This is a facts. My great grand mother had her last child at 69, my grand mother had her last at 60, and they both lived past 100 alone without secondary care, my grandmother still living and takes care of herself...
Age is far different from what it used to be. People who stereotype others based on age are 20 years behind in their thinking. Many 18 yr olds are CEOs of their own companies. Many people in their 80s & 90s are running in their first marathons.
This is true I remember 40 being old. But I looked at my mother one day she was standing in the yard one afternoon after work she had on a yellow dress. And my thought was wow look at my mom at age 40 she looks so good. She is now 75. And she has a fun loving spirit. And I now at 54 we are both suffering with extremely severe arthritis so there are many days that we feel elderly. But we just say it the disease and maybe tomorrow will be better.We both feel young in spirit. We eat well. Mother better than I. I switched to organic food a year ago. My husband lost 40 pounds. I gained do to the medication I have to take. And I don’t eat much, just don’t have an appetite. I look bad because of my condition so I do not take photos. But as far as my spirt I feel happy and excited about life. Mother taught me that. We can’t change our disease but we have a choice to be happy today and look forward to tomorrow. I am not afraid of death it is part of life. Of corse I don’t want to die and leave my family but I feel it should not be feared. I just today had a funeral for a friend age 57 heart disease. And I felt that her life should be celebrated and not all the horrible sadness. Anything in medicine fascinates me. Enjoyed this discussion.
I think this type of research will snowball when years can be added, and people can see it adding more years than seems “normal”. I think once that break through happens, you will see a lot more press, money, new researchers, and accomplishments from that happening.
I wonder if Dr. Gregor has watched this. Would he not be shaking his head that these scientists don't seem to be familiar with a multitude of studies showing that we DO know how to prevent and sometimes fix some of these insurmountable problems they talk about (cancers, Alzheimer's disease...)?
10:40 "We already postponed aging." Eh, absolutely no. She's talking about AVERAGE lifespan, which was increased drastically thanks to eradication of deadly diseases and fairly abundant food supply. But MAXIMUM lifespan? That remains pretty much unchanged since ancient times (a bit over 100 years.) When I was a teenager (around mid-80s) I remember watching a conversation among a bunch of experts on TV saying that by 2010 the oldest people will be living at least, AT LEAST 140 years (or around 20% longer than the then oldest people.) I mean, they were emphasizing THAT WAS A GIVEN!!! Boy they were wrong. Big big time.
CUMBICA1970 Well, they also knew a lot less about the biology and demographics of aging 30 years ago. I think she is right to some extent, especially as it pertains to an entire population. For instance, prior to the ~mid- 20th Century old people of the lower classes were often prematurely aged by early childhood diseases and nutrition, which are known to accelerate the process by which our bodies wear out. Add to that a lifetime of incessant physical work in all weather, smoking and drinking, chronic diseases that we could do nothing about, recurrent illness, etc. and you got people in peasant populations or in the slums of the Industrial Revolution who were old and used up by 50. These people might still live into their 60s or 70s, but they certainly weren't functioning as well as they are now. The book "The Longevity Dividend" argues that the greatly increased vigour of people in their middle decades was one of the factors in the huge economic growth of the 20th Century. My parents have said the same thing - when they were younger, 50 was considered *old*. Tons of people smoked; it was just what you did. There were no gyms in today's sense. Lifting weights was something weirdos in California did. If you got injured playing a sport your sporting career was probably over. You can even pick up clues from quite recently. A guy I know in his 50s had to stop running in 1993 because his shins locked up and there was no physio yet! Another guy in his 60s was a mason and had back surgery when he was 32, then retired at 51 due to arthritis. Ergonomics wasn't as big of an issue in the 80s, I guess. Does this mean there weren't vigorous older people in previous centuries? Of course not! Nothing beats good genes, and if you were from a higher social class you avoided a lot of those problems (although you still had the exposure to childhood diseases).
What I did not appreciate so much in this interview was the presumption of the evolutionary biologist (Dr. Micheal Rose) that he thinks his fellow molecular biologists are wrong about the Foundation of aging. I believe that Mr. Rose is bringing very important information on understanding aging, especially the way he puts in in relation to evolution, but non the less he over did it (almost like a pun to his colleagues that was misplaced for the audience).That caused a palpable tension, which is sad because he brings interesting hypothesis on the board that can complement other theories and solutions about aging. I feel he sees conflict were there is not, instead those approaches should be complementary until we finally discover a panacea to stop aging. (At the end he tries to repent in a way in his last minute and a half statement, but still he was way to cocky during the interview always promoting his science methods over others. What he seems to be promoting is a change in lifestyle and environment that right away resembles things already tried before but with a new twist. Will that new twist be enough? I will read about it tough. When it applies to human lets talk again about real experiences of his theories in 25 years or so. I will then be 67 years old, if life blesses me with this longevity. ) My guess is that chances are we find a way to mimic species that don't age, at least in the short term util we fully understand the human genome intricacies. Like Dr. Leonard P. Guarente suggested. Put it in other words, if you want success it is good to study success stories.
+François Morin Yes well said, many theories can be utilized even though some might be incorrect in light of others .... the most "advanced" current theories are probably still incorrect in light of future theories . But they are still valuable.
So interesting. I enjoy scientists that go out to share their results. I dream of a Planet were everybody is respected no matter their career or work. Scientist could not eat without farmers, athletes could not eat well either without farmers. Athletes could not have good food supplement without scientist in biology and nutrition, kids and teenagers would not have cool video games without engineers in electricity and computer science, people would not be as healthy without medical science, people might not be as wise without the experience of ethics and philosophy of life, we need politicians and diplomats to attend to public relations and economists and entrepreneurs to promote our economy and peoples life would not have music to enjoy without musicians so fort! You get my point! We should all respect each other and help each other in our fields of life specialty. As people will live longer and be more educated, the janitor, the farmer will be able to have interesting discussions with the teachers etc. A person living 120 or 180 could change fields of work or study within a life span. By listening to what each expert of each field life work and studies have to say, we can get new ideas, cooperate and feel useful. This is my take on life when it comes to society.
Aubrey says "repair and maintenance strategy" offers the most immediate promise for controlling aging. Intermittent fasting. That naturally sets the body up for self repair after the fast. There you go...intermittent fasting and a healthy, whole foods diet, low protein, either high fat or high carb is probably the best we can do without artificial interventions. And Mediterranean, once again, looks like the best middle ground.
