Biomedical gerontology is a profoundly distinct idea—unlike clinical gerontology, whose focus is on the use of existing technology to improve the health of the elderly, and also unlike biogerontology, which concentrates on understanding aging as opposed to doing anything about it. Rather, biomedical gerontology is about developing new techniques to combat aging more effectively than we can at present.
Demetrius (USA) presented his reasons for predicting that humans will not derive a longevity benefit from calorie restriction, while Hipkiss (UK) proposed a novel mechanism whereby caloric restriction might work via a reduction not in oxidative phosphorylation but in its ostensibly more harmless precursor, glycolysis, on the basis that glycolysis generates glycationinducing byproducts. He also drew attention to the possible beneficial effects of carnosine on this process.
How far, then, are we from serious life extension in mammals and eventually in humans— and in particular, how far are we from life extension that merits the term “biomedical” by virtue of being applicable to those who are already on the slippery aging slope? IABG11’s organizers are well known to be skeptical of my views of how, how much, and how soon aging can be postponed. I was able to draw attention to the just-announced SENS Challenge.
5 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment