How Many Additional Years?

After seeing Zoolander's response to another thread, I was wondering... How much value do we get from the knowledge gained in these forums?

That's a bit broad of a question, so I've narrowed it down a bit into the poll shown above. Here's the question for today: How many additional years are you expecting to gain from meticulously following (and refining) your nutritional and supplement regimen? Caveat: The additional years BEYOND what you would've achieved in a typical healthy non-ImmInst influenced lifestyle (that means you eat veggies, take a multivitamin, and stay in shape).

I've been wondering this for a while... The supplement forums here are quite extensive and active. I know a lot of it is about upgrading the current "quality of life" -- better focus, greater libido, whatever... But in the end, for those of us searching for immortality, it all comes down to whether or not you achieve that magical "escape velocity". And while it's true that every day counts, it takes a lot of time and money to research and implement some of the suggestions in this and the other "Health" forums.

What return do you, personally, expect from your investment?

If someone is already a relatively healthy individual, I think it could probably provide a year or two more. If you added in CR, it would provide greater results comparatively. It could be slightly more for some people, I suppose, but not drastically so, I wouldn't think. Every little bit helps though! (could get you to "escape velocity")

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

CR is close to worthless. Extreme supplementation may increase average life span slightly, but I happen to be one of those who tries to live a relatively healthy life style while still enjoying myself. (This is not to say that health enthusiasts don't enjoy themselves.)

I also think that experimental supplementation can sometimes manifest itself as a risk factors (human guinea pig syndrome).

CR is close to worthless.

Care to enlighten us?

I'll admit the dreams of adding 30-40 years to maximum lifespan were most likely premature, but the health benefits in general should easily add more than a decade to mean lifespan (just based on the overwhelmingly improved health markers; obviously we don't have mortality figures to substantiate this yet), and I wouldn't call that worthless.

Now moderate CR with a good exercise plan will probably buy you most of the benefits, so I'll admit that extreme CR is probably not worth it unless you're in it for the lifestyle. Extreme CR may only add a few years more than what you can get from moderate CR and exercise, while negatively affecting QoL (hardcore CRers might debate this point, but then again, they're hardcore CRers...).

overwhelmingly improved health markers

Care to enlighten us...? As far as I'm aware there was only one randomized human study that measured the effect of CR, rather than the already known toxicity of the control diet, and while the effect was certainly beneficial I would not exactly call it "overwhelming".

Zoolander to Buddha:
Care to enlighten me.

CR has also been shown to work in animal studies...right?

Zoolander to Buddha:
Care to enlighten me.

Yes, my pupil.

Man who go to sleep with itchy ass, wake up with smelly fingers.

5-10 years in my view. Whilst not a great deal, definitely worth it. By supplements I am also including the practice of CR and other diet restrictions/modifications (ie abstinence from simple carbs, Mediterranean-style diet).

I voted 5-10 which goes much over the general consensus of the classical medecine. The reason is that many supplements PREVENT diseases and this FOR SURE will lenghten the AVERAGE lifespan of a figure close to 10 years.

for me, increasing the quality of life (less disease, more activity, more mental acuity in my later years)... although i do believe i will get an extra 10+ years from my regimen.

How many "extra" years of life do you expect to gain from supplements / optimal nutrition?

Versus doing what?

I eat reasonably, drink a lot of water, exercise almost regularly, and take a multivit. I'd say, even if someone was a mega-health enthusiast, they'd only juice out an extra 2-5 years. Maybe. Or maybe they'd burn themselves with some under researched chemical and wind up worse off than I am.

I really don't have time to keep up with the latest health fads. Generally, I find the topic boring and inconsequential when compared to the more meaningful activity of philosophical inquiry.

I will say though, that when I do have health related questions these boards are a great resource. [thumb]

Care to enlighten us?

I'll admit the dreams of adding 30-40 years to maximum lifespan were most likely premature, but the health benefits in general should easily add more than a decade to mean lifespan (just based on the overwhelmingly improved health markers; obviously we don't have mortality figures to substantiate this yet), and I wouldn't call that worthless.