Raw Decathlete I would experiment with training on an empty stomach. Find out what you can do. It may take some transition (a few days or, if you're really glucose adapted, a couple of weeks). The body is, in fact, designed to function really well without food. It's a survival mechanism. If we couldn't catch food and search for food on an empty stomach, the human species wouldn't be here. It's that simple. Now, I see you're likely eating raw food predominantly. I don't recommend this. I would definitely play around with getting more fat in the diet, at the very least, from nuts and coconut oil. If you don't care about animal product, dairy and beef fat. You need to train your body, your cells, the mitochondria, to burn fat rather than glucose. This is what will really power your endurance.
I eat lots of eggs( raw and cooked), meat(raw and cooked), raw milk and kefir, cheese, raw and cooked(in soup) veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, coconut oil and olive oil, spices, lots of sea salt. iam actually a power-speed athlete, I train for the decathlon. In training i do lots of short sprints(30 to 300m), throws, jumps, intense weight lifting. I talked to olympic decathletes and they told me they eat shit loads of carbs, e.g. 10g/kg/day at least. That means if you have 80kgs you will eat 800g of carbs per day. Lots of protein as well to help repair the body from long 4- 6 hours daily extreme workouts. Why you dont recommend raw foods? You mean no raw food at all like fermented veggies or raw fruits and veggies, eggs?
@Raw Decathlete I'd also like to point out there appears to be conflict between what works for elite athletic performance and what works for long-term health and longevity. But there are commonalities as well. The conflict is in the amount of calories that need to be consumed. The commonality is in the high intensity interval training. The latter optimizes mitochondrial function which contributes to youth and longevity. The issue of the performance driven athlete is volume of training. High volume generates athletic performance in the immediate future but likely compromises the potential for longevity through tissue wear and tear, damage, and mitochondrial stress.
joe schmo how should vegetables, meat and eggs cooked/prepared for optimal digestion/ absorption ? Do you think a 16:8 intermittent fasting would be ok for an athlete for performance and longevity/heath? I would eat my first meal at 7:30 AM, workout from 10 to 1- 2 PM, second meal right after workout at 1 or 2 PM Last meal at 3 PM Although I think It would be extremely difficult for me to ingest 5000- 8000 calories in 3 meals which are close to each other..... Maybe a 12:12 or 10:14 IF version would work better?
The idea of living past a "normal age" gets some people really upset. Research does not quit though, every day scientists learn more. Interesting how so many are against a therapy or drug until their peers are taking it, then suddenly they are for it, and take it themselves. Just Weird!
I can not believe these guys, at the 18:50 mark . " Can we get a drug to do what intermittent fasting or calorie restriction can do. " Just don't eat as much would seem logical. They answered there own question but they can't accept it because it dose not involve a drug they can sell.
Intermittent fasting is definitely a thing that people do and see significant health benefits from. However the caloric restriction experiments would be brutal for a human to endure because of the extremity.
The longer one lives, the more time one has to contemplate the important questions... the greater chance the species has to “evolve” and become better.
It's shocking to me that academics like Michael Rose can be so disrespectful (read: condescending) to fellow researchers without even realizing he's ruined an entire discussion. What a blinding degree of grandiosity and entitlement, this was the only WSF program I couldn't continue
Resveratrol did not work in humans. Caloric restriction function is actually protein restriction but harms those on high carb low protein low fat diets. To maximize lifespan eat starchy staple foods and avoid meat, oil, dairy, fish plus eat vegetables and some fruit.
The world's oldest person 116yrs has eaten 3 eggs a day for the last 100yrs www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/the-secret-to-longevity-is-eating-two-raw-eggs-a-day-says-newly/
The previous oldest living perspn had eggs n bacon every morning www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/susannah-mushatt-jones-worlds-oldest-person-says-that-she-eats-bacon-every-day-a6709751.html
a previous oldest living person www.independent.co.uk/news/people/worlds-oldest-person-misao-okawa-revealed-the-secret-to-her-long-life-before-she-passed-away-10151034.html diet included: ramen noodles and beef stew, as well as hashed beef and rice mackerel sushi.
Idiotic advice. No "nutrition" will make you live to be 500, or keep you as vital as a 25 year old when you're 100. Only new technology and medicine at the cellular level will do that, if it were possible with food obviously SOMEONE would be 120 years old and jumping around like they're 18... since there isn't, clearly your idea is completely wrong.
I'm extremely excited! The oldest person ever was 122 years old. I would be at that age in 2112! I'm a vegan, drink and smoke very rarely, excercise rather often. Isn't it possible?!
I’m not sold on the vegan diet. I can understand if you choose not to eat animals, but if you are doing it only for healthy eating reasons, I’m not sold. A lot of people who push vegans usually seem angry that people eat meat, not just to stay healthy.
I haven’t watched this yet but I wonder if they will mention that she smoked until into her 90s. I’m not recommending smoking but I do wonder if it had an impact of her and whether smoking for a century cut her life short. 2 out the 3 longest living people were smokers. The other two live until 117. The non-smoking said that she lived that long because she eat 3 eggs for breakfast from the time she was a teenager until her death. So i think a lot of being over 105 has to do with genetics more than the environment. For all those who die sooner then it was probably both genetic and environment.
Michael Rose is so exceedingly pompous and it doesn't help that he seems to delight in confounding people without providing them clarity shortly thereafter.
Plants have low incidences of cancer because the chloroplasts are designed to absorb photosynthetically active radiation for photosynthesis. The instances when they do get cancer results in small tumors because cancerous plant cells don't migrate around the plant body like they do in a human circulatory system. This is mostly structural rather than gene related. Plants also die very quickly and the outer layers of trees are dead tissues anyway
The primitive part of the brain, sometimes called the reptile brain or lizard brain, just wants to survive at any cost. It wants to live forever. The frontal cortex, which distinguishes our species, is hopefully wiser. Each of us needs a plan of life that includes some assumptions about life span. It's better to lead a good life than a long life.
