Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 12/15/2016 6:00:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 6:01:54 PM EST by Qweevox]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/15/scientists-reverse-ageing-mammals-predict-human-trials-within/


an end to grey hair and crows-feet could be just 10 years away after scientists showed it is possible to reverse ageing in animals.

Using a new technique which takes adult cells back to their embryonic form, US researchers at the Salk Institute in California, showed it was possible to reverse ageing in mice, allowing the animals to not only look younger, but live for 30 per cent longer.
View Quote


Maybe those lifetime memberships will pay off, big time.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:01:51 PM EST
but will it reverse hair loss as I do not have ten years.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:01:59 PM EST
Heh.

Paging Tommy101...
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:05:04 PM EST
and it will cost 87k for a month supply.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:06:11 PM EST

They'll have to push retirement age to 85, with medicare not kicking in until 90.

Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:06:33 PM EST
Zombies, this is how we get them.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:06:34 PM EST
And Soros will be first in line......
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:07:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 6:09:20 PM EST by BadCaseOfHerpes]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

They'll have to push retirement age to 85, with medicare not kicking in until 90.
View Quote

They shoulda pushed it to 75 a long time ago. When it was implemented people didnt live as long as they do now.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:11:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

They'll have to push retirement age to 85, with medicare not kicking in until 90.
View Quote
Well, if I can live 30% longer and 60% better during that time....still a win.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:13:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fla556guy:
Well, if I can live 30% longer and 60% better during that time....still a win.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fla556guy:
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

They'll have to push retirement age to 85, with medicare not kicking in until 90.
Well, if I can live 30% longer and 60% better during that time....still a win.


But nobody will employ your old ass!
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:15:50 PM EST
Can't wait.

We are in a Golden Age of Science.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:16:30 PM EST
Hint:
 The  active  ingredient is in use NOW, by diabetic patients.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:18:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BadCaseOfHerpes:

They shoulda pushed it to 75 a long time ago. When it was implemented people didnt live as long as they do now.
View Quote


Honestly, medicine hasn't really done much for longevity. What's really moved the needle for "life expectancy" is childbirth kills a lot less woman, and a lot more infants and children survive to adulthood.

But a man who reached age 18 without dying back in 1776 was most likely going to life into his 60's or 70's.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:20:14 PM EST
Well I personally can't wait till it's available for dogs. Unfortunately mine will probably be gone before it is.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:20:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
and it will cost 87k for a month supply.
View Quote

Only for early adopters.  Give it 50 more years, and it'll get a lot cheaper. 
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:21:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 6:29:33 PM EST by Admiral_Crunch]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Fullpower:
Hint:
 The  active  ingredient is in use NOW, by diabetic patients.
View Quote

Are you talking about metformin?  This sounds like gene manipulation.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:22:28 PM EST
Either way I'll end up wearing diapers again
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:22:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Fullpower:
Hint:
 The  active  ingredient is in use NOW, by diabetic patients.
View Quote


It's not metformin.


Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:30:31 PM EST
A commonly used and readily available drug to prevent aging may already exit.

Do a search on Metformin and anti aging.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 6:31:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Honestly, medicine hasn't really done much for longevity. What's really moved the needle for "life expectancy" is childbirth kills a lot less woman, and a lot more infants and children survive to adulthood.

But a man who reached age 18 without dying back in 1776 was most likely going to life into his 60's or 70's.
View Quote

Interesting ill have to read up on this thanks
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:04:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Honestly, medicine hasn't really done much for longevity. What's really moved the needle for "life expectancy" is childbirth kills a lot less woman, and a lot more infants and children survive to adulthood.

But a man who reached age 18 without dying back in 1776 was most likely going to life into his 60's or 70's.
View Quote


The average age of people from that time does not support your statement... What source are you using...? 40 to 50 years old was considered to be elderly about that time in history. The average age from 1750 to 1800 was 36 years old just saying.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:21:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/15/scientists-reverse-ageing-mammals-predict-human-trials-within/


an end to grey hair and crows-feet could be just 10 years away after scientists showed it is possible to reverse ageing in animals.

Using a new technique which takes adult cells back to their embryonic form, US researchers at the Salk Institute in California, showed it was possible to reverse ageing in mice, allowing the animals to not only look younger, but live for 30 per cent longer.
View Quote
Maybe those lifetime memberships will pay off, big time. <img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif border=0 align=middle>
View Quote

Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:27:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:27:34 PM EST
I'll be too poor to afford it.