Now moderate CR with a good exercise plan will probably buy you most of the benefits, so I'll admit that extreme CR is probably not worth it unless you're in it for the lifestyle. Extreme CR may only add a few years more than what you can get from moderate CR and exercise, while negatively affecting QoL (hardcore CRers might debate this point, but then again, they're hardcore CRers...).

Jay, what's wrong with Aubrey's argument? Sounded pretty convincing to me, but I don't make any claims of expertise when it comes to biology.

The unfortunate influence of the weather on the rate of aging: why human caloric restriction or its emulation may only extend life expectancy by 2-3 years.

Demetrius' Metabolic Stability Hypothesis also predicts that in humans "the response of life span to caloric restriction will be negligible". So it would seem that my position has solid backing.

Rough question. I picked "10 or more" based on two points. The first being decreased chance of a heart attack, which often strikes fairly young. Were I in danger for that, and if a supplement kicked my chances up just high enough to avoid it, that'd be a pretty significant addition. The second point is that I'm looking at many, many, decades worth of additional products coming onto the market. The current batch might be minor, but I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for something more potent in the future.

The current batch might be minor, but I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for something more potent in the future.

So am I, but I'll let you try it out first. )

Voted 2-5. [1] compares risk factor among Californian Adventists, who have on average 7 years higher life-expectancy in men and 4 in women compared to other white Californians. Note that those numbers contain all causes of death, including those due risky behaviour, which I presume is being lowered in Adventists (in fact I think that is the very reason for this particular choice of cohort, to control for non-lifestyle related causes of death). A great read, has estimates for variety of factors (between high and low risk groups). [2] OTOH gives difference between being in high-low risk in 20 categories only 6.5 years (for Americans), which is CONSIDERABLY less than what [1] might imply (the difference between high and low risk choices being 10 years), given the much wide ranging risk factors accounted for. I have to make a more through analysis on the papers myself when I have the time.

Also, the constant technological development focusing on disease treatment (asssuming no war on aging is launched) is most likely reducing the effect of lifestyle choices.

The above studies are from these CR posts by Michael Rae, they some additional references and and analysis. Especially interesting is [3] (which I can't get my hands on), estimating the effects of eradicating some major killers.
http://lists.milepos...m=41052&P=62330
http://lists.milepos...5B40B379434C751

My heuristics:
Optimum (non-CR) nutrition + exercise would bring maybe 3 years (expected value above mean), AFTER that (currently existing) supplementation is nearly worthless my guesstimate being perhaps <1 year (expected value, could be even negative due added risks Don mentioned). As an example of the latter, the AGE inhibiting properties of currently existing substances do not fare nearly as well compared to actually reducing blood sugar level through diet.

It think slight CR might bring about perhaps 5 years (i.e. few extra years beoynd otherwise healthy diet), OTOH after that supplementation (anything beoynd a low dose multi to cover for deficiencies induced by CR) probably just adds neglible amount and risks negating the beneficials of slight CR. Doing anything beyond slight CR (<-5-10% calories) is not justified with current knowledge IMO, as going beyond maximum beneficial restriction is known to drastically decrease life expectancy below normal. OTOH the maximum beneficial CR level is inversely correlated with species maximum lifespan [4] (C. elegans can CR 100% in dauer state, mice about 50%), thus in humans the maximum effective percentage CR is expected to be fairly low. My guestimate of optimum level of human CR is based on a rather loose and convoluted analysis from various papers found here:

http://www.imminst.o...=237&t=10839&s=

Above guesstimates are based on the assumption that the absolute difference between optimal and mean lifestyle is not diminished by new technology and new therapies, which I consider most unlikely as I said.