If i take light exercise, drink water, take multi vits/minerals in plenty, eat little. How do i die? Is bacteria the problem? Old people to me look dried out, they need to hold more water and water soluble vitamins. I personally think as you age you need lots/very high doses of nutrients. Old people could be a sign of years of lack of nutrients, i think we need way more than we get from food.
bestintheworldmusic the DNA literally wears out though. telomeres shorten and can't replicate as well over time. you gotta stop that to fix aging or extend the life which means slowing the metabolic rate
I thinks genes count for a lot more than nutrition. Consider my grandfathers, two men so unlike each other as you can find. One man, a devout Catholic, no smoking, no drinking of alcohol, no parties, fasting on Lent, no meat on Fridays, lived a well ordered life, early to rise and early to bed; died at 82 of hearth attack, caused by complications of senile diabetes. The other, a priest-eater, a party animal, who would drink anything with alcohol on it, smoked like a chimney in winter, loved his meat (mostly pork), would prefer anything deep-fried over other types of food and never in his life would he eat a salad (food for rabbits, he called it), slept about four hours a night plus a one hour nap in the afternoon, worked hard raising his pigs early morming and late afternoon and then, to party and drink until the early hours of the morning every day; when he was young he was in an train accident, the steam locomotive half-baked one his legs and he suffered from his injury until the day he died, at 86 of a hearth attack. Don't smoke! Don't drink! Eat your veggies! And what? Die at 82 instead of 86? YMMV
Well...genetics is powerful. But other than that, you play the odds. And you think of quality of life. A lot of people in the priest-eater's category would succumb to anxiety or depression with a lifestyle like his, or be miserable. His genetics allowed him to live like he did without repercussions.
I think he needs to clarify his stats. Life expectancy did not double since 1990. I’m am sure 1990 life expectancy was not 40. However he might be counting Africa which did have a life expectancy of about 38 in a lot of the African countries due to HIV/AIDS. However, I find that using that year is unfair and misleading because prior to the AIDS epidemic, life expectancy in Africa was well above 38. So to use those years is a jerky kind of thing to do. He should have used the life expectancy from a year prior to the HIV/AIDS epidemic so we could actually see how we are doing. Or even better would have been to leave undeveloped countries out of the statistic all together or list them separately. If he had done that it would show that we have only gained a year or two. I find that very unprofessional to have done that.
Michael Rose seems like only one trying. The 2 on the left seem like quacks. Resveratrol I believe has shown not to work and calorie restriction might not work either. Rose is the only one correct and technology might be the reason people will live longer, it will take 40 years of training to finally have the skills to compete.
Calorie restriction has been shown to work in nematodes and mice. An attempt to try it in monkeys showed no change in lifespan. It's unknown if it will work in humans, but it's suspected it could have an effect on reducing the effects of diabetes. Resveratrol is believed to help in a few cases, but no long term studies have been attempted to show it's effect in the general population. What Rose is talking about is reducing the amount of carbohydrates you consume as you grow older and older. This means eating less sugar, white flour, and white rice after you reach a certain age (mid 30s), and getting your carbs almost entirely from fruits and vegetables. This has been shown to have numerous health effects, with about a century of evidence showing it works, and the better health is probably what leads to the longevity.
pirucreek Aubrey and SENS have already made demonstrable progress regarding atheroschlerosis by identifying a bacteria in the soil of graveyards that is capable of breaking down 7-keto cholesterol, and IIRC have identified the enzymes it uses. Now they're working on making it work in our cells.
Living to 120 (or longer) sounds exciting, but just imagine that this were to become a reality. If I'm not mistaken, this would make the world population double within a few decades. Deserts are expanding, and we only have 60 years of topsoil left. Any idea, where to put all these people and what to feed them?
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first get rid of all the diseases that are responsible for people suffering and dying before their time? They way things are going, we're not living longer, we're just dying longer. I would rather sacrifice a few years or my life and die in my sleep than depend on medication or other people to help me stay alive.
Why would you not want to use artificial brains if you want to push the age limit further and further? Wouldn't it mean that the operational costs to keep people alive after 120 are just simply too high? Why wouldn't you pursue a more efficient approach?
Thanks all, good discussion, but the issue today is "You cannot get to the Future Sick" ... so does not address current failures ... of governments and bad science ... 70 Going On 100 … the Centenarian Diet … maybe 70 Going On 128 … the Hayflick Limit … or if a fan of Ray Kurzweil … then this is all a Moot Point.
so people will continue to have offspring (births/ children) and everyone will live longer (imagine just till the age of 150 let alone 1000years)... does it take a MENSA member to see what can happen... with time we might really need another planet to house the inevitable... BTW, I'm no way near a MENSA member. I myself look forward to death - really curious to what happens after, or what doesn't - to live forever would be a real hell and damn scary...
carl green more about diet. you should only exercise as much as you need. remember your body will have to repair breakdowns after exercise. also knees and joints can be fragile
A single drug? No way, unfortunately. A single drug has no chance to revert all degenerative pathways in every cells and cell-types of human body. Several interventions of different kind perhaps could. We need AI of course.
Not your best work, to be honest. Very drawn out discussion on a pretty shallow topic to begin with. Was expecting something... "Radical" other than the guests (just kidding of course lol) . Looking forward to the next one.
I don’t know if I agree with his positivity that we should stay out of the sun unless we have sunscreen. Yes, we should protect from burns and damage but I honestly believe that we need sunlight on us. We make vitamin D that way. It’s been shown to help depression. We need the sun. I am not a scientist or a doctor so it’s my own personal opinion but I really think we need sunlight to function better. Again, I don’t think we should be in the sun so long that we are at risk of skin cancer but the warm sun feels so good. It’s also been researched that people who live in warmer climates live longer on average than those that live in the cold. It that a sign of the sun being needed? I think so. I just don’t think he should be saying that with such conviction when as far as I know that has not been what studies show. They do show lower incidents of skin cancer yes but that doesn’t mean we live longer without sun. That just means that for the people who get skin cancer and speaks for nobody else. That’s the 2nd thing he said that was out there and I am only at 5 minutes. The other thing was about the life expectancy in 1990. He was way off there. Read my other comment about it if you want.
Animal clinical study results are not usually very applicable to human conditions, so don't assume it works just because it works in mice. Resveratrol is not very bio available, so you are probably wasting your money if you buy it. There are some more recent formulations that add quertecin which apparently increases bio availability, but do some research.
Daniel Almeida Short-lived species like mice seem to have considerably more plastic lifespans compared to humans and elephants and such. The same intervention in mice and humans may activate the same processes, but have a _much_ larger effect in a mouse.
I'd love to know how old each of these people are in this video. The host, Bill Ritter, is the best looking and he is 65. I'll have what he's having. The rest of them don't look so good.
Michael Rose's earliest scientific article, according to Google Scholar, was published in 1977. A very young age for a first publication would be 20 yrs old, so at the youngest I would guess him to be 58 at the time of the talk. Judith Campisi's earliest was 1976, so by the same method of estimation - possibly as young as 59 yrs old. Aubrey de Grey was 52 at the time of the talk and Leonard Guarente was 63, according to Wikipedia. Based on Rose's appearance alone, I may have to re-evaluate my opinion of the paleo diet.
