In article <3602A142.514CD024 at notarealaddr.ess>, bmdelaney at notarealaddr.ess
>>>>Thomas Mahoney wrote:
>>>> In article <36021FF5.2CF95D48 at notarealaddr.ess>,
>>bmdelaney at notarealaddr.ess says...
>>>>> Thomas Mahoney/ Excelife wrote:
>>>>> Quite correct. Mice in the wild undoubtedly
>>>> encounter periods where food is scarce and the
>>>> effects seen in CR are likely an adaptive
>>>> response to these conditions. Thus the actual
>>>> life span of the mice is that seen in CR.
>>>>>>I'm not sure how this way of looking at it is helpful.
>>>>Take another example. Say we had evolved a mechanism whereby
>>>eating a certain substance found in a now rare plant turns
>>>on telomerase in enough cells, in the right way, to slow
>>>aging. No one has been known to eat the substnce because our
>>>dietary habits over the last few centuries have precluded
>>>its consumption. But suddenly we discover it, and people
>>>start taking it and living to be 140 years old. Since this
>>>ability to age slowly under the conditions of the presence
>>>of this substance is an evolutionary adaptive response,
>>>would you say people living to 140 by means of this
>>>substance aren't extending their life span?
>>> Here you changed the premise. By stating that
>> they lived to 140 you have, by definition,
>> increased the maximum life span in humans.
>>I don't get it. You seem to be operating with two
>definitions of maximum life span: 1) the longest an animal
>(of a particular species) can live under conditions like any
>of those which originally selected for an adaptive
>anti-aging response (see your quote, above); and 2) the
>longest any member of a species has lived.
>>If we adopt (1), then you are wrong that I've changed the
>premise. The point of the example was to show just that.
>>As for (2), I can't see how this definition ever would be
>useful. If I invent a drug that lets people live to 180,
>then, under this definition, I can't say that the drug
>extends human maximum life span after the first person has
>taken it. Doesn't seem helpful. Wouldn't we want to say the
>second and third people taking it are also living beyond the
>human maximum life span? The second and third aren't
>BREAKING RECORDS, sure, but that's something different.
The definition of life span provided by James, "maximum lifespan observed in
the wild without researcher intervention", is appropriate and very close to
what I've been trying to say.
Some mice in the wild undoubtedly encounter conditions very close to that
achieved by calorie/dietary restrictions. Full laboratory controlled CR may
provide a slight incremental increase in life span for mice but that's more
an artifact of the experiment than any fundamental break through.
In humans the maximum lifespan observed in the wild without researcher
intervention is 122 years.
In your examples if the treatment used allows a person to live significantly
longer than 122 years then the treatment has altered the basic genetic
control of the aging process and you will probably be receiving a Nobel
If, however, the treatment only improves the likelihood of living up to 122
years in a healthier body then you are increasing life expectancy and
improving the quality of life. You'll probably get rich but forget the
James and others feel that we should prioritize and concentrate our efforts
on the latter research areas in the hopes that by increasing life expectancy
by 20 or more years we might then be around when the the research into the
genetic control of life span finally achieves results.
I think the genetic control of aging and lifespan has already been described
and that research efforts to develop therapies based on this discovery should
be our number one priority.
Thomas Mahoney, Pres.
Lifeline Laboratories, Inc.