
Evidence of Delayed Aging Among a National Sample of Americans - meri_dian
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180316100436.htm
======
meri_dian
>"Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) III (1988-19994) and NHANES IV (2007-2010), the researchers examined
how biological age, relative to chronological age, changed in the U.S. while
considering the contributions of health behaviors. Biological age was
calculated using several indicators for metabolism, inflammation, and organ
function, including levels of hemoglobin, total cholesterol, creatinine,
alkaline phosphatase, albumin, and C-reactive protein in blood as well as
blood pressure and breath capacity data."

>"While all age groups experienced some decrease in biological age, the
results suggest that not all people may be faring the same. Older adults
experienced the greatest decreases in biological age, and men experienced
greater declines in biological age than females; these differences were
partially explained by changes in smoking, obesity, and medication use,
Crimmins and Levine explained."

~~~
sdenton4
Declines in smoking jumped to mind as a potential causal factor...

~~~
classichasclass
I think it's a big one, too. Seriously: smokers age hard and the more you
smoke, the faster it happens. It's a crapload of oxidative stress combined
with sometimes serious end-organ vascular consequences (to say nothing of the
carcinogenic effects).

That said, I imagine it's also a marker for other types of behaviours likely
to age people quicker.

------
reasonattlm
Biological age, as opposed to chronological age, is driven by the intrinsic
processes of primary aging, the accumulation of molecular damage outlined in
the SENS rejuvenation research proposals, but also by the influence of the
environment, secondary aging. The important contributions to secondary aging
are excess visceral fat tissue as a consequence of diet, burden of infectious
disease, lack of exercise, and smoking, acting through a range of mechanisms
that overlap with the intrinsic processes of primary aging. There are others,
but their effects are smaller and it is harder to see them in the data in
comparison to the points above.

In the paper here, researchers make an effort to map recent changes in
secondary aging, picking combinations of metrics from past data that might
offer insight into the biological age of patients. I would say that there is
little reason to expect primary aging to have altered significantly in the
past few decades, given the landscape of medical technology, but it is
certainly up for debate as to whether medications that control blood pressure
and cholesterol levels might have some effect. They have certainly become more
prevalent and effective over the time covered by the study data.

Overall this is an interesting exercise, but of little relevance to the future
of aging. Gains from here on out will increasingly arise from the development
of rejuvenation therapies that can repair the damage of primary aging, rather
than from lifestyle improvements such as reduction in smoking or obesity, or
forms of therapy that selectively, partially override downstream consequences
of aging (e.g. blood pressure) without actually changing the primary aging
damage that causes those problems. Greater potential gains in health and life
span might be achieved through addressing primary aging; the scope of
increased longevity through better lifestyle choices is far more limited. Our
remaining healthy life span will thus be determined ever more by progress in
rejuvenation biotechnology as time passes.

~~~
commandlinefan
I spent the past few years working for a cancer research startup (which
unfortunately tanked), and the oncologists that I worked with were all
skeptical about "anti-aging" research - apparently the thing that ages our
cells is the same thing that slows down the spread of cancerous cells.
Everything is pointing towards a choice between letting our cells age and
dying relatively painlessly o fold age or halting aging and speeding up (a
more painful death by) cancer.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
This is just illogical. While it would be understandable to be skeptical of
some specific form of anti-aging procedures or gene modifications, there is no
way that science or especially anecdotal science can show why anti-aging
measures would not work at all.

In your specific example, even if that was the case that the same mechanism
was used in cancer cells and aging - the science would of course find a way to
modify that mechanism (not just speed it up or slow it down), or add another
extra mechanism which would alleviate the effects of speeding it up.

Body is a biological machine. When we finally understand this machine - we
will be able to control such things as aging. Nature has already created
animals which live for much longer than humans, which is a clear example that
there are no fundamental reasons for why fighting aging could be impossible.

------
jdlyga
This is good, since it keeps up with our delaying of life milestones in many
parts of the country. I'm 34, and about half of my friends are single and most
don't have kids.

~~~
gumby
Your comment presumes those to be quasi-obligatory "milestones". Perhaps more
and more people are choosing not to marry and choosing not to have kids at
all. Both are consistent with rising overall prosperity.

~~~
Spooky23
I’d argue that it is consistent with the decadence and infantalization of
certain parts of society.

~~~
gumby
You believe that it is decadent not to marry and/or not to have children??

------
nickpinkston
It must be all the preservatives :)