If you are not donating to a medical research field, you're making a tactical error. The charity dollar funds a very different type of research than the government or corporate dollar Maybe you or your loved ones will never need a medical intervention that is better than our current best. Unlikely
Good panel - minus the dodgy Michael guy.. Every time they ask him anything its circles then the book push like its a freaking infomercial... You can get it just by getting the book 0.o very unprofessional in a panel like this. Id say his stuff is just out there; which can be good and therefore worth listening to as even Aubrey said he has. But he spits any real respect every time he dodges then counters with the book...buy it. Taking on Aubrey is just suicide lol, Guys the real deal.
First of all, the book is free. Secondly, it is highly maths intensive. So, saying it on the stage would just complicate things. Thirdly, he has time and again, proved that the classic gerontology is misplaced and inaccurate.
you want to live long-because you have never LIVED. you think you're living but you're not. You always think about your past and future. If you have tasted life for one second, that is enough.
Hung Pham It's easy to live in the moment when you ignore the harsh truths of reality. Try living in the moment with a bomb strapped to your chest with a 5 minute timer, not so easy then. Now imagine aging as a bomb with an 80 year timer. It's a sense of priority. Not everyone get satisfaction out of life by simply living "in the moment." We've gotten this far because of those not satisfied with the way things are; those with the unignorable drive to make a difference.
It isn’t how long you live, surely the focus should be on the quality of your life. I cannot think of anything more horrid than dementia or being eaten away by a disease.
Please Satan,do NOT make me ,or my family,or ethnicity,or countrymen live to the age of 122 years!!!Please!!Nothing would be worse than living through all that time and Politics and world changing events What did we deserve to receive such a long life sentence??PLEASE DO NOT !!Do not torture us with your long life ''Devil's advocates''
@@kooshikoo6442 Is he the moderator? Yeah that dude is fucking clueless. He does not seem to understand the most basic of things the people are talking about and it just leaves them with their jaw on the floor as they explain something to him then he responds with something completely off the wall and missing the point.
Why would I want to exist for a long time? I have depression, and life is full of suffering because of that. Sometimes it goes away, but then returns. It is unbearable to think that I have to go through it for many more decades
it's subjective. i hope u can deal with the depression sooner or later. the other side of depression isnt fun or joy..but activity and being in motion. i love life even though iam depressed some times a year. try magic mushrooms or lsd ;)
An hour and a half of people not agreeing about broad generalized pontifications. So little actual science and information was conveyed here. Disappointing.
Excuse me, but why was Rasputin on this panel? I went back and forth through the video and kept trying to answer wtf is he adding...other than wild ass theory that 'predicts break through s' by 'molecular' additions to metabolism . Every thing I found other than blood shot eyes and a lisp was just defending his unstated opinion (really) by dissing everyone else. other than some aspects specific to aging what has he accomplished. yeah yeah he's in charge of SENS foundation cause he essentially bought it...but where are his results against aging? It seemed more like his 'real'' agenda was one of strategy to try and persuade possible financial donors to look away from these other avenues of research. I also think he should have worn a clean shirt...yep and his stance seems to be 'there are no social implications here" A big mistake by most of this panel is the fucking world population, given no great disaster, will keep growing...always has and there is NO end of that in sight.
You're an idiot. Aubrey founded SENS and their pioneering work has now been spun into multiple cutting edge companies with real cures for diseases of aging, all of that done with a pitifully tiny research budget.
Holo VerseHD most of these talks are ignoring Ai. And I don’t think that is wrong, because what if Ai isn’t as successful as many are thinking. It will still be up to us humans to find these new strategies.
Science is unpredictable? Really? Isn’t science all about creating experiments that lead to models with predictive capability? You can’t project out 25 years as a scientist? Yes you can. You might not be 100% correct, but you can predict. Also.. Einsteinian physics didn’t replace Newtonian physics. It was just a deeper understanding of an already working model. Newtonian physics still works on the macro scale.
The idea that we are machines represents everything that is wrong with health science today. The idea that returning to a evolutionary history in terms of lifestyle moves us forward to health.
This is a facts. My great grand mother had her last child at 69, my grand mother had her last at 60, and they both lived past 100 alone without secondary care, my grandmother still living and takes care of herself...
When was her first child?
Age is far different from what it used to be. People who stereotype others based on age are 20 years behind in their thinking. Many 18 yr olds are CEOs of their own companies. Many people in their 80s & 90s are running in their first marathons.
This is true I remember 40 being old. But I looked at my mother one day she was standing in the yard one afternoon after work she had on a yellow dress. And my thought was wow look at my mom at age 40 she looks so good. She is now 75. And she has a fun loving spirit. And I now at 54 we are both suffering with extremely severe arthritis so there are many days that we feel elderly. But we just say it the disease and maybe tomorrow will be better.We both feel young in spirit. We eat well. Mother better than I. I switched to organic food a year ago. My husband lost 40 pounds. I gained do to the medication I have to take. And I don’t eat much, just don’t have an appetite. I look bad because of my condition so I do not take photos. But as far as my spirt I feel happy and excited about life. Mother taught me that. We can’t change our disease but we have a choice to be happy today and look forward to tomorrow. I am not afraid of death it is part of life. Of corse I don’t want to die and leave my family but I feel it should not be feared. I just today had a funeral for a friend age 57 heart disease. And I felt that her life should be celebrated and not all the horrible sadness. Anything in medicine fascinates me. Enjoyed this discussion.
SENS are on the right track.
Trent Hogan If you aren't aware, their MitoSENS project is being crowdfunded at lifespan.io
I think this type of research will snowball when years can be added, and people can see it adding more years than seems “normal”. I think once that break through happens, you will see a lot more press, money, new researchers, and accomplishments from that happening.
I think it make a lot of sense to learn why a sea creature not aging?
That is fundamental like math to all sciences.
I wonder if Dr. Gregor has watched this. Would he not be shaking his head that these scientists don't seem to be familiar with a multitude of studies showing that we DO know how to prevent and sometimes fix some of these insurmountable problems they talk about (cancers, Alzheimer's disease...)?
Though they may disagree, I appreciate all of them working on the same goal.
This is one of the best panel discussions I've seen in years. Completely astonishing ideas.
10:40 "We already postponed aging." Eh, absolutely no. She's talking about AVERAGE lifespan, which was increased drastically thanks to eradication of deadly diseases and fairly abundant food supply. But MAXIMUM lifespan? That remains pretty much unchanged since ancient times (a bit over 100 years.) When I was a teenager (around mid-80s) I remember watching a conversation among a bunch of experts on TV saying that by 2010 the oldest people will be living at least, AT LEAST 140 years (or around 20% longer than the then oldest people.) I mean, they were emphasizing THAT WAS A GIVEN!!! Boy they were wrong. Big big time.
