I was wondering about theories like Free Radical etc...What are they and are they really true?


bye!

Free radicals are reactive chemical species which damage biological cells. They are very true and all theories of ageing have the free radical sub-theory of ageing built into them.

Any clear simple links you happen to have at hand (or at mouse click :D)?

just type it into google or even better, if ur scientifically minded, type it into Medline.

We age because evolution did not design us the live forever. As soon as you have children and can live long enough to raise them evolution did not give a dam about you. Basically we like cars we are only warranted for so long. This is way we age from things like free-radicals, arterial sclerosis, telomere lose, ect.

We age because of an evolutionary need for the existence of Matlock.

We may age due to some inability to control body pH properly.


Recent research has shown that if you have an "acidic" body pH balance -- as indicated by the presence of the signs and symptoms listed below -- then the aging process will be accelerated in your body...http://colonhealth.net/free_reports/fitalert.htm

Have U ever heard of unisexual or asexual animals that reproduce without genes from another partner. If they can maintain their there genetic correctness from generations to generations then it quite possible that by studying thoes animals we may be able to engineer a repair system that uses this technique to maintain our genetic health and hence never age ?

What/which our body substance/s can effect/mutate our genes? Are GI tract & internal pH imbalances hereditory/genetic?

even asexual animals mutate.

Perhaps it would be better to dispose of the tempory vehicle.

I.e. Copy one's neural net onto a more stable medium. Obviously, that person would not be you (just someone who acts like they are) but perhaps some kind of intermediate state could be used to give the sensation of 'transfer'.

Before any of you flame me, yes I'm aware that todays tech does not even remotely 'live' up to the standard.

As any fan of "The Twilight Zone" would know, "never aging" might be more of a course than a blessing. :D

ha! Eternal cybernetic heaven a curse? your telling me being in perpetual orgasm mode long after the stars burn out is a curse?

A more comprehensive ultimate theory of aging from an evolutionary perspective (as opposed to more proximate causes like free radicals) cannot be discussed without mentioning Peter Medawar.

from; http://longevity-science.org/Evolution.htm

Mutation Accumulation Theory of Aging

This evolutionary theory, suggested by Peter Medawar (Medawar, P.B. 1946. Old age and natural death. Modern Q. 1, 30–56; and 1952 An Unsolved Problem of Biology. H.K. Lewis, London.), considers aging as a byproduct of natural selection. According to this theory, aging is a nonadaptive trait because natural selection is negligent of events that occur in a few long-lived animals that provide little additional contribution to offspring numbers. This explanation of aging is similar to the evolutionary explanation of vision deterioration and ultimate blindness of cave animals: if some function cannot be used to provide reproductive advantage, it will not be supported by selection pressure and maintained in future generations.
The probability of an individual reproducing depends on age. It is zero at birth and reaches a peak in young adults. Then it decreases due to the increased probability of death linked to various external (predators, illnesses, accidents) and internal (senescence) causes. In such conditions, deleterious mutations expressed at a young age are severely selected against due to their high negative impact on fitness (number of offspring produced). On the other hand, deleterious mutations expressed only later in life are relatively neutral to selection because their bearers have already transmitted their genes to the next generation.

and from Charlesworth, 2000. Fisher, Medawar, Hamilton and the Evolution of Aging. Genetics 156: 927–931.

Modern evolutionary theory has demonstrated that,
in species with a clearcut distinction between parent
and offspring, senescence is a virtually inevitable result
of the fact that genes that affect survival or fecundity
only early in life have a greater selective impact than
genes whose effects are manifest only late in life.

well i was tought in Scince class (you guys are more than likley way over my head) that cancer cells dont age it has to do with when the cell is duplicating.. a pice of something drops off the end of the cromosone .. its real foggy....any oone know what itm talken about ?

Look up telomeres and aging on google

thanks, very intersting here is a link for ne one http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Telomeres.html

A more comprehensive ultimate theory of aging from an evolutionary perspective (as opposed to more proximate causes like free radicals) cannot be discussed without mentioning Peter Medawar.

Paul: why wouldn't individuals which have a very long reproductive life be selected for? Lets say u have mutant people in the population who can give birth at 60/70 years of age. They should be selected for right?

