Hey Bill, I'm sure you'll find this interesting:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&e=4&u=/nm/20050505/sc_nm/science_lifespan_dc

I wasn't expecting this study so soon, altho there has been speculation for some time that antioxidant genes are what make humans live longer than mice and other shorter-live animals. This is also the theory behind why green tea is so good for heart health and cuts cancer risk so much.

I think we will probably live to see human-designed antioxidant longevity gene therapy. This could push human longevity out to 140 years, maybe even 200.

"Mice genetically engineered to produce a human antioxidant enzyme lived longer than normal mice, which U.S. scientists on Thursday cited as evidence that antioxidants can counteract the effects of aging and disease

The mice that made more catalase in the mitochondria lived about 20 percent longer -- about five months. The mice with more catalase levels in the nucleus and cytoplasm lived only a little longer than normal mice."

Interesting.

anti-oxidation will be part of an anti-aging gene therapy strategy, but I think the other primary focus will be changing insulin function and turning on the genes that produce repair chemicals. Probably all of the above.

I think the free radical theory of aging is a very incomplete picture of the process that is often overstated. (but still a big deal, obviously)

Exciting stuff, isn't it?

As far as this:

I think we will probably live to see human-designed antioxidant longevity gene therapy. This could push human longevity out to 140 years, maybe even 200.

What, you're in your thirties? OF COURSE we will! You'll certainly see an anti-aging pill within the next 10 years or so (centering around reservatol), and there's a pretty damn good chance we'll live to see nanotechnology repairing our DNA within the next 50 years, too.

Unless you get hit by a bus, that is.

Hehe, my LEF mix does have resveratol extracts. I've heard rumors of actual drugs, i.e. designer moleculers based on the chemical structure, coming into testing phase soon. That will be interesting.

There is certainly some interesting work being done regarding insulin pathways. I recommend "Protein Power" if you haven't read it already; they talk about some interesting studies, some dating as far back as the 1930s.

I think we'll eventually discover its far more effective to design genes to produce antioxidants endogenously rather than take them orally. It's pretty hard to think of a delivery mechanism that would reliably deliver antioxidants to the intracellular mitochondria.

I have to say, I am very skeptical about the viability of in vivo nanotech. You've probably heard of AbioMed (I might be a little off on the name), the new artificial heart. Most people don't know (I didn't until I read it last year) that the first Jarvik artificial heart was a total failure; they found even the sickest would have lived longer without it. They had to overcome some pretty hefty materials science challenges to create something with the properties necessary to allow a relatively simple machine to function within a human body. I don't think we're within 100 years of solving the challenges necessary to create in vivo micro-machines that would do more good than harm. I'll hope I'm wrong of course, but with all the issues of manufacture, toxicity, disposal, and immune system rejection, the only viable use I see for them in our lifetimes is as a plot device in science fiction stories. I do agree the long-term possibilities are very exciting.

Or maybe I just read too many Frank Herbert novels growing up. I'm probably overly prejudiced in favor of the idea of designer organisms over micro-machinery.

You oughta check out JC's version of "Personal Jesus", also.

They had to overcome some pretty hefty materials science challenges to create something with the properties necessary to allow a relatively simple machine to function within a human body. I don't think we're within 100 years of solving the challenges necessary to create in vivo micro-machines that would do more good than harm.

Some micro-machinery will BE "designer organisms." Not all nanotech will be tiny metal robots - for example, think of a nano repair organism that uses natural materials for a motor and casing. Gene therapy is about altering the structure and function of DNA, whereas nanotech is such a sweeping definition, it will even include the design of organisms that actually deliver the gene therapies to the right entry spot.

The argument that Kurzweil and Grossman's book makes is that biological advances will be a bridge to a lifespan long enough to see the real good stuff. So you might live the 100 and one years necessary to see the fruition of what we're talking about. But frankly, the exponentially increasing pace of technological/medical innovation makes another 100 years the equivalent of a millenium, in terms of knowledge/advancement, so i think we'll see that effective nanotech sooner than you think.

Most interesting comments here. Politically speaking, these gene and designer anti-oxidant and non-free radical therapies and protocals must be established soon. At some point, Social Security benefits will not be granted until the age of 103, and that decision will probably be made within the next three years.

I'm with the guy above: I do the LEF mix thing too, in addition to CoQ10, grape seed extract, licopine,DHEA, Melatonin, and fish oil capsules.

Bottom line, for the life of me. I haven't a clue why I take all this stuff. No one is employable above the age of 28 anymore.

The country is being run by children. Especially the older ones in arrested development on Capitol Hill.

Why stay around any longer than we have to under such dire conditions, huh?

Why stay around any longer than we have to under such dire conditions, huh?

You have to stop the narrow worries and think big picture - all that lifespan - amassing all that wealth with sound investments and compound interest - we'll build our own damn country!

Good points Bill. I have that book in the mail, btw.

I think the next great revolution will be the Artificial Organism Age, when man takes hold of the awesome power of proteins. It'll require much more powerful computers to do the designing and calculate the 3-D protein folding, but once that happens I think we'll be blown away by what they can come up with. We might even design superhuman intelligences that in turn can design even smarter versions of themselves.

Puhndit -- All right! A fellow nutrition nut! I also take DHEA twice daily, and melatonin at night (beyond health, that's just fun! I've never had such vivid dreams). No fish oil capsules here, but I eat a can of tuna every weekday for lunch and take DMAE.

Tsk tsk, Talldave -

Canned tuna every weekday?

1. canned

2. Mercury my boy, mercury

If you were truly hardcore you'd buy wild sockeye salmon and eat that for lunch.

1. Hey, what've you got against cans?? Are cans unhealthy now, too?

2. I am a bit worried about that. But, sadly, tuna is the only fish I can stand to eat without wanting to vomit it back up (I'm guessing that tends to negate the nutritional benefits). And I'm not hardcore enough to re-swallow my vomitus. Also, from what I've been reading, it seems virtually all fish now have the mercury problem. Maybe sockeye is the exception.

Sockeye is the exception (along with various smaller fish). It must be wild.

From what I understand, canning saps all foods of much of their vitals. Canned tuna still not a bad protein though.

I guess I have heard that before re canned fruits/vegetables. Not sure if it would hold true for fish or not. They also offer a pouch now, which I tried for awhile.

Even more OT: Bet you're jealous Ace got hottie-con Michelle Malkin on his show! I know I am. But then, I'm particularly partial to the azn hotties.

TDave -

We already had Michelle on our first show. Why would I be jealous? Having bizarre deja vous, maybe.