CUMBICA1970 Well, they also knew a lot less about the biology and demographics of aging 30 years ago. I think she is right to some extent, especially as it pertains to an entire population. For instance, prior to the ~mid- 20th Century old people of the lower classes were often prematurely aged by early childhood diseases and nutrition, which are known to accelerate the process by which our bodies wear out. Add to that a lifetime of incessant physical work in all weather, smoking and drinking, chronic diseases that we could do nothing about, recurrent illness, etc. and you got people in peasant populations or in the slums of the Industrial Revolution who were old and used up by 50.
These people might still live into their 60s or 70s, but they certainly weren't functioning as well as they are now. The book "The Longevity Dividend" argues that the greatly increased vigour of people in their middle decades was one of the factors in the huge economic growth of the 20th Century.
My parents have said the same thing - when they were younger, 50 was considered *old*. Tons of people smoked; it was just what you did. There were no gyms in today's sense. Lifting weights was something weirdos in California did. If you got injured playing a sport your sporting career was probably over. You can even pick up clues from quite recently. A guy I know in his 50s had to stop running in 1993 because his shins locked up and there was no physio yet! Another guy in his 60s was a mason and had back surgery when he was 32, then retired at 51 due to arthritis. Ergonomics wasn't as big of an issue in the 80s, I guess.
Does this mean there weren't vigorous older people in previous centuries? Of course not! Nothing beats good genes, and if you were from a higher social class you avoided a lot of those problems (although you still had the exposure to childhood diseases).
What I did not appreciate so much in this interview was the presumption of the evolutionary biologist (Dr. Micheal Rose) that he thinks his fellow molecular biologists are wrong about the Foundation of aging. I believe that Mr. Rose is bringing very important information on understanding aging, especially the way he puts in in relation to evolution, but non the less he over did it (almost like a pun to his colleagues that was misplaced for the audience).That caused a palpable tension, which is sad because he brings interesting hypothesis on the board that can complement other theories and solutions about aging. I feel he sees conflict were there is not, instead those approaches should be complementary until we finally discover a panacea to stop aging. (At the end he tries to repent in a way in his last minute and a half statement, but still he was way to cocky during the interview always promoting his science methods over others. What he seems to be promoting is a change in lifestyle and environment that right away resembles things already tried before but with a new twist. Will that new twist be enough? I will read about it tough. When it applies to human lets talk again about real experiences of his theories in 25 years or so. I will then be 67 years old, if life blesses me with this longevity. )
My guess is that chances are we find a way to mimic species that don't age, at least in the short term util we fully understand the human genome intricacies. Like Dr. Leonard P. Guarente suggested. Put it in other words, if you want success it is good to study success stories.
+François Morin Yes well said, many theories can be utilized even though some might be incorrect in light of others .... the most "advanced" current theories are probably still incorrect in light of future theories . But they are still valuable.
So interesting. I enjoy scientists that go out to share their results. I dream of a Planet were everybody is respected no matter their career or work. Scientist could not eat without farmers, athletes could not eat well either without farmers. Athletes could not have good food supplement without scientist in biology and nutrition, kids and teenagers would not have cool video games without engineers in electricity and computer science, people would not be as healthy without medical science, people might not be as wise without the experience of ethics and philosophy of life, we need politicians and diplomats to attend to public relations and economists and entrepreneurs to promote our economy and peoples life would not have music to enjoy without musicians so fort! You get my point! We should all respect each other and help each other in our fields of life specialty. As people will live longer and be more educated, the janitor, the farmer will be able to have interesting discussions with the teachers etc. A person living 120 or 180 could change fields of work or study within a life span. By listening to what each expert of each field life work and studies have to say, we can get new ideas, cooperate and feel useful. This is my take on life when it comes to society.
yes contact Jehovah's witnesses they have the secret to living forever
Aubrey says "repair and maintenance strategy" offers the most immediate promise for controlling aging. Intermittent fasting. That naturally sets the body up for self repair after the fast. There you go...intermittent fasting and a healthy, whole foods diet, low protein, either high fat or high carb is probably the best we can do without artificial interventions. And Mediterranean, once again, looks like the best middle ground.
how should and elite athlete eat? what, how many times per day etc?
Raw Decathlete
I would experiment with training on an empty stomach. Find out what you can do. It may take some transition (a few days or, if you're really glucose adapted, a couple of weeks). The body is, in fact, designed to function really well without food. It's a survival mechanism. If we couldn't catch food and search for food on an empty stomach, the human species wouldn't be here. It's that simple.
Now, I see you're likely eating raw food predominantly. I don't recommend this. I would definitely play around with getting more fat in the diet, at the very least, from nuts and coconut oil. If you don't care about animal product, dairy and beef fat.
You need to train your body, your cells, the mitochondria, to burn fat rather than glucose. This is what will really power your endurance.
I eat lots of eggs( raw and cooked), meat(raw and cooked), raw milk and kefir, cheese, raw and cooked(in soup) veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, coconut oil and olive oil, spices, lots of sea salt.
iam actually a power-speed athlete, I train for the decathlon. In training i do lots of short sprints(30 to 300m), throws, jumps, intense weight lifting.
I talked to olympic decathletes and they told me they eat shit loads of carbs, e.g. 10g/kg/day at least. That means if you have 80kgs you will eat 800g of carbs per day. Lots of protein as well to help repair the body from long 4- 6 hours daily extreme workouts.
Why you dont recommend raw foods? You mean no raw food at all like fermented veggies or raw fruits and veggies, eggs?
@Raw Decathlete
I'd also like to point out there appears to be conflict between what works for elite athletic performance and what works for long-term health and longevity. But there are commonalities as well.
The conflict is in the amount of calories that need to be consumed. The commonality is in the high intensity interval training. The latter optimizes mitochondrial function which contributes to youth and longevity.
The issue of the performance driven athlete is volume of training. High volume generates athletic performance in the immediate future but likely compromises the potential for longevity through tissue wear and tear, damage, and mitochondrial stress.
joe schmo how should vegetables, meat and eggs cooked/prepared for optimal digestion/ absorption ?
Do you think a 16:8 intermittent fasting would be ok for an athlete for performance and longevity/heath?
I would eat my first meal at 7:30 AM,
workout from 10 to 1- 2 PM,
second meal right after workout at 1 or 2 PM
Last meal at 3 PM
Although I think It would be extremely difficult for me to ingest 5000- 8000 calories in 3 meals which are close to each other..... Maybe a 12:12 or 10:14 IF version would work better?
