the body isn’t.[/quote]

LOL…thank you that was all so very interesting. But it would be far more productive to take these things up with the scientists who have hypothesized about the seven theories of aging. I’m sure they could learn a lot from you…here on this message board…called T Nation.

118

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates. [/quote]

The “concept of grandparents” was only invented in the sense that my great-grandparents invented my grandparents and someone coined the word “grandparents”. They certainly didn’t come about to help with child-rearing. That is hard-wired into our species.[/quote]

Animals don’t have grandparents, so child-rearing is solely up to the parent. If a female lion gets sick or injured and can’t hunt, her cubs will die.

If a human mother gets sick or injured, chances are her parents can get the food in instead. Alternatively, the grandparents can babysit while the mother is off gathering food. As soon as human lifespan extended enough to have more than two generations alive at once, the chances of survival and reproduction of the young would have shot up.

119

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

If there was a genetic program to cause aging then someone somewhere (or an animal) would have a mutation in the gene(s) and therefore be unaging. Some animals do seem to be unaging, but as a whole species rather than odd individuals. [/quote]

It doesn’t work that way. Most genetic aberrations in humans cause some kind of abnormality that reduces life expectancy:[/quote]

Yes, because most mutations knock out genes essential for daily living. I’m talking about knocking out a gene for aging. You won’t notice anything odd until you get to your forties and everyone else your age looks much worse.

It’s like if you knocked out a gene involved in breast milk production. This won’t be an issue until a woman becomes pregnant and even then it’s not fatal or even harmful (except for her baby).

[quote]
A ‘de-aging gene’ would likely bring its own problems. The reason is simple: it doesn’t happen because something is stopping it, so something is causing it. [/quote]

It wouldn’t be a de-aging gene, it would be a non-functional aging gene - just as we have a non-functional vitamin C synthesizing gene. It’s still there in our genome, it’s just mutated to a non-functional form.

[quote]
Humans are designed to die in the same way they are designed to procreate: we are self-contained, static bags of flesh and bone[/quote]

We’re the complete opposite. We’re constantly exchanging molecules with our environment, whether through breathing, eating, shitting or just shedding skin flakes. If we were static then we would wear out very quickly, because we couldn’t replace any lost/damaged bits.

Since there’s a regular supply of new molecules coming in through food we can change and adapt. Bodybuilders know this better than anyone.

120

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates. [/quote]

The “concept of grandparents” was only invented in the sense that my great-grandparents invented my grandparents and someone coined the word “grandparents”. They certainly didn’t come about to help with child-rearing. That is hard-wired into our species.[/quote]

Animals don’t have grandparents, so child-rearing is solely up to the parent. If a female lion gets sick or injured and can’t hunt, her cubs will die.

If a human mother gets sick or injured, chances are her parents can get the food in instead. Alternatively, the grandparents can babysit while the mother is off gathering food. As soon as human lifespan extended enough to have more than two generations alive at once, the chances of survival and reproduction of the young would have shot up.
[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about lions. Our social structure has nothing in common with theirs’ (which is why I didn’t mention them). Humans have taken a few tricks from canine pack behaviour to make ourselves more efficient and competitive with other more specialized species when we migrated from the jungles, but not from big cats. For starters, their social hierarchy is incompatible with ours - unlike that of dogs and wolves (which is partly why most of us bond so easily with dogs).

Watch a documentary on primate behaviour or read The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. "Babysitting while the mother is off gathering food " is a primate characteristic, and one of many that we share. The idea that the whole troop was responsible for care of the young was what was responsible for increasing life expectancy and allowing granny and gramps to live long enough to play with the grandkids in the first place, not their ability to live long enough to be called “grandparents”…

My "young Swedish au pair " comment was not entirely made in jest. If, as you say we had to wait for life expectancy to shoot up so the grandparents could step in to help with child care, we wouldn’t have au pairs, babysitters, nannies and the equivalent anymore. We still have them because they like a lot things in society, appeared to fulfil a specific, instinctual need: in this case, they are professional surrogate child-rearers.