In article <3602D65A.75FF at epix.net>, nelsonn at epix.net says...
>>>I'm only a layman, so please excuse my naivety, but it sounds to me like
>the fundamental question in this debate might be stated as follows:
>>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?
>>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?
You have described the question correctly. But depending on who responds you
will get different answers.
I personally believe that CR may allow more people to live up to their
maximum life span of around 120 years but it does little to alter the
underlying genetic cause of aging and no one will live much beyond that
figure without some other intervention.
Thomas Mahoney, Pres.
Lifeline Laboratories, Inc.