The idea of living past a "normal age" gets some people really upset. Research does not quit though, every day scientists learn more. Interesting how so many are against a therapy or drug until their peers are taking it, then suddenly they are for it, and take it themselves. Just Weird!
Longevity is about health. You reach longevity only by preserving a youthful health.
That's of course what Aubrey de Grey says.
I can not believe these guys, at the 18:50 mark . " Can we get a drug to do what intermittent fasting or calorie restriction can do. " Just don't eat as much would seem logical. They answered there own question but they can't accept it because it dose not involve a drug they can sell.
Try this "Just dont eat as much" for few years and tell us how good you felt. This is pretty low cal diet.
Intermittent fasting is definitely a thing that people do and see significant health benefits from. However the caloric restriction experiments would be brutal for a human to endure because of the extremity.
The longer one lives, the more time one has to contemplate the important questions... the greater chance the species has to “evolve” and become better.
"better" in terms of what?
It's shocking to me that academics like Michael Rose can be so disrespectful (read: condescending) to fellow researchers without even realizing he's ruined an entire discussion. What a blinding degree of grandiosity and entitlement, this was the only WSF program I couldn't continue
The MitoSENS project is being crowd-funded at lifespan.io
Almost lost me at 4:51 "... don't eat fatty foods." !!!???
I love how competitive these guys are. Who knew genetics was such a wolf pit.
Resveratrol did not work in humans. Caloric restriction function is actually protein restriction but harms those on high carb low protein low fat diets. To maximize lifespan eat starchy staple foods and avoid meat, oil, dairy, fish plus eat vegetables and some fruit.
Truth. Well said
The world's oldest person 116yrs has eaten 3 eggs a day for the last 100yrs
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/the-secret-to-longevity-is-eating-two-raw-eggs-a-day-says-newly/
The previous oldest living perspn had eggs n bacon every morning
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/susannah-mushatt-jones-worlds-oldest-person-says-that-she-eats-bacon-every-day-a6709751.html
a previous oldest living person www.independent.co.uk/news/people/worlds-oldest-person-misao-okawa-revealed-the-secret-to-her-long-life-before-she-passed-away-10151034.html
diet included: ramen noodles and beef stew, as well as hashed beef and rice mackerel sushi.
Idiotic advice. No "nutrition" will make you live to be 500, or keep you as vital as a 25 year old when you're 100. Only new technology and medicine at the cellular level will do that, if it were possible with food obviously SOMEONE would be 120 years old and jumping around like they're 18... since there isn't, clearly your idea is completely wrong.
I'm extremely excited! The oldest person ever was 122 years old. I would be at that age in 2112! I'm a vegan, drink and smoke very rarely, excercise rather often. Isn't it possible?!
If the Vegan diet is good for *you.*
Could be.
I’m not sold on the vegan diet. I can understand if you choose not to eat animals, but if you are doing it only for healthy eating reasons, I’m not sold. A lot of people who push vegans usually seem angry that people eat meat, not just to stay healthy.
I haven’t watched this yet but I wonder if they will mention that she smoked until into her 90s. I’m not recommending smoking but I do wonder if it had an impact of her and whether smoking for a century cut her life short. 2 out the 3 longest living people were smokers. The other two live until 117. The non-smoking said that she lived that long because she eat 3 eggs for breakfast from the time she was a teenager until her death. So i think a lot of being over 105 has to do with genetics more than the environment. For all those who die sooner then it was probably both genetic and environment.
Michael Rose is so exceedingly pompous and it doesn't help that he seems to delight in confounding people without providing them clarity shortly thereafter.
After a slow start it got slower
Only the people who are well versed with maths can appreciate Michael Rose.
I just love Aubrey de Grey! "OH Screw the species!"
Not extremely optimistic about it, but it would be great if he was right.
The species ahahhahah. Which minute? Species has no emotions, people have.
Thanks for an awesome and insightful discussion.
Awesome….loved it!
i wonder if the walls of cellulose that plants have prevent mutation. or is it b/c they have more genes than we do and therefore more redundancy.
Plants have low incidences of cancer because the chloroplasts are designed to absorb photosynthetically active radiation for photosynthesis. The instances when they do get cancer results in small tumors because cancerous plant cells don't migrate around the plant body like they do in a human circulatory system. This is mostly structural rather than gene related. Plants also die very quickly and the outer layers of trees are dead tissues anyway
Please invent something fast! I'm starting to get a bit old!
Don't you take herbs ?
It's possible to live upto even 1k. Yes. It's in genesis.
The primitive part of the brain, sometimes called the reptile brain or lizard brain, just wants to survive at any cost. It wants to live forever.
The frontal cortex, which distinguishes our species, is hopefully wiser. Each of us needs a plan of life that includes some assumptions about life span. It's better to lead a good life than a long life.
Frank Manning What if you could live both though?
Senescence is built in and would be an incredibly complex mechanism to alter.
Aubrey is here. This is gonna be good. :)
We do live forever !
If i take light exercise, drink water, take multi vits/minerals in plenty, eat little. How do i die? Is bacteria the problem? Old people to me look dried out, they need to hold more water and water soluble vitamins. I personally think as you age you need lots/very high doses of nutrients. Old people could be a sign of years of lack of nutrients, i think we need way more than we get from food.
bestintheworldmusic the DNA literally wears out though. telomeres shorten and can't replicate as well over time. you gotta stop that to fix aging or extend the life which means slowing the metabolic rate
I thinks genes count for a lot more than nutrition. Consider my grandfathers, two men so unlike each other as you can find.
One man, a devout Catholic, no smoking, no drinking of alcohol, no parties, fasting on Lent, no meat on Fridays, lived a well ordered life, early to rise and early to bed; died at 82 of hearth attack, caused by complications of senile diabetes.
The other, a priest-eater, a party animal, who would drink anything with alcohol on it, smoked like a chimney in winter, loved his meat (mostly pork), would prefer anything deep-fried over other types of food and never in his life would he eat a salad (food for rabbits, he called it), slept about four hours a night plus a one hour nap in the afternoon, worked hard raising his pigs early morming and late afternoon and then, to party and drink until the early hours of the morning every day; when he was young he was in an train accident, the steam locomotive half-baked one his legs and he suffered from his injury until the day he died, at 86 of a hearth attack.
Don't smoke! Don't drink! Eat your veggies! And what? Die at 82 instead of 86?
YMMV
No. You look at it the wrong way. If the "priest-eater" lived as "priest" he might as well live in his hundreds.