..As our body gets old, these alkaline buffers get low; this phenomenon is called acidosis. This is a natural occurrence as our body accumulates more acidic waste products. There is, therefore, a relationship between the aging process and the accumulation of acids.http://www.alkalife.com/scihealth.aspx?id=6

Try to link pH GIT & internal with ageing. It somewhat indicate low stomach acid with ageing>>so low digestion of protien,minerals, B vitamins etc>> so low absorption of these>> opposite may be high fat/fat soluble absorption>>may be cause or a cause of ageing??? :)

longer life spans are rarely selected for because predators and disease get you first even if you would have lived longer, usually having children quickly is more selective pressure then living longer to have more children.

Kumar,

Its also possible the pH imbalance is the result of aging not just the cause.

Kumar,

Its also possible the pH imbalance is the result of aging not just the cause.WellCookedFetus,

Even if it is so, we can easily treat it & get the age increased. If we can know the reson/cause then furthur task can be easy. Is it not ok? :)

dietary sumplment and vitamin pills haven't tryed to cure that?

dietary sumplment and vitamin pills haven't tryed to cure that? Were these meant to treat acidity to this effects?

Raise stomach pH and you might increase your risk of ulcers and lethal stomach bleeding. At that age you stomach walls are paper-thin.

Is it after effect of aging? If we take care previously then?

However if ' tollerance effected' is something common on aging?

AGING CHANGES IN VITAL SIGNS

Normal body temperature does not change significantly with aging. Temperature regulation, however, is more difficult.

Because of changes in the heart, the resting heart rate may become slightly slower. It takes longer for the pulse to speed up when exercising, and longer to slow back down after exercise. The maximum heart rate reached with exercise is lowered.

Blood vessels become less elastic. The average blood pressure increases from 120/70 mm Hg to about 150/90 mm Hg and may remain slightly high even if treated. The blood vessels also respond more slowly to a change in body position.

Although lung function decreases slightly, changes are usually only in the reserve function. The rate of breathing usually does not change.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/004019.htm

longer life spans are rarely selected for because predators and disease get you first even if you would have lived longer, usually having children quickly is more selective pressure then living longer to have more children.

Right. There is a tradeoff somewhere along the line and it seems to be about 80 years for homo sapiens. After the age of 80, the cost of keeping the body maintained outweighs any potential genetic benefits from more offspring even if we could reproduce into old age. Do u agree with this Fetus?

I would say the trade of is lower then that, our bodies degenerate after I primes in are early 20's. Evolution did not see a need for us to live in optimum condition past this, extended survival is do to modern science keeping people alive longer, it would take evolution a long time tie increase human life span based of are present trend of living longer and having children at older ages, even so I think that part of the reason why we live longer the many other mammals, we are a social species and older members are still helpful.

OK but do u think the theory is essentially right? It is a trade off between the cost of maintenance and benefit of offspring?

Yes of course, we live longer then most mammals because we can benefit are young longer, but we still grow old and die.

Paul: why wouldn't individuals which have a very long reproductive life be selected for? Lets say u have mutant people in the population who can give birth at 60/70 years of age. They should be selected for right?
actually i think it can. hope i didn't give the impression that it can't

fruit fly artificial selection experiments have extended fruit fly life spans significantly

problem with mammals is the determinant number of eggs a female has, they obviously will run out at some time.

longer life spans are rarely selected for because predators and disease get you first even if you would have lived longer, usually having children quickly is more selective pressure then living longer to have more children.

this is not true.

delayed reproductive age is sometimes selectively advantageous. it depends on an organism's ecology, life history characterisitcs, etc.

reproductive age has great variability, there is NO evidence that there is directional selective force decreasing age at first reproduction.

there are some organisms that are born pregnant, and i think some cetacean species where age of first reproduction is in the 30's or 40's

paulsamuel,

Note the use of "usually" and "rarely", my statements are not all encompassing, there are vast exceptions.

Oh here is a nice site:
http://www.lef.org/anti-aging/research2.html

paulsamuel,

Note the use of "usually" and "rarely", my statements are not all encompassing, there are vast exceptions.

oh yes, like the Order Mammalia

please keep me on ignore

really all mammals are a exception? even rodents?

OK but do u think the theory is essentially right? It is a trade off between the cost of maintenance and benefit of offspring?
actually the theory's implication is the differential reproductive selective value of being young vs. being old

And what is that differential exactly and how does it come about? Viability of offspring?

