> If a person alive today is 120 yrs. old, is it because their
> environment, lifestyle, genetic heritage, etc., has allowed them to
> simply avoid the causes of death that normally limit life span, or is it
> actually due to a slower rate of aging, which would, from my neophyte
> perspective, simply delay the usual causes of death?
Very insightful questions. The answer is probably that most of time we don't know
with any certainty.
> If a 120 yr. old person alive today is really 120 yrs. old (according to
> some generally agreed upon set of aging biomarkers), then, everything
> else being equal, CR, if it had been applied over a significant portion
> of this persons life span, would have slowed down the aging process, and
> 120 yrs. may have become 160 yrs., right?
Only if the fact that they lived to be 120 had nothing to do with a CR-like
lifestyle. The point: We don't know, so it would be a rash assumption to say that
they could have lived to 160.
> Nelson Navarro