Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Show Human Aging Rates Vary Widely
HughPickens.com writes: Ever notice at your high school reunions how some classmates look ten years older than everybody else — and some look ten years younger. Now BBC reports that a study of people born within a year of each other has uncovered a huge gulf in the speed at which human bodies bodies age. The report tracked traits such as weight, kidney function and gum health and found that some of the 38-year-olds in the study were aging so badly that their "biological age" was on the cusp of retirement. "They look rough, they look lacking in vitality," says Prof Terrie Moffitt. The study says some people had almost stopped aging during the period of the study, while others were gaining nearly three years of biological age for every twelve months that passed. "Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty, if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian," says Moffitt. The researchers studied aging in 954 young humans, the Dunedin Study birth cohort, tracking multiple biomarkers across three time points spanning their third and fourth decades of life. They developed and validated two methods by which aging can be measured in young adults, one cross-sectional and one longitudinal. According to Moffit the science of healthspan extension may be focused on the wrong end of the lifespan; rather than only studying old humans, geroscience should also study the young. "Eventually if we really want to slow the process of ageing to prevent the onset of disease we're going to have to intervene with young people."
I have some old friends that are meth addicts that look like my grandparents.
What you do/experience when you are young (smoking, drinking to much, too little sleep, bad excercise, bad housing ... etc. ) comes back to haunt you.
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
i'm 41. and people who meet me for the first time think i'm in my mid 20's. same with my wife. don't drink more than once or twice a month, exercise, avoid eating out all the time and avoid processed foods. stay away from milk, sugar and gluten. cook for yourself and don't buy the prepared foods
No, I haven't read the article. Are there really differences in the speed with which we age, or is it more about how we live our lives, what we eat, how much time we spend in direct sunlight, exposure to disease, drugs, alcohol, pollutant, etc.?
Just another day in Paradise
Every time a cell needs to be replaced the DNA has to get copied. From the fertilized egg to the adult should only require 60 dna replications (2^60~10^18 cells) to live for at least 270 years. Humans consist of ~10^13 cells at any one moment so every cell being replaced once a day 10^5/(365)=273 yrs.
I'm glad that most researchers don't think that way, as the downside of researching everything only once is that when the research of topic X gets busted for using wrong data, there is no research support left. I'm not saying that you should never stop researching one topic, but human aging is so complicated that I don't see the point in stopping research on this topic.
Or you could just get a goddamn job and stop trying to freeload off of productive society. Problem solved.
From the summary: "Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty, if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian,"
That depends. Should people with a higher biological age retire earlier? Kinda unfair to people who looked after themselves.
Of course I can also see ways to make good use of this: It would be interesting to see if certain jobs are linked to people ageing faster. Maybe (maybe) people in those jobs should be give the option of retiring earlier, with pensions adjusted somehow.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
Well even if you are allowed to retire earlier, you would make less money than a person who was healthy enough to work another decade. So I feel that there is a built in incentive there.
On another note, if we go strictly by biological age in determining when some things are acceptable for individuals we would run into a lot of problems when it came to people's mental age. A lot of people now in my opinion cannot mentally cope with things we deem as being age-appropriate. Should everyone be allowed to drink when they are super irresponsible 21 year old? Sure there are some 21 year-olds that do have enough brains not to get wasted just because they can (and become even more mentally retarded because the brain is still developing), but there are any that are not. So saying someone can drink at age 17 because they are 6 foot 5, would be the height of irresponsibility.
Consuming 40 pounds of blueberries a day will stop the aging process!
I can see lifestyle and genetics being the main drivers. Look at 3rd world citizens, some look like they are 50 when they are in their late 20's. High stress life, lack of proper nutrition, etc...
But then you have the genetics curveball. There is a guy here at work that is 70 years old and he looks like he is not a day over 40.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Back in the early 70's, I took part in a study for a paper addressing exactly this in adolescents. The phy ed teacher was getting a masters. Apparently, I was 20 years old when I was 12. Now, I'm 40 at 53. I guess I aged on a bell curve.