Well...genetics is powerful. But other than that, you play the odds. And you think of quality of life. A lot of people in the priest-eater's category would succumb to anxiety or depression with a lifestyle like his, or be miserable. His genetics allowed him to live like he did without repercussions.
I think he needs to clarify his stats. Life expectancy did not double since 1990. I’m am sure 1990 life expectancy was not 40. However he might be counting Africa which did have a life expectancy of about 38 in a lot of the African countries due to HIV/AIDS. However, I find that using that year is unfair and misleading because prior to the AIDS epidemic, life expectancy in Africa was well above 38. So to use those years is a jerky kind of thing to do. He should have used the life expectancy from a year prior to the HIV/AIDS epidemic so we could actually see how we are doing. Or even better would have been to leave undeveloped countries out of the statistic all together or list them separately. If he had done that it would show that we have only gained a year or two. I find that very unprofessional to have done that.
You think he maybe meant 1900?
Michael Rose seems like only one trying. The 2 on the left seem like quacks. Resveratrol I believe has shown not to work and calorie restriction might not work either. Rose is the only one correct and technology might be the reason people will live longer, it will take 40 years of training to finally have the skills to compete.
Calorie restriction has been shown to work in nematodes and mice. An attempt to try it in monkeys showed no change in lifespan. It's unknown if it will work in humans, but it's suspected it could have an effect on reducing the effects of diabetes.
Resveratrol is believed to help in a few cases, but no long term studies have been attempted to show it's effect in the general population.
What Rose is talking about is reducing the amount of carbohydrates you consume as you grow older and older. This means eating less sugar, white flour, and white rice after you reach a certain age (mid 30s), and getting your carbs almost entirely from fruits and vegetables. This has been shown to have numerous health effects, with about a century of evidence showing it works, and the better health is probably what leads to the longevity.
pirucreek Aubrey and SENS have already made demonstrable progress regarding atheroschlerosis by identifying a bacteria in the soil of graveyards that is capable of breaking down 7-keto cholesterol, and IIRC have identified the enzymes it uses. Now they're working on making it work in our cells.
@@M0B1US z
Aging is built into the fabric of life. death is also inescapable. 1 or 1000 years is just relative.
Living to 120 (or longer) sounds exciting, but just imagine that this were to become a reality. If I'm not mistaken, this would make the world population double within a few decades. Deserts are expanding, and we only have 60 years of topsoil left. Any idea, where to put all these people and what to feed them?
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to first get rid of all the diseases that are responsible for people suffering and dying before their time? They way things are going, we're not living longer, we're just dying longer. I would rather sacrifice a few years or my life and die in my sleep than depend on medication or other people to help me stay alive.
@@AnimaLibera My Nan is 98 and independent so it’s not always the case.
Why would you not want to use artificial brains if you want to push the age limit further and further? Wouldn't it mean that the operational costs to keep people alive after 120 are just simply too high? Why wouldn't you pursue a more efficient approach?
So a 100 year old has the same chance of dying as a 105 year old. But aren't those 105 year olds slower agers in the first place?
Thanks all, good discussion, but the issue today is "You cannot get to the Future Sick" ... so does not address current failures ... of governments and bad science ...
70 Going On 100 … the Centenarian Diet … maybe 70 Going On 128 … the Hayflick Limit … or if a fan of Ray Kurzweil … then this is all a Moot Point.
so people will continue to have offspring (births/ children) and everyone will live longer (imagine just till the age of 150 let alone 1000years)... does it take a MENSA member to see what can happen... with time we might really need another planet to house the inevitable... BTW, I'm no way near a MENSA member. I myself look forward to death - really curious to what happens after, or what doesn't - to live forever would be a real hell and damn scary...
very excellent.
Tethloach1 Amine is boring
Adam Chester you spelled it wrong lol, figures.
Adam Chester AMINALZZZZZ
Will exercise prolong life?, i.m always doing cardio fat burning training....i.m very active....
So will i live a longer than average life?.....
carl green more about diet. you should only exercise as much as you need. remember your body will have to repair breakdowns after exercise. also knees and joints can be fragile
Let us rise to the occasion quickly..
Before we all parish..
18:40. Check this out. Q; 'Can we get a drug to do this". A:" YES! that's the whole point".
A single drug? No way, unfortunately. A single drug has no chance to revert all degenerative pathways in every cells and cell-types of human body. Several interventions of different kind perhaps could. We need AI of course.
“50 is no longer old”
Crowd: 👀👀🙄🤔🤔🧐😂
No closed caption so can add one.
Not your best work, to be honest. Very drawn out discussion on a pretty shallow topic to begin with. Was expecting something... "Radical" other than the guests (just kidding of course lol) . Looking forward to the next one.
i wonder if ageing has anything to do with a resource pool of amino acids
Whats the name of Michael Rose book again
I don’t know if I agree with his positivity that we should stay out of the sun unless we have sunscreen. Yes, we should protect from burns and damage but I honestly believe that we need sunlight on us. We make vitamin D that way. It’s been shown to help depression. We need the sun. I am not a scientist or a doctor so it’s my own personal opinion but I really think we need sunlight to function better. Again, I don’t think we should be in the sun so long that we are at risk of skin cancer but the warm sun feels so good. It’s also been researched that people who live in warmer climates live longer on average than those that live in the cold. It that a sign of the sun being needed? I think so. I just don’t think he should be saying that with such conviction when as far as I know that has not been what studies show. They do show lower incidents of skin cancer yes but that doesn’t mean we live longer without sun. That just means that for the people who get skin cancer and speaks for nobody else. That’s the 2nd thing he said that was out there and I am only at 5 minutes. The other thing was about the life expectancy in 1990. He was way off there. Read my other comment about it if you want.
great moderator for once!
Animal clinical study results are not usually very applicable to human conditions, so don't assume it works just because it works in mice. Resveratrol is not very bio available, so you are probably wasting your money if you buy it. There are some more recent formulations that add quertecin which apparently increases bio availability, but do some research.
the thing is mice are very anatomically similar to humans. this is why we test on them.
Daniel Almeida Short-lived species like mice seem to have considerably more plastic lifespans compared to humans and elephants and such. The same intervention in mice and humans may activate the same processes, but have a _much_ larger effect in a mouse.
Christopher Carr That I can agree with.
Great discussion!
I'd love to know how old each of these people are in this video. The host, Bill Ritter, is the best looking and he is 65. I'll have what he's having. The rest of them don't look so good.
Michael Rose's earliest scientific article, according to Google Scholar, was published in 1977. A very young age for a first publication would be 20 yrs old, so at the youngest I would guess him to be 58 at the time of the talk. Judith Campisi's earliest was 1976, so by the same method of estimation - possibly as young as 59 yrs old.