Obama will live forever.

fuck.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:31:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
I'll be too poor to afford it.

Obama will live forever.

fuck.
View Quote


This. It will most likely be stupid expensive. Actually reverse the aging process? They can charge whatever they want & people with the means will pay it.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:32:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Can't wait.

We are in a Golden Age of Science.
View Quote


If i could just live to be 500, that'd be great, mckay...
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:36:27 PM EST
Who wants to live forever?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:37:01 PM EST
no thanks. 70-80 years is enough.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:40:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 7:56:40 PM EST by Raider14]
Am I the only one who doesn't get the big deal of getting wrinkles and grey hair? Whooptyfuckindoo
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:42:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
Honestly, medicine hasn't really done much for longevity. What's really moved the needle for "life expectancy" is childbirth kills a lot less woman, and a lot more infants and children survive to adulthood.

But a man who reached age 18 without dying back in 1776 was most likely going to life into his 60's or 70's.
View Quote

Ask any nurse.  It may have extended life a few years, but they are really sorry years and hard to call life outside the biological definition.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:44:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gator:


This. It will most likely be stupid expensive. Actually reverse the aging process? They can charge whatever they want & people with the means will pay it.
View Quote

I'll get the Chinese knockoff.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:50:18 PM EST
"Pandora's Star" by Peter F. Hamilton gets into how society would look if rejuvenation was possible.  It is FASCINATING.


It's a shame that it's the LAST thing that THIS world needs.....libs living to 150 still trying to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 7:58:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sharpshooter:


The average age of people from that time does not support your statement... What source are you using...? 40 to 50 years old was considered to be elderly about that time in history. The average age from 1750 to 1800 was 36 years old just saying.
View Quote


That's a common misconception. 40 or 50 wasn't any different than it is today. In 1776 you were a middle-aged person, and in 2016 you are still a middle-aged person.

People fail to understand what life expectancy at birth actually is. In 1900 life expectancy was 45. That didn't mean that 45 was "old". The reason the age was skewed so low is a lot of woman died in childbirth, and a lot of infants didn't survive to adulthood. Childbirth was so bad, that once upon a time males had a longer life expectancy than females.

Only over the last century has this reversed, due to the fact that most woman now survive giving birth to children.

Lots of people who actually made it to adulthood, survived in their 60's, 70's, 80's or even 90's.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:01:45 PM EST
The secret is 4-7 Budlights a night. I am starting to feel younger as I type.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:13:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
That's a common misconception. 40 or 50 wasn't any different than it is today. In 1776 you were a middle-aged person, and in 2016 you are still a middle-aged person.

People fail to understand what life expectancy at birth actually is. In 1900 life expectancy was 45. That didn't mean that 45 was "old". The reason the age was skewed so low is a lot of woman died in childbirth, and a lot of infants didn't survive to adulthood. Childbirth was so bad, that once upon a time males had a longer life expectancy than females.

Only over the last century has this reversed, due to the fact that most woman now survive giving birth to children.

Lots of people who actually made it to adulthood, survived in their 60's, 70's, 80's or even 90's.
View Quote


I have read more than a couple of books about this, and a few articles, and the supposition that people commonly lived beyond 60 is not supported by historical data. Life expectancy did not start to increase substantially from the Enlightenment until the 19th century, and has effectively doubled since the 1770's . There is nothing I have found to substantiate that "lots of people lived to be over 60" . It was not all that common to make it to 65 in the 1930's hence the social security retirement age.

So please cite a source so I can verify it.



Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:17:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMCBreeder:
Who wants to live forever?
View Quote


I don't want to live forever, I just want to be 26 until I die.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:19:45 PM EST
Its interesting that they are tinkering with this all the while they are worried about the population explosion which is happening now. Hell its been happening.

When people can reverse aging and live much longer , how will that impact society , and the economy? Not in a good way I am pretty sure.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:28:17 PM EST
Product called "protandim nrf2" does kinda the same thing.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:29:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sharpshooter:


I have read more than a couple of books about this, and a few articles, and the supposition that people commonly lived beyond 60 is not supported by historical data. Life expectancy did not start to increase substantially from the Enlightenment until the 19th century, and has effectively doubled since the 1770's . There is nothing I have found to substantiate that "lots of people lived to be over 60" . It was not all that common to make it to 65 in the 1930's hence the social security retirement age.