Hopefully, you have the genes for cancer that kills before you can reproduce.
Just for irony's sake.
under there system mcd and others will go back to the old junk plans that don't cover anything and your to old to get a IT job.
Well even if you are allowed to retire earlier, you would make less money than a person who was healthy enough to work another decade. So I feel that there is a built in incentive there.
Unless one adjusts for that too, giving preferential treatment to those who age faster, giving them greater fianancial benefits in retirement.
Mind you, I don't agree with that, mainly since in my experiences with my extended family (my paternal grandparents had a LOT of children) there's huge variation in how people have aged, so it's clearly not simply a matter of biology. Choice plays a rather large part and those that have engaged in fewer self-destructive habits have generally aged better.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'm 37 but I look like I'm in my late 20s, but I was always a late bloomer. The cost was that in high school I still looked like a kid, while the early bloomers were already passing on their genes...
There have been plenty of studies in fruit flies and such that show you can alter lifespan and time of sexual maturity. That's most likely what we're seeing here as well. There will certainly be environmental influences, but they will be far less significant than genetics.
Getting back in touch with high-school classmates was a huge eye-opener for me. I'm 47 now, graduated in 1986. Many of my classmates look like they're in their 60s. I'm not exaggerating. It's just amazing to me how differently people age.
Do you have ESP?
Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty
Not quite.
How about areas of life like experience or shared age-based cultural milestones, both of which depend highly on your year of birth?
"How many years have you spoken [insert your native tongue here]?"
"How many years have you known how to multiply small numbers in your head?"
"Who was your President/head of state when you turned 18/reached the age of majority/reached voting age?"
"How many years since you started high school?" (in countries where almost everyone at least starts high school)
"When were you confirmed/bar-mitzvahed/considered an adult congregant in your church/synagog/place of worship?" (where the question is asked of someone who grew up in such a religious body)
These and many related "areas of life" are so highly correlated with chronological age that the statement "Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty" is only true if "faulty" means "only slightly faulty, but still a good general assumption."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"It was the year 2081, and everybody was finally equal."
generally eating gluten free is better for your digestive system
There is no credible scientific study I am aware of that supports this statement. If you wish to assert this you need to provide non-anecdotal evidence, preferably in the form of a double blind study supporting this assertion. I am not aware of any evidence that gluten is measurably harmful to individuals without celiac disease, an allergy or other form of gluten sensitivity. This is a very small portion of the population (somewhere between 0.5% and 1%) that is known to be affected. The best available evidence appears to clearly show that if your aren't part of that population then avoiding gluten is a waste of effort.
if you want to stay young, avoid as many processed foods as you can.
Again you are asserting that "staying young" is linked to avoiding processed foods. While there is evidence to support that processed foods are frequently harmful if consumed regularly over time, you cannot automatically generalize this to link it to biological aging (versus chronological aging) without evidence. There may very well be a link but it is unproven at this time. I understand that it sounds reasonable but lots of things sound reasonable that aren't actually true.
"three years of biological age for every twelve months that passed."
WTF? Why not just say "for every YEAR that passed"? Why not put "for every 365 days that passed", and so on...
We must fair and egalitarian. There can be no losers, it's just not the modern PC way.
:)
I propose that if we cannot retard the aging of those who age more quickly, then we must work to accelerate the aging of those who appear younger, to level the playing field.
We'll call it, "Redistribution of Health". (insert the obligatory "thanks Obama" here )
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I recently had a high school re-union, and some people did look a lot older. I guess you could make a complex theory about how some people genetically age faster than others, even if their overall lifespan is approximately the same. However, the real determination was: "are they fat?" People who weighed more also tend to look older.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Gaussian distribution?
"How many years have you spoken [insert your native tongue here]?"
Not useful information. Some people are better-spoken at 15 than are others at 51.
"How many years have you known how to multiply small numbers in your head?"
Some people never learn this. You tell them how much change they're going to give you and they say "You've got math in your head". Not making this up, even a little bit.
