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

[Ronnieboy]

If a new use is found will Metformin be placed back on patent and acquire a government protected ounce of gold new price tag?

The company that puts in all the research and clinical trials will rebrand the drug as Longevitia, make it in weird strengths or time released tablets that are not currently available (instead of 500mg it will be 567mg) and they will cost $65 per pill, taken twice a day. Or only $3,900 a month, not covered by insurance of course.

PS you don't have to be diabetic to take metformin.

 

[W2R]

My doctor prescribed Metformin for me in 2009. I couldn't tolerate that infernal drug. I could say a few more choice words about it but I'll spare you.

Fortunately there are other blood sugar medications available.

The most common adverse effect of metformin is gastrointestinal irritation, including diarrhea, cramps, nausea, vomiting, and increased flatulence; metformin is more commonly associated with gastrointestinal side effects than most other antidiabetic drugs.

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, to live to 120 one has to give up something.

 

[NW-Bound]

The scientists on the program were saying that their research on mice did not prolong their lives very much but kept them much fitter. For example they gave the drug to old mice who were poor performers running on a treadmill and other tests, and they quickly started performing as well as much younger mice...

But I'm an old mouse that doesn't want to go back on the treadmill.

They need to do a study to see if the these old mice were suddenly able to stay out all night drinking and not feel it the next day, play scratch golf, and chase the spouse mouse around the mouse house all day. Why don't our tax dollars go toward meaningful research?

There! I can see Congress raising SS FRA to 75 or 80, and when people complain they will just add a law giving Metformin for free to people. Heck, at 10c a day per person - and it is not even produced on a grand scale yet - it is an obvious solution to SS shortfunding problem. Gotta keep the geezers on the treadmill as long as they can. Spousal benefits, children's benefits? Hah. Get back to the treadmill!

 

[Bestwifeever]

Alas, all that hard work does not really guarantee you will live to 120. Only a few lucky ones will. The average person will extend his life a mere 4 years.

The group, which independently monitors evidence that explain changes in life expectancy and advises policymakers, found doing so took the average lifespan from 80 to 84.

The 'What is ageing? And how do we delay it?' report states that at present few people live to around 110 - but by making these adjustments they predict that the healthiest individuals could live to 120.​

Sure, that's what they say about statins now. They'll be saying it about metformin in a few years.

 

[NW-Bound]

so move FRA to 110 .... will there be enough jobs to employ all the people long enough? Could the world support the extra people on the earth if every country extended life?

Sure, there's no fixed number of jobs. More people=more demand for the goods and services that require workers. If, despite this, there is a surplus of labor then wages will go down a bit and more types of work become feasible at the lower labor costs.

Yes, more people means more work. But is it any kind of jobs people want to do?

For example, given the prevalent side effects of Metformin, who wants to change the diapers of geezers that are affected?

 

[Walt34]

Well, to live to 120 one has to give up something.

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

 

[NW-Bound]

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

Who is sitting on the commode?

Apparently, you have not heard of Depend.

 

[eytonxav]

Live to 120, good grief Charlie Brown. With the state of the world as it is and if we stay on the present trajectory of issues/calamities, I would have no desire to live to 120. Any how with the cost of medicare increasing YOY, I would be broke and on the street probably 25 years before I made 120.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

This topic is more interesting than the article linked in the OP would suggest. For anyone wishing to look closer, I suggest reading Josh Mitteldorf's column "Playing The Game For A Longer Life". Here is an interesting take on Metformin. Click on his name at the bottom of the piece to bring up his bio and front page.

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.

Can Botanicals Replace Metformin? | Josh Mitteldorf

 

[harley]

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 -

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]

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%

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.