Full Version: From the "Duh" File
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
An astouding new discovery...you can die simply from growing old.
Study Answers why Age May Be the Most Potent Cancer Risk Factor
I think some people believe that given sufficient drugs, healthy lifestyle, and the right kind of diet, humans can live forever.
That simply isn't the case. Growing old causes metabolic changes in the body (as anyone over the age of 60 about this...)
Question for debate: Do you feel that given the right combination of diet, exercise, and (potentially) medication that human beings will be able to ever live significantly longer than they do today? (Let's use 150 years as a benchmark) Or does the body simply break down after a certain period of time, beyond which little can be done to improve the quality (and quantity) of life?
Study Answers why Age May Be the Most Potent Cancer Risk Factor
I think some people believe that given sufficient drugs, healthy lifestyle, and the right kind of diet, humans can live forever.
That simply isn't the case. Growing old causes metabolic changes in the body (as anyone over the age of 60 about this...)
QUOTE
A new study suggests that this midlife cellular breakdown might help explain why growing older is the single biggest risk factor for cancer and nearly 80% of cancers are diagnosed after age 55.
And the keys to understanding this process might already be in your kitchen.
Researchers found that human cells are a lot like baker's yeast when it comes to the aging process. They both become highly unstable as they approach middle age.
"While yeast don't get cancer, they do have one of the major hallmarks of malignancy, which is genetic instability," says researcher Daniel Gottschling, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, in a news release. "We found a similar thing in yeast that has been seen in humans: Genetic instability shoots up dramatically in the middle to late stage of life."
And the keys to understanding this process might already be in your kitchen.
Researchers found that human cells are a lot like baker's yeast when it comes to the aging process. They both become highly unstable as they approach middle age.
"While yeast don't get cancer, they do have one of the major hallmarks of malignancy, which is genetic instability," says researcher Daniel Gottschling, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, in a news release. "We found a similar thing in yeast that has been seen in humans: Genetic instability shoots up dramatically in the middle to late stage of life."
Question for debate: Do you feel that given the right combination of diet, exercise, and (potentially) medication that human beings will be able to ever live significantly longer than they do today? (Let's use 150 years as a benchmark) Or does the body simply break down after a certain period of time, beyond which little can be done to improve the quality (and quantity) of life?
Oddly, I was thinking about this just this morning, Amlord. We must have some sort of weird psychic connection. 
My dog, for instance, died of congestive heart failure at the old age of 12 (old for a dog). What is special about the human heart that allows it to survive for about 70 more (if smoke-free) years without incurring such trouble? Why does a Giant Tortoise live 170 years in captivity? They have hearts, too. Dog...12 years, and the parts grow old... turtle 177 until the parts grow old. Weird.
Oh, yes. Diet and exercise. My husband just took a class recently which suggests that the human lifespan can be prolonged through proper meditation. Apparently, there are definitive and measurable physiological advantages to certain types of meditation (transcendental especially). I don't know. I believe that a person with a youthful outlook and proper care of their body can extend their lifespan quite a bit, but not much past 100. Look at Bob Hope. Well...don't look at Bob Hope, who lived to be 100 before he died. Does anyone really want to live to be a walking corpse?
My dog, for instance, died of congestive heart failure at the old age of 12 (old for a dog). What is special about the human heart that allows it to survive for about 70 more (if smoke-free) years without incurring such trouble? Why does a Giant Tortoise live 170 years in captivity? They have hearts, too. Dog...12 years, and the parts grow old... turtle 177 until the parts grow old. Weird.
Oh, yes. Diet and exercise. My husband just took a class recently which suggests that the human lifespan can be prolonged through proper meditation. Apparently, there are definitive and measurable physiological advantages to certain types of meditation (transcendental especially). I don't know. I believe that a person with a youthful outlook and proper care of their body can extend their lifespan quite a bit, but not much past 100. Look at Bob Hope. Well...don't look at Bob Hope, who lived to be 100 before he died. Does anyone really want to live to be a walking corpse?
This reminds me of a favorite article from The Onion: World Deathrate Holding Steady at 100%
As for the question, I think 150 is not unreasonable in the future. Look at how far we've come. Better medical care and nutrition have already raised our life-spans quite significantly.
We've made strides in cell regeneration research, including diabetes, heart cell regeneration, muscle cell regeneration, nerve cell regeneration, and others. I don't think it's impossible to apply this sort of knowledge (in the future) to the general idea of increasing longevity. Understanding how cancer cells become more likely to arise with age certainly aids this idea as well.
If you traveled back in time and told some cavemen you were 85, they would probably not believe such a thing was possible. Perhaps our great-grandchildren will live to be 200?!
As for the question, I think 150 is not unreasonable in the future. Look at how far we've come. Better medical care and nutrition have already raised our life-spans quite significantly.
We've made strides in cell regeneration research, including diabetes, heart cell regeneration, muscle cell regeneration, nerve cell regeneration, and others. I don't think it's impossible to apply this sort of knowledge (in the future) to the general idea of increasing longevity. Understanding how cancer cells become more likely to arise with age certainly aids this idea as well.
If you traveled back in time and told some cavemen you were 85, they would probably not believe such a thing was possible. Perhaps our great-grandchildren will live to be 200?!
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Sep 30 2003, 02:18 PM)
As for the question, I think 150 is not unreasonable in the future. Look at how far we've come. Better medical care and nutrition have already raised our life-spans quite significantly.
While our average life span has increased quite significantly, our maximum life-span has not. There were people living into their 90's in the days of the Roman Empire.
My abridged view of ageing has to do with the ability for cells to accurately replicate themselves. As an individual animal ages, the accumulated inaccuracies of DNA replication eventually lead to a loss of function. The differences between the average age of species is differences in the ability to replicate cells accurately.
I am not up to speed on various enzymes and chemicals associated with DNA replication. If we able to "borrow" the improved DNA replication abilities of longer lived species, improvement might be possible. Then again, there are not too many animals which live longer than humans.
Metabolic rate seems to play a part in species longevity. Active creatures probably have a higher cell turn over rate. Activity increases the chance to damage cells so new cells are needed more frequently. Faster cell regeneration leads to a shorter age. This is my empirical observation rather than a proven fact I have learned.
Diet, exercise, and medication are all means to reach your oldest age though I tend to agree with Hugo's observation that extending human's potential age is an unknown science.
I am not up to speed on various enzymes and chemicals associated with DNA replication. If we able to "borrow" the improved DNA replication abilities of longer lived species, improvement might be possible. Then again, there are not too many animals which live longer than humans.
Metabolic rate seems to play a part in species longevity. Active creatures probably have a higher cell turn over rate. Activity increases the chance to damage cells so new cells are needed more frequently. Faster cell regeneration leads to a shorter age. This is my empirical observation rather than a proven fact I have learned.
Diet, exercise, and medication are all means to reach your oldest age though I tend to agree with Hugo's observation that extending human's potential age is an unknown science.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.