"Who was your President/head of state when you turned 18/reached the age of majority/reached voting age?"
What does that have to do with anything?
"When were you confirmed/bar-mitzvahed/considered an adult congregant in your church/synagog/place of worship?"
Can't ask that in a job interview :p
I know this wasn't all about job interviews, but since most of your questions smelled like interview questions...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am 46, but most people think I am 28-32ish and what makes that miraculous is the last 10 years I have been on heavy duty seizure and psych drugs. But I do try to eat well, and exercise when I have the energy. There are some people my age, that never had serious health issues but look 60.
Look at Adam Sandler, he is two years older than me but looks two decades older than he should.
The GOP prefers people who earn an honest living. Your teachers didn't do the job they were paid for.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The bias of the researcher (Moffitt) is obvious and annoying. Oh goodness! It's unfair that people who age rapidly have the same retirement age as everyone else.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.
- Redd Foxx
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Molecular biology is extremely complex, and we have barely scratched the surface on all the mechanisms when things are going right. When things go wrong, the complexity is much greater. To improve health and extend life, these mechanisms must be understood and acted on.
..
Since, as a general rule, big government can't make the average person better off and indeed damages them, expect the same thing with regard to lifespan. Indeed, this is the theme of "Logan's Run".
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Oddly enough, blood donation improves health significantly (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=effect+of+blood+donations+on+health&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=).
The long story short is that triggering the metabolic pathways to preserve cells is super-effective for overall health, which is why biological poisons such as polyphenol have positive health effects.
...the only "White Trash" or "XXX Trash" are the people who call people "White Trash" or "XXX Trash".
"...with pensions adjusted somehow."
What are these "pensions" you speak of?
I don't respond to AC's.
I don't even know what "fairness" is supposed to mean in this case. Is it supposed to mean that people who are genetically better off pay extra for people with poor genes to compensate and help them? Or is it supposed to mean that people who are genetically better off pay less for healthcare because they need it less but are forced to retire later? Or what?
This attitude that government should somehow compensate for genetic differences to make society "fair and egalitarian" is offensive and dystopian. People would do well to read Harrison Bergeron again.
The only fair society is one that lets people make their own decisions about how to lead their own lives, and how to spread out savings and consumption over their lifetime.
For me the greatest change was adopting low carb diet and exercising. However, I think I did this a bit too late [at 40]. So now I can do a lot more than a year a ago and I mean a lot more [figure and fitness level are as a young man]...but the skin is not very elastic anymore so in the face I kind of aged [smoking for 20 years does not help].
Stress - the biggest killer. A few years worrying all the time about health [the system fucked me] , my relationship [dying, now totally dead] and financial troubles [stemming from health] really, really aged me.
Genetics has a lot to do with it too [messa thinks]...my grandmother had baby skin at 72 when she died [she looked like Merlin Monroe as young woman] . She never smoked but drunk quite a bit. My mother at 67 looks at least a decade younger and without her life-time smoking it would have been much better. Next to her sister you see that the smoking aged her skin quite a bit but mom had better diet so aunty is smooth in the face but not so energetic, agile and resilient compared to mom.
Another thing I have noticed with my grandparents is the importance of the will to live. From my father side both were classical farmers. Whole life waking up at 5AM...work and work and work....but once they decided to sell the house and the farm and move closer to the capital where both sons were living they collapsed. Although the idea was exactly the opposite - that they'd be closer to family, easier to receive help, enjoy their retirement with grand kids... somehow it went exactly the other way. Once they were torn away from the life they knew since forever they both aged quickly, got all kinds of illnesses and eventually passed away...
Go figure....
Both lack of sleep and stress can cause people to look older, if what research (as reported by popular media) is right. Parents tend to suffer from irregular sleep and more stress.
Prof Moffitt was later quoted saying: "Well officer, her chronological age is 15, but her biological age is 19."
I may well end up not being able to work until normal retirement age due to various health issues, none of them caused by lifestyle (genetic auto-immune problems). So I've given this some though, but obviously I'm biased.