So please cite a source so I can verify it.
View Quote


Just quickly ran down a list of the founders in my head...
Ben Franklin 84
G. Washington 67
John Adams 91
T. Jefferson 83
A. Burr 80
Sam Adams 81

I stopped there 'cause I got bored with this exercise. Either being an intellectual revolutionary is known to increase your life, or 
the genetic disposition of "how long do people live" has remained fairly constant. We can of course point to technology and medicine
that is available to the masses today that helps increase the "average" life expectancy, but genetically, we are no different than we were in the 18th Century.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:29:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By thehellbringer:
The secret is 4-7 Budlights a night. I am starting to feel younger as I type.
View Quote


You might but your liver don't
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:33:25 PM EST
The obesity epidemic will probably lead to decreased avg lifespan before this tech becomes widely available.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:36:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tifosi:


Just quickly ran down a list of the founders in my head...
Ben Franklin 84
G. Washington 67
John Adams 91
T. Jefferson 83
A. Burr 80
Sam Adams 81

I stopped there 'cause I got bored with this exercise. Either being an intellectual revolutionary is known to increase your life, or 
the genetic disposition of "how long do people live" has remained fairly constant. We can of course point to technology and medicine
that is available to the masses today that helps increase the "average" life expectancy, but genetically, we are no different than we were in the 18th Century.
View Quote


Yeah and you are aware everyone one of those men were wealthy, and educated, in those days how well you lived absolutely impacted how long you lived. But of course average age and all kinda says it...
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:37:13 PM EST
Keep an eye on Larry Ellison. If that dude starts looking good, you know it's available and working.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:37:17 PM EST
It'll be perfected shortly after I die.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:37:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 8:42:21 PM EST by brassburn]
Weird double-tap...
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:41:45 PM EST
I'm no scientist but that just doesn't sound like a good idea....

I think it comes from my bad luck and a fear that my immortality dose will kick in 10 minutes after I'm sentenced to death by booga-booga.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:41:52 PM EST
Worst - News - Ever. It reminds me of the old Star Trek episode where the planet had so many people nobody could even move around and they had to have scheduled killings to reduce the population.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:43:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 8:43:58 PM EST by Sharpshooter]
Caleb Finch covered the topic of life expectancy really well and why people did not live on average to be in their 60's or older. It was not at all common to live till 40 as I said earlier untill the 19th century. A lot of it had to do with medical advances like doctors washing their hands.

Caleb E. Finch. “Evolution of the human lifespan and diseases of aging: Roles of infection, inflammation, and nutrition.” PNAS, January 26, 2010, vol. 107, Pages 1718-1724.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:50:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BMCBreeder:
Who wants to live forever?
View Quote


Me.

The world is an interesting place, and I haven't seen nearly enough of it, and time is running out. There is less ahead of me than there is behind me unless something changes.

I have not done nearly enough fishing, hunting, exploring or fucking.

I never grow tired of waking up.

I wish to be Lazarus Long.

Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:51:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sharpshooter:


Yeah and you are aware everyone one of those men were wealthy, and educated, in those days how well you lived absolutely impacted how long you lived. But of course average age and all kinda says it...
View Quote

We can of course say the same is true today. I don't think we are trying to make dissimilar points. I'm just pointing out that humans have a biological timer (as do all life forms).
In a hypothetical vacuum, we would all live to a similar age, regardless of time period. But environmental variables effect general populations. So diseases that may have been
an early death bell in the 1700's are easily attended to today.

I remember reading a Nat Geo article about a rural community in the hinterlands of Russia that routinely lived to be over 100 yo, and scientists were trying to figure out why.
But none the less, there does seem to be a "maximum" potential age somewhere around ~110 yo give or take and that has always been that way. Just because unknown diseases
and shitty diets dragged down the averages in past eras, doesn't impact our genetic nature. Scientists could come up with a miracle drug that kept us more youthful longer,
but eventually the clock runs out, you're DNA just stops reproducing. My point is, that is not effected simply by what era we live in, and I believe you'd be in agreement with that?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 8:59:17 PM EST
Imagine the wisdom of somebody that is several hundred years old.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top