Aubrey de Grey was 52 at the time of the talk and Leonard Guarente was 63, according to Wikipedia.
Based on Rose's appearance alone, I may have to re-evaluate my opinion of the paleo diet.
If you are not donating to a medical research field, you're making a tactical error. The charity dollar funds a very different type of research than the government or corporate dollar
Maybe you or your loved ones will never need a medical intervention that is better than our current best. Unlikely
There's so much money in cancer research instead of researching aging she's researching cancer please don't give her our money.
You know the moderator is not science educated when you have to give him an evolution lecture in the middle of the conversation.
Good panel - minus the dodgy Michael guy.. Every time they ask him anything its circles then the book push like its a freaking infomercial... You can get it just by getting the book 0.o very unprofessional in a panel like this. Id say his stuff is just out there; which can be good and therefore worth listening to as even Aubrey said he has. But he spits any real respect every time he dodges then counters with the book...buy it.
Taking on Aubrey is just suicide lol, Guys the real deal.
First of all, the book is free.
Secondly, it is highly maths intensive. So, saying it on the stage would just complicate things.
Thirdly, he has time and again, proved that the classic gerontology is misplaced and inaccurate.
what is the name of the substance in red-wine?
attractor9 resveretol
thanks.
Resveratrol 🐞
you want to live long-because you have never LIVED. you think you're living but you're not. You always think about your past and future. If you have tasted life for one second, that is enough.
Hung Pham It's easy to live in the moment when you ignore the harsh truths of reality. Try living in the moment with a bomb strapped to your chest with a 5 minute timer, not so easy then. Now imagine aging as a bomb with an 80 year timer. It's a sense of priority. Not everyone get satisfaction out of life by simply living "in the moment." We've gotten this far because of those not satisfied with the way things are; those with the unignorable drive to make a difference.
It isn’t how long you live, surely the focus should be on the quality of your life. I cannot think of anything more horrid than dementia or being eaten away by a disease.
How did that lady got a seat here? Heard the comment she made on Colon Cancer on the two male scientists? thank God she left early....
Thanks
Please Satan,do NOT make me ,or my family,or ethnicity,or countrymen live to the age of 122 years!!!Please!!Nothing would be worse than living through all that time and Politics and world changing events What did we deserve to receive such a long life sentence??PLEASE DO NOT !!Do not torture us with your long life ''Devil's advocates''
The scientists are having none of his shit lol
Whose shit?Michael Rose? because he is full of shit.
@@kooshikoo6442 Is he the moderator? Yeah that dude is fucking clueless. He does not seem to understand the most basic of things the people are talking about and it just leaves them with their jaw on the floor as they explain something to him then he responds with something completely off the wall and missing the point.
and the immortal will still wonder about their origins of creation.
How the fuck has the life expectancy doubled since 1990?
Why would I want to exist for a long time? I have depression, and life is full of suffering because of that. Sometimes it goes away, but then returns. It is unbearable to think that I have to go through it for many more decades
Lookup "Nutrient Power" by William Walsh. Quick, straight-forward read. No one is going to help you with the exception of you.
a
it's subjective. i hope u can deal with the depression sooner or later. the other side of depression isnt fun or joy..but activity and being in motion. i love life even though iam depressed some times a year. try magic mushrooms or lsd ;)
An hour and a half of people not agreeing about broad generalized pontifications. So little actual science and information was conveyed here. Disappointing.
Avoid beef and apply sunscreen? Hmmm
Longevity, a radicalLY OLD science, if you look to the Orient.
ua-cam.com/video/DJLE5J4nLDA/v-deo.htmlm6s
51:10
"Yeah, I believe in Galileo" That's how to answer. LOL
Excuse me, but why was Rasputin on this panel? I went back and forth through the video and kept trying to answer wtf is he adding...other than wild ass theory that 'predicts break through s' by 'molecular' additions to metabolism . Every thing I found other than blood shot eyes and a lisp was just defending his unstated opinion (really) by dissing everyone else. other than some aspects specific to aging what has he accomplished. yeah yeah he's in charge of SENS foundation cause he essentially bought it...but where are his results against aging? It seemed more like his 'real'' agenda was one of strategy to try and persuade possible financial donors to look away from these other avenues of research. I also think he should have worn a clean shirt...yep and his stance seems to be 'there are no social implications here"
A big mistake by most of this panel is the fucking world population, given no great disaster, will keep growing...always has and there is NO end of that in sight.
You're an idiot. Aubrey founded SENS and their pioneering work has now been spun into multiple cutting edge companies with real cures for diseases of aging, all of that done with a pitifully tiny research budget.
in 30yrs we are going to have bloodcell sized supercomputers and the benefits of AI etc. why wouldnt we be able to do what Aubry is talking about.
Holo VerseHD most of these talks are ignoring Ai. And I don’t think that is wrong, because what if Ai isn’t as successful as many are thinking. It will still be up to us humans to find these new strategies.
The answer they’re all looking for is hidden in plain sight fasting
Less fat NO we need fat our bodies work more efficiently on fat.Our brains work better on fat.The host is behind the times.
Science is unpredictable? Really? Isn’t science all about creating experiments that lead to models with predictive capability? You can’t project out 25 years as a scientist? Yes you can. You might not be 100% correct, but you can predict. Also.. Einsteinian physics didn’t replace Newtonian physics. It was just a deeper understanding of an already working model. Newtonian physics still works on the macro scale.
Perhaps this is a bit far from the core of this conversation, but I wish to hear at least a small input from a transhumanist.
Two peope who have definately stopped aging.:CHER AND DOLLY PARTON.BUT NOT THAT REALLY OLD FRENCH BABE.
That dude is definitely a reformed Canadian lol! Sooo many mores subtly violated :p
Great job WSF
I only eat fatty meat and never use sunscreen
Stem cells are not cancerous lady.
what the host and these scientists don't know is that we're never born or die, just like the energy is neither created or destroyed.
Hung Pham nope
Hung Pham Not destroyed, just deconstructed, and therefore cease to exist.
The idea that we are machines represents everything that is wrong with health science today. The idea that returning to a evolutionary history in terms of lifestyle moves us forward to health.
Watch the movie 🎥 In Time.
Sunscreen ???
Michael Rose pissed off Aubrey the showman !
What?
They lost me at no fat.
That really old french babe looks exactly like celine dion.
"A recovering Canadian" LOL....
SARXKYN KETOSIS CURES ALL DISEASES
Seen on 15/6/19