I want to work and earn for as long as I can, of course. Maybe there will even be a cure one day, although currently medical science doesn't even understand the problem. Of course, I might end up with a small pension and early retirement, and then be reliant on benefits. I hope I won't, but can't rule it out.
There are too many variables. If there is a cure one day, it might be really expensive. More expensive than I can afford perhaps, but it might be in society's interests to give it to me anyway. I find some people blame me for my condition, even though it isn't my fault, but I do kind of understand them. To them I look normal, no obvious signs of illness. They can't understand why I don't, for example, exercise more. They don't know what its like to live with this stuff, or understand why I have to be "lazy" in order to keep functioning. If I seem reluctant, they think it's just me not making an effort to look after myself, but that isn't the case. So I worry that in future there may be even less sympathy than there is now.
The human body is pretty unreliable, it seems. I don't know anyone who reached 35 without at least one major problem. It's expensive to fix too. We need to stop blaming people and figure out how to make things better for everyone, without feeling jealous that some are getting more help than others.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I reached 35 without any major problems caused by the body itself. I've had my share of minor ones like viral or bacterial illness and the occasional injury, and even moderate ones like seasonal allergies, wisdom teeth, and a need for vision correction, but so far nothing that couldn't be addressed at a doctor's office or an urgent-care clinic if they'd been open. Went to the ER a couple of times because of outright injury without an urgent care facility being open.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Should people with a higher biological age retire earlier? Kinda unfair to people who looked after themselves.
What about those who take care of themselves, but were in the unlucky part of the gene pool that included high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers, cancer?
With all of those items in my own family history, and being in my late 50s, I've been doing what I can, but I personally plan on retiring (not completely, but doing something I really enjoy like volunteering) as early as financially possible. I've seen too many people who never got to enjoy any of those later years before they were dead, brain dead, or riddled with cancer.
Just another day in Paradise
Really? Where? Just because canned food is "processed" it does not make it bad for you.
There are countless studies out there regarding the health effects of processed foods. Twenty seconds on Google should answer your question.
And i have never seen a study to support this assertion in any way or form.
Then you haven't looked. You might want to actually study the issue before discussing.
After all bread is processed foods!
[facepalm]
Don't you think she looks tired?
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Yankees first baseman just gave up milk as well and says he's never felt better.
Good for him. That has nothing to do with me or millions of other people. I drink milk daily and I feel great. Times when I've gone without it had no effect on me positive or negative. So what exactly am I to learn from your anecdote?
even if you're not allergic to milk like I am, it's not very good for you after a while
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Unless you have a specific digestion problem with dairy (and many people do) every bit of evidence suggests it is a fine part of a balanced diet. It's on the food pyramid and every dietician I've ever met will tell you dairy is just fine. We're mammals so milk is one of the things that sort of defines us. It's basically the perfect food for a mammal nutrition-wise so long as you can digest it safely.
Kinda unfair to people who looked after themselves.
Do we have evidence that "looking after yourself" is the only factor, or even the biggest factor, in "aging rate" that they're talking about? As you point out, if it's related to taking certain jobs, it seems like it might be more fair to make sure that people who take those jobs get to retire earlier. But what if it's genetic, or some other set of factors that people can't really control?
Doctors used to prescribe bloodletting for centuries, until the it was declared "unscientific". And back again...
But it has never been mandatory... Even today Red Cross and others beg and encourage would-be donors to give blood — wouldn't it be nice for the government to compel citizens to do it? A "common-sense measure to help restore the health of our great nation", uhm?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
My sensei always said "You don't grow old from the years; you grow old from inactivity".
I think that is very true. I try to stay active and people are always surprised to find out that i'm actually 10 years older than they thought.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
When people say 'gosh you look like 20,' they're actually basing that on the way you behave, not your appearance.
(Insert smiley faces at your own discretion)
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Markers for long life are well known. Services like Promethease will take 23andme raw data and give you a gold mine of data.