While whole grain foods are a good, natural source of silicon, the silicon from these foods is insoluble and cannot be directly absorbed in the gastro-intestinal tract. Silicon in food is solubilized by stomach acid into orthosilicic acid, which absorbs directly through the stomach wall and the intestine into the blood. Lower stomach acidity, whether due to illness or age, diminishes our ability to metabolize silicon from food sources. Aging is reported to be associated with an increasing gastric pH. In this view elderly people will have a decreased capacity to convert dietary silicates into bioavailable orthosilicic acid.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/apr2003_report_silicon_01.html

Aging is reported to be associated with an increasing gastric pH.

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mm_geriatrics/sec13/ch102.jsp

"Although aging has no significant effect on secretion of acid and pepsin by the stomach"

The effect is caused by disease, A follows B doesn't mean A caused B. Basic logic Kumar, that you DO know about.

PJ, Our created early Aging in itself is like a disease. More mental stresses on aging are common. Mental stresses can effect stomach acidity.

..Medical literature and the bible have documented man attaining the age of 150 or older. With the advent of modern civilization and the self-abusive lifestyle homosapiens have developed, man's life span, in spite of today's great advances in medical technology, has been greatly shortened. While it is naturally possible to stay young longer and maximize our longevity,..
http://www.cdc-cdh.edu/hospital/cardio/chua1.html

Its interesting to note that the site is not THE cdc site. Futhermore the claims of medical literature documenting a lifespan of >150 years are untrue. If you want to think of the Bible as a scientific source thats up to you but then i'd have to ask you about if as the bible claims in ?Joshua the Sun really does go around the Earth.
Finally you have neglected to actually back any of your comments with what is commonly called evidence.

Didn't the Bible actually document people living to 500 years of age?!

A reasonable value for the antediluvian childbearing age appears to be approximately 90 years. Genesis uses a range of 65 to 500 years, for the first born in the families that are listed. Noah is the only one mentioned who waited 500 years before starting his family..
http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html

John, what is this? :)

Exactly! Its a bit much though, don't u think?!

I would imagine WE are the longest lived generation of Homo Sapiens!

It means that we decreasing our upper age(quality) & increasing the quantity at the cost of quality? Nature may be keeping total of all people's ages same, to maintain nature's balance. :) eg; Now: (20+45+55)/3=40, Old: (5+75)/2=40. However old justify--'survival of fittest' rule of nature & future generations more poweful, immune & resistant. Now all weak & strongs are here, but nature says SOF. Can it be a reason or cause of most of modren complications?

What were the terms in those equations u specified?

Exactly! Its a bit much though, don't u think?!

I would imagine WE are the longest lived generation of Homo Sapiens! Referances of longer age & body(probably this * **) are also available in other ancient litretures. What exactly, I can't say but just for a thought, the upper limit can be somewhat related to atomic life.

You can imagine the same but what about the future. Don't imagine, it is ending or near to end in consideration of nature's balance, as probably, WE are the already longest lived generation of Homo Sapiens!, . :)

If we are reducing our age/body--my other posting can be a reason/logic to the same.

* http://www.umich.edu/~umjains/jainismsimplified/chapter06.html
**http://www.geocities.com/tamiljain/bahubali/pages/bahubali.htm

A lot of exaggeration went on in the days before the 1900's. This is because it was harder to document peoples lives then. There were no birth certs and all that. This is why the Guiness book of Records will not accept any longevity records for people dying before the early 1900's.

That may only be the confusion. So many aspects related to before say about 1925, may be much related to complications due to modren civilization, over-population, pollutions, commercialization etc. like diabetes, cancer, hypertentions, hyper acidity etc. & lastly the effect on our longevity ( not average life). We should compare & judge every complication accordingly to really understand it fully.

I don't think cancer is caused by modern civilisation per se. Cancer has become more widespread this century because people are living longer!

and cancer is now diagnosed as cancer.

I don't think cancer is caused by modern civilisation per se. Cancer has become more widespread this century because people are living longer!What can basically, mutate cells which then become cancerous?

