this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
27 points (88.6% liked)

Ask Science

8765 readers
27 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I came across David Sinclair and his research into reverse aging. Especially, I came across this video by Veritasium with Sinclair. Apparently his team has managed to reverse aging in mice in a lab? Has this been peer reviewed?

I personally want to believe Sinclair, but he just.... seems snake oil salesman-ey for some reason. For one, the channels that he seems to come on are the same channels that host manosphere/pseudoscience/conspiracy related guests. Secondly, he talks a lot of shit about his fellow scientists and just seems a little egoistic? I dunno...

Also, the recommendations that he seems to give (like reducing protein intake) to slow aging just seem to be against conventional wisdom? Also, for the drugs that he recommends taking, wouldn't the FDA approve them if they actually worked? I dunno. This isn't how a man of science behaves, right?

Anyway, aside from Sinclair, how far have we gotten in the reverse aging/stopping aging or whatever science? Should we hope to get drugs/treatment to cure this in the next 10/30/50 years?

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boozilla 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I would trust your instincts on this guy.

Science has known for years that the fewer calories you ingest, the slower you age. Metabolic processes induce a lot of wear and tear.

As far as reversing aging, the protein thing may have some merit, but I would remain skeptical for now. My 2-cent guess is that truly reversing aging will involve some unholy cocktail recipe of stem cells, genetic manipulation using CRISPR, lots of fasting, and maybe some advanced vaccines (we're learning vaccines can train the immune system to do all sorts of interesting things beyond fighting infections).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

we're learning vaccines can train the immune system to do all sorts of interesting things beyond fighting infections

Wow, never heard that before! Like what? Sorry, I've been completely out of the loop for developments in the genetics space.

[–] Boozilla 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

That's amazing

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Oh wow, the rate of progress everywhere is just so high! What a time to be alive!

[–] surewhynotlem 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sinclair is ok. He wrote a book called "lifespan" that's pretty well regarded. Also look up Aubrey de Grey. His book, Ending Aging, is also good. He himself is problematic though. If you're interested in this sort of tech, also look up the SENS foundation (I donate there).

Fair warning, most everything focuses on increasing healthspan, not lifespan. I.e. Being able to be active and alert at 90. There's no way for tech to guarantee an increase in lifespan within our lives, because we would need a few generations of evidence to guarantee that. So at most you'll get partial evidence and animal models. But you gotta start somewhere. And if we're lucky, we'll stop be around for the 'proof' in 200 years :-)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't healthspan and lifespan go hand in hand tho? Like... I can't imagine a 99 year old going for a marathon today and just dropping dead tomorrow due to old age. Wouldn't an increased healthspan also include an increased lifespan?

[–] yuriy 5 points 11 months ago

Probably? I think the difference is the reasearch is going into meaningful things, such that would keep you healthy rather than just alive. I think it’s just a matter of semantics though.

[–] eran_morad 6 points 11 months ago

Sinclair has a well earned reputation as a charlatan.

[–] cymbal_king 2 points 10 months ago

David Sinclair is an interesting person. I've seen him present his research in a professional setting and he does some really interesting science. He is also very enthusiastic at selling his story.

There's likely no amount of supplement and drug cocktails that will undo the damage of a sedentary lifestyle and poor diet. Best case scenario is this research could be on to something that significantly augments a healthy lifestyle, or worse case it could be wasting a lot of money on something that potentially ends up being harmful a few decades from now.

I've looked at the list of supplements and drugs Dr. Sinclair takes and there is mechanistic rationale from cell culture and animal experiments behind the ones I'm most familiar with. But it is a big leap to go from cell culture and animal models to human health on a much longer time span. The clinical trials needed to really demonstrate a lot of these claims are incredibly expensive and would take decades. Drug companies in the anti-aging field tend to focus on older patients to start with and earlier endpoints like lower cancer, Alzheimer's, or heart disease incidence. They also tend to be funded by silicon valley tech executives.

[–] NegentropicBoy 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sinclair and Dr Stanfield ( https://www.youtube.com/@DrBradStanfield ) don't always agree on things.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yea, this too. I can't figure out if this is just a Bohr vs Einstein situation or a dumbass vs smart guy situation.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@UraniumBlazer
To solve reverse aging, we first need to understand how to stop it first.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@UraniumBlazer
To stop it, the net #cellular #growth has to be flatlined. i.e, #degeneration = #regeneration .
For that, I believe #oxygen intake is the key. It's like #tumor cells, the lesser you provide oxygen, the more it grows. Same goes to a lot of other #cancer cells.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, the antioxidant thing was debunked decades ago. It was the leading hypothesis like pre 2000 from what I know.

[–] Umbraveil -2 points 11 months ago

Should we hope to get drugs/treatment to cure this in the next 10/30/50 years?

I sure hope not. What a shit show that would be. People need to die, it's just part of life. Assuming it would even be possible, don't think for a second us normies would be eligible. This would be for Trump, Musk, Bezos, etc. I couldn't imagine how it would impact resources and population overtime.