My own results lead me to change my retirement planning and career path, as I now have some scientific evidence for the family history of living a long time. My government defined benefit pension could be worth a lot more to me, than someone else. Likewise if I was going to check out early I'd probably say f-this a lot sooner.
The avenue is there. Get it before the insurance companies get their grubby paws into the mix.
The GOP prefers people who earn an honest living.
You mean like the Fortune 500 CEOs ass-raping the economy? Or were you trying to go for the +5, Funny score?
Your teachers didn't do the job they were paid for.
My teachers taught me how to think for myself. What do you think they were paid to do? Parrot the party line?
Live. Love. and Rock And Roll.
Keith has a track record, smoking, drinking, irregular hours...
So does Paul ( recently quit smoking pot ).
Not all rockers age as well...
So genetics count - and didn't I see news articles about gene activation/deactivation?
If the good genes are there, but not active, turn them on!
If the bad genes are there and turned on - turn them off!
Then invest $1000 at 2 % compounded interest and retire at 140... with a polygamous marriage to three twenty-somethings...
Though I believe researching slowing or even stopping aging is valuable, I always wonder how social development would continue. How would society look in 500 years if people of today could live that long? How would society look today if people from 500 years ago lived today?
Mitochondria, exercise - or just doing things like yard work - not sitting in a cubicle, as I am now doing...
Actually, the opposite is true. Older parents pass worse genetic material. The children of older parents have more diseases, conditions and more age-related ailments (and sooner) than children of younger parents. There are several epidemiological studies regarding this topic.
In our latest studies on various diseases associated with aging, many are now following younger subjects. The major problem is that annual followups tend not to work as well, since younger people are busy, so you have to go from an annual cycle to an every 2-3 year cycle. However, this makes changes more noticeable. Following subjects when they're very young is more difficult, as they tend to move a lot more. So most studies now are shifting to a 35-40 lower age range.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I suspect processed foods are not harmful
There are countless credible scientific studies that suggest otherwise. They're not even hard to find. Not all processed foods are bad. Some processing techniques like pasteurization are demonstrably beneficial. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that moderation should be exercised in their use.
A raw food diet is a lot likely to be less optimal
It's not about raw foods. It's about what is done to the foods. Processed foods purchased from a store tend to have high amounts of sugar, salt, fat, preservatives, additives and other ingredients to make them more appealing and/or have longer shelf life. Some processing is fine and even necessary. But it's really easy to eat a very poor diet if you aren't careful with processed foods.
If you cook from fresh ingredients, guess what you're still eating processed food.
You are not necessarily however eating preservatives, ingredients of substandard quality, chemicals with unpronounceable names, excessive amounts of sugar, salt, fat and other needless additives.
Must be some lingering Elvish blood in some of these people...
>Choice plays a rather large part and those that have engaged in fewer self-destructive habits have generally aged better.
Some studies on environmental influence have shown that less than 30% of your age-related disease is environmental/choice-based. I'd like to see some study that supports you saying it is a large part... I mean 30% is big, but it isn't the controlling factor.
Too. OLD.
I mean, hell, I've seen those sorts of TV shows where people have been told their actual biological age compared to their chronological age many times before.
They took samples from loads of parts of the body and did their analysis on DNA damage and the usual age markers.
And more so, when age varies wildly between different areas of the body, it can lead to major health issues more than just generally ageing faster.
The worst of all is when blood supplies age faster than the body, so is unable to help protect and clean-up, and supply oxygen.
It was shown that even giving someone fresh younger blood could help these people considerably.
Here is hoping it could be a possible treatment using that now-being-tested artificial blood being trialled for rare blood types.
Why that happens is so far not entirely known. Paradoxically bleeding a lot doesn't seem to be an issue in terms of your bone marrow or blood overall. (as is seen with people that regularly do bloodletting)
Live fast, die young, slow and steady wins the race, all of the things you do affects how fast you will age.