Some good article indicates:-
An Acid pH Is The Seed-Bed Of Degenerative Diseases:

Cardiovascular Disease: Arteriosclerosis, Heart Attacks, Stroke, High Cholesterol, and High Blood Pressure
All Forms of Cancer
Diabetes, Insulin Sensitivity, Obesity
Neurological Diseases, MS, MD, ALS and Parkinson's disease
Liver & Kidney Disease
Senility, Dementia, Alzheimer's
Immune Deficiencies
Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis & Tooth Loss
Hormonal Imbalances
Premature Aging, Male Prostate Problems

...Inhibits Cellular Regeneration & DNA-RNA Synthesis
For DNA-RNA synthesis and healthy cell proliferation to occur, cell pH must not be acidic. However, cancerous cells grow well in acidic mediums, therefore an acid pH actually accelerates and increases the possibility of cellular mutations (Cancer).

CANCEROUS CELLS DO NOT CONTAIN HYDROGEN ATOMS. WHEN HEALTHY CELLS HAVE PLENTY OF HYDROGEN THEY CANNOT BECOME CANCEROUS. IF WE CAN GET HYDROGEN INTO ANY UNHEALTHY CELLS, THEY CAN HEAL. http://www.snyderhealth.com/acid.htm?acid-diet

Kumar, i suggest you read about Tumour Suppressor Genes and Oncogenes to get a basic understanding of carcinogenesis.

What can basically, mutate cells which then become cancerous?
They can do it themselves

Sorry, I edited & added to my previous post after you posted.

Hello PJ, I am more interested in 'basic/real reason/cause'.

free radical damage from your food is a major cause!

But there can be some relation between free radical & body pHs.
Hydrogen is also vital in maintaining an alkaline biological terrain in the body. Bio-terrain describes whether cellular ph level is acidic (unhealthy) or alkaline (healthy). This terrain, absent of free radical damage, is vital in reversing the acidic chemistry of the body. Converting bio-terrain from acidic to alkaline is a very important function of hydrogen.

Acidic chemistry in the body is the feeding ground of disease. Virtually all cellular waste and most internally-generated toxins are acidic. If a bio-terrain is very acidic, possibly due to high yeast or bacteria content in the stomach,http://www.phisciences.com/anntiaging_lifeextension.html

If there is, then pH IS important in aging etc.

If there is, then pH IS important in aging etc. It can/should be, as mentioned in link provided.

I really don't think that it can be too damaging, independednt of its effects on free radical formation however.

I really don't think that it can be too damaging, independednt of its effects on free radical formation however. Yes, it can't be independednt of its effects on free radical formation. But free radicals formation & its effects can be somewhat dependent on pH.

Yes but its the free radicals that control aging.

But which is the basic cause?

Many different things cause aging, no one thing has been proven the central cause (nor do I ever think anything will).

I ask you what causes cars to age?, lets see rusting, engine were, transmission wear, transmission bearings wear, particles in the fuel precipitate out and clog the lines, filters and carbonator, ect. The only difference is that every part of the car can be replaced and repairs (with enough money), in humans we don’t have the technology (yet)

If you want a basic cause for aging it’s the simple fact that we are not designed to last, there organisms that per equal metabolism live many times longer then we do.

Yes there is also a theory that death is genetically programmed into us :eek:

Yes there is also a theory that death is genetically programmed into us :eek:

Yes – Dolly the Cloned Sheep is a good example.
She lived for only 6+ years (July 5, 1996 - Feb 14, 2003).
Normal Sheep have a life expectancy of 13 years.

The Theory is:
” All chromosomes are capped with telomeres, tiny strands of DNA that scientists believe hold the key to aging. Telomeres shorten each time a cell divides, and continuously erode as an animal ages.”

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9905/26/dolly.clone.02/

No, not that theory.

There are genes which were found on the drosophila fly and nematode which directly control aging by influencing hormones and antioxidant enzymes etc.

Yes there is also a theory that death is genetically programmed into us :eek: What had effected change in our origional genetically programming ( say of Adam & Eve) & how it can basically, control ageing & other body functions?

I don't understand your question :)

Suppose we had a pure origional genetically programming free from all environmental effects ( as defined by Adam & Eve concept). During the passage of time something would had been added to this pure origional genetically programming as environmental effects. I just want to know that what had effected our this origional programming & how our ageing can be effected by this additional environment effect?

You mean Adaptability causing changes in Genetic makeup? that would happen,i would assume.If your Genetic Makeup changes,that would mean Protien chains,Enzymes that are made from the DNA would change...isnt it?

bye!

Suppose we had a pure origional genetically programming free from all environmental effects

You can't make a baby then.

