Anti-ageing drug could let you live to 120 in good health

[harley]

Quote:

Insulin manipulation works much better in mice than in larger animals like us, but it’s the best-studied, surest way to improve your odds for a long and healthy life, and there are vitality, alertness, productivity, freedom from infectious disease–almost every aspect of your quality of life is improved with more exercise and less food.

Except the actual enjoyment of it.

[haha]

I've been taking metformin for almost 10 years, to prevent "pre-diabetes" from ticking over to frank DM. My father and all my sibs were/are diabetic, but I am 74 and I am not, and my doc thinks I never will be.

But I also exercise daily, walk everywhere I go, keep track of all this and eat low carb and sparingly.

The thing is that all these are either easy or downright pleasurable for me, so no feats of will power are needed.

I had no doctor for about 18 months, after I had moved into central city. During this time, my A1c climbed .2 to .4, and dropped again when I got a doctor and he could renew my met Rx.

I had modest GI sx for 2-3 weeks when I first started taking metformin, then again one afternoon when i inadvertently doubled up on the dose. Normally I resist taking medicine, but I have been happy to take this. i did not know about the supposed longevity benefits and I have my doubts, but I would definitely welcome them! I have read and seen here in this thread that some people have much more difficulty with the GI symptoms.

Ha

[flyingaway]

What are the funs at 120, when you CANNOT walk, hear, see, move, or talk?

[bjorn2bwild]

My interest in this stuff lies with quality life extension - AKA 'morbidity compression', rather than just tacking on years per se. Take metformin, live to 120 is nonsense. Again, I will refer to an older post form Josh Mitteldorf -

Quote:

I pulled up a mortality table (from the Social Security Admin) and did the calculation in a spreadsheet. The two lines were barely distinguishable. A 6% drop in mortality only increases life expectancy by 7 months.

Mortality and Life Expectancy | Josh Mitteldorf

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha During this time, my A1c climbed .2 to .4, and dropped again when I got a doctor and he could renew my met Rx.

I don't understand what you meant to say here. The last time I had mine checked it was right at 5.0%

Quote:

For someone who doesn't have diabetes, a normal A1C level can range from 4.5 to 6 percent. Someone who's had uncontrolled diabetes for a long time might have an A1C level above 8 percent

[haha]

From 5.2 to 5.4, without metformin, then back to 5.2 when back on metformin. doc says these are normal levels, but I think the original Dx was fr a gtt. A1c was always in normal range.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[lampshade]

My bad. Did not read the article. Will this help with dementia in any way?

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingaway What are the funs at 120, when you CANNOT walk, hear, see, move, or talk?

No, no fun.

But people are afraid of crossing the River Styx, and want to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

[iac1003]

I don't want to live that long.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[EastWest Gal]

The end result is the same. Death is inevitable. But will quality of life improve with quantity of life? We'll all have to work longer to pay for those extra years. More people on the planet = faster global warming, faster depletion of non-renewable resources. I wish people would look at the actual consequences of their actions before embarking on such research.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 True, but I'm not sure that sitting on the commode for the next 40 years makes it worthwhile....

I sometimes have to take a medication for 2-3 weeks that upsets my stomach, but it always passes (pun intended ) in 2 or 3 days once my body adjusts.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal The end result is the same. Death is inevitable. But will quality of life improve with quantity of life? We'll all have to work longer to pay for those extra years. More people on the planet = faster global warming, faster depletion of non-renewable resources. I wish people would look at the actual consequences of their actions before embarking on such research.

I have a low carbon footprint, so I'm allowed to live longer than someone who causes more harm to the planet....

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal The end result is the same. Death is inevitable. But will quality of life improve with quantity of life? We'll all have to work longer to pay for those extra years. More people on the planet = faster global warming, faster depletion of non-renewable resources. I wish people would look at the actual consequences of their actions before embarking on such research.

?? If increasing lifespans will have all these deleterious effects, it's logical that reducing our lifespans would be the only moral course of action (unless we believe that our present lifespans are somehow the "optimum" length, which seems unlikely). So, we should be conducting research on ways to reduce lifespans.
And yet, when we take the concrete and effective steps we are already good at to reduce lifespans (through war, man-made famine, excessive pollution, adopting bad lifestyle choices, etc), then the do-gooders start wringing their hands and demand a stop to it.

Making good policy is hard work, I guess.

I'm okay with letting scientists continue to figure out how people can live longer, healthier lives. Anybody that wants to help society by going the Logan's Run route should be free to do so--on their own.

[lampshade]

I read the article. It suggests that it may indeed help put off dementia. For that reason alone I can see me and my sibs being interested.

I'd be interested to know what happens when you stop taking the med How long do you have to live. Do you rapidly age?

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal The end result is the same. Death is inevitable. But will quality of life improve with quantity of life? We'll all have to work longer to pay for those extra years. More people on the planet = faster global warming, faster depletion of non-renewable resources. I wish people would look at the actual consequences of their actions before embarking on such research...

People have been talking about less consumption: smaller cars with higher gas mileage, tiny homes, eating lower on the food chain, etc... And then, of course people will have to work longer. Countries around the world are raising retirement age, even though they do not know what jobs to give to these geezers.

What is of more concern is that I am not sure that having people living longer will not mean their bedridden end stage will not also prolong. Japan's population of bedridden and tube-fed elderlies is rising, according to a recent article I saw. We will see how Japan copes with that.