Your calorie intake has been shown to extend your life if you restrict it, even in humans now. (more-or-less looking to be that way)
Whether any of these tests have made a distinction between overconsumption and eating necessary amounts for the work you have done, the environment you live in or so on I don't entirely know.
Some groups of people eat insanely higher amounts of food than even typical shitty Americanised diets and have some of the best health in the world. (not to mention live off entirely meat and fish diets, suck it vitamin industry)
With that recent research on top, it seems the definition of biological age is just getting more complex.
Exciting time if you are in the industry, you might become the person or group that rewrites the textbooks.
I too scoffed at the gluten-free fad. Then my daughter was diagnosed with celiac. Not just ordinary celiac, but off-the-charts celiac.
Why should you care about that? Because for some reason, like Autism, Celiac disease is growing to epidemic proportions and no one knows why. Your kids, or future kids, could be at risk. What causes it? There is evidence pointing to overuse of antibiotics, other evidence pointing to Round-Up herbicide use, and more. Research is needed. Someone please do the research.
I went through a massive education for my daughter's sake. The stupid gluten-free fad is both a blessing and a curse. It's easier to find gluten free foods, manufacturers are more keen to produce gluten free foods, but then again, all too often they're not really serous about it. When only 20 parts per million is enough to set-off a gluten reaction, items "processed in a facility that also processes wheat" is not gluten free, no matter what the label says. Target branded corn-pasta, I'm looking at you.
And that's not just my opinion. Other celiacs have done testing and found loads of gluten in foods labelled "gluten free".
Have you ever worked in a pizza restaurant? Flour gets everywhere. And yet, Dominos has a "gluten free" pizza now.
You know what, FUCK Dominoes.
And damnit, why do so many corn and rice based products have to include "modified food starch" and maltodextrin and other ingredients without specifying whether it comes from wheat or barley or corn or rice or whatever, nor how pure the ingredient is. I've bought bags of supposedly pure dextrose that set-off a gluten reaction in my child. Why??? After researching it, I discovered that most dextrose is made from corn, but a significant portion of it is made from barley. And it's not distilled very well.
I've found a LOT of products I'd like to buy, but the ingredients are ambiguous and there's no indication of gluten free status.
Yes, we buy gluten free shampoo (it really does exist) Why? Because young girls sometimes put their hair in their mouths as a nervous habit. Or they bite their fingernails and maybe they washed their hair that morning. Gluten is a sticky molecule. It's where we get the word Glue, you know. You'd be shocked at how many foods use wheat-based fillers and stabilizers and thickeners and more. Soy sauce? Gluten. Beer? Gluten. French Fries (frozen or fresh, doesn't matter. The gluten comes from the oil that also fried the onion rings, chicken or pies.) Pre-shredded cheese? They put a wheat-based coating on it so it doesn't stick together. Ice cream? Bacon? Both are often "enhanced" with wheat derived ingredients. It's a nightmare. And forget about going to any restaurant. Even if they have separate grills and pans, they don't have separate employees. I've worked in enough restaurants to know how infrequently people really wash their hands. And they don't change their aprons. Cross contamination is a bitch. But these places are happy to advertise their "gluten free" status to market to the goons who think they're being healthy. All they are doing, on both sides, is confusing the issue and making it damn hard for those of us who really need it to be really gluten FREE.
The number of celiacs in the US is roughly equivalent to the number of Jews we have. But, unlike the Jewish population, the percentage of Celiacs is growing. I'd like to see more products adopt the GF certification like they do with the Kosher certification. That way I won't have to research every ingredient in every product we buy.
Thanks for tolerating my rant, it made me feel better. And have a nice day.
People are always surprised at my age having assumed that I am 15 years younger. I think it has nothing to do with how I look but what I do - I just finished a degree in Bioinformatics and took a 4 week trip down the Grand Canyon sleeping on the ground every night. The presumption that a 62-year old woman can't do those things leads to a form of confirmation bias: ergo, she must be young. Plus I have a LOT OF FUN...and a medical mj license.
Works for me!