Suppose we had a pure origional genetically programming free from all environmental effects ( as defined by Adam & Eve concept). During the passage of time something would had been added to this pure origional genetically programming as environmental effects.

Yes. 2 things happen to genetic programmes. They undergo mutation (spontaneous or otherwise) and they undergo natural selection. The former generally adds to variability while the latter selects from this variability (generally reducing it but causing adaptation).

I just want to know that what had effected our this origional programming & how our ageing can be effected by this additional environment effect?

It was more beneficial for the genes to reside in a body which only lasted a certain length of time. In this way energy could be put into spreading copies of itself far and wide rather than in trying to keep the individual alive (against all odds!)

Several problems with Adam and Eve:
1. Its unlikely all human races, plus genetic disease and short life spans could have accord genetically in the last 7000 years
2. the human race of Homo sapiens has been around for at least 70,000 years, as well as genetic evidence that we have been around for 200,000 years. archaeological and fossil evidence proves this.
3. Homo sapiens have descended from other hominids, which descended from apes, ect. Proven genetically, fossil record, anatomically, ect. There was most likely never just to proto-homo sapiens that spawn the who race it was most likely a small group of proto-people living in the then forming Sahara Africa.

It will become bit differant subject, if we will go in all these details. Frankly, I assume that we might have been made by unlimed additions & variations during uncountable years. The origin may lie in first single cell created in nature and unlimited additions & variations of uncountable years to it had probably made us in today's form.

But what causes the variations in genetic make ups can be the reason of ageing variations. It can probably be the additions or adaptions of environmental effects to which we in any form were/are exposed. Is it ok, logically?

But what causes the variations in genetic make ups can be the reason of ageing variations. It can probably be the additions or adaptions of environmental effects to which we in any form were/are exposed. Is it ok, logically?

Aging variations betwen who?

Aging variations betwen who?

Any variation in ageing/longevity can be within one's lifespan or among him or his subsequent generations. Good/bad or favourable/unfavourable environment can be a cause of ageing/longevity variations.

Assuming environment is a prime/basic cause of ageing/longevity variations during one's own life & to his(+her) subsequent generations, how this can be related to body's environment?

yes but a drop of life span from 800yr to 70yr in only 300 generations sounds extreme.

yes but a drop of life span from 800yr to 70yr in only 300 generations sounds extreme. Yes, it looks bit odd. But it is just about 2.4 years per generation. Just assess current/recent genarations. Don't count on average life, just count higher sides of ages/longevity.

I have one question. Can we relate outside enviromental effects with body's environmental (esp. pH ) changes? I mean that due to change in outside environments, can/do we get change in our body's pH environment? In other words, If whole evironmental effects( inherited or aquired) can work on just changes in body pHs?

What do u mean by environmental effects? Most effects do not get past the skin barrier and so contribute very little to aging. Aging is generally the destruction of the body from within :eek:

well it would not be 300 generations lets see, 20yr per generation is based of a 70yr life span so now you live 800 years were talking out a whole lot of children rather beneficial for anyone that can live that long, so were talking about a trait that would be evolutionarily desirable.

What do u mean by environmental effects? Most effects do not get past the skin barrier and so contribute very little to aging. Aging is generally the destruction of the body from within :eek:

Whatever we have added & are adding to our 'nature' or to our origional genetic make up. Just look at it:-

Nature versus nurture is a popular phrase used to describe debates over the relative degrees to which one's genetic makeup ("nature") and one's life experiences ("nurture") influence one's traits and behavior. A wide variety of characteristics have been considered in such debates, including personality, sexual orientation, gender identity, political orientation, intelligence, and propensity for violence or criminality.

Although "nurture" may have historically referred mainly to the care given to children by their parents, any environmental (not genetic) factor also would count as "nurture" in a contemporary nature versus nurture debate, including one's childhood friends, one's early experiences with television, and one's experience in the womb. Indeed, a substantial source of environmental input to human nature may arise from stochastic variations in prenatal development.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Nature_versus_nurture

You can't make a baby then. Can you please explain it bit more. How the babies were made in our origional make up of genes(may be Adam & Eve)? Do you mean that babies from origional make up of genes were not there & we were always effected by 'environmental effects'? We can also think it like it that Adam & Eve= origional genetic make up+ pure/good environmental effects AND Todays humans= origional genetic make up+ pure/good environmental effects+ polluted/bad environmental effects. Is it so? :)