Bottom line: see signature [tung]

[1] Fraser GE, Shavlik DJ. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52. PMID: 11434797 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://archinte.ama-...int/161/13/1645

[2] Ezzati M, Hoorn SV, Rodgers A, Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Murray CJ; Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group.
Estimates of global and regional potential health gains from reducing multiple major risk factors.
Lancet. 2003 Jul 26;362(9380):271-80.
PMID: 12892956 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
http://www.globalhea..... factors1.pdf

[3] Science 1990 Nov 2;250(4981):634-40
In search of Methuselah: estimating the upper limits to human longevity.
Olshansky SJ, Carnes BA, Cassel C
PMID: 2237414

[4] Gerontology. 2005 Mar-Apr;51(2)
The unfortunate influence of the weather on the rate of ageing: why human caloric restriction or its emulation may only extend life expectancy by 2-3 years.
De Grey A.
http://www.sens.org/weatherPP.pdf

PS:If those links to CR list don't work, it's because some part of the address is due to my own session. notify me or try to fix the link yourself by removing some part with & in it

P.P.S: Just by looking at the abstract of [3], it seems that guesstimates of 10+ year increase in life expectancy would call for near cure in ALL major degenerative diseases, thus achieving that with currently available means, especially without CR, seems ludicrous to me.

Edited by opales, 12 June 2006 - 01:15 PM.

I eat reasonably, drink a lot of water, exercise almost regularly, and take a multivit. I'd say, even if someone was a mega-health enthusiast, they'd only juice out an extra 2-5 years. Maybe. Or maybe they'd burn themselves with some under researched chemical and wind up worse off than I am.

I really don't have time to keep up with the latest health fads. Generally, I find the topic boring and inconsequential when compared to the more meaningful activity of philosophical inquiry.

So you acknowledge that mega-health enthusiasm may grant someone an extra few years of life, and then call it inconsequential and meaningless next to philosophical inquiry. Are you kidding me?? What if you failed to achieve "escape velocity" by only a year or two -- would you still feel this way?

If this mega-health enthusiasm hobby of mine grants me even one additional year of life more than I would have enjoyed otherwise, I'd consider it a vastly more productive use of leisure time than almost any conceivable alternative.

If this mega-health enthusiasm hobby of mine grants me even one additional year of life more than I would have enjoyed otherwise, I'd consider it a vastly more productive use of leisure time than almost any conceivable alternative.

Agreed unless it interfered with the quality of life e.g. strict CR....

Yes, unless it reduced quality of life to an unacceptable degree.

I've found the "health-freak" lifestyle to increase my quality of life pretty substantially. For me, it's worth it for right now. The hope that I'll be 85+ and still be active is a much bigger motivator than adding 1-2 years on my maximum lifespan.

I'd shoot for at LEAST 20+ years! [thumb]
While it may not be true it is essential for me to optimize my efficacy, quality of life and take care of my health, - this will yield a fantastic spark of life and a desire to wake up another day forever.
Make no mistake, I do believe you can slow down the aging of your organs considerably and heal/rejuvenate the body and mind every night to prevent any disease/inflammation.

EDIT: I didn't realize until now the poll was in proportion to living a lifestyle with good nutrition, -- I'd say 15+ years then.

Edited by kenj, 12 June 2006 - 03:24 PM.

Avoiding premature death by CR - My main prority right now is to avoid premature death and I beleive CR is the most effective way in doing this. Remember that not everyone reaches their projected life expectancy. Some of you here will not reach your goal and will fall ill with serious diseases. Our group may suffer less disease than the average but you are not invincible to these diseases because you take supplements or drink green tea. I bet most of us know some people that looked after themselves, ate well but developed a serious life threatening disease.

The health benifits of calorie restriction are impressive by any standards. CRONers exceed the government recommendations in almost all health markers thus reducing premature death, which should infact be the main priority for someone who wants to live a significantly extended life span. Some recent Calorie restriction studies have shown the same physiological biomarkers that happen to animals, and what human centenarians show. If westeners get to 79 on their toxic diet, then surely one could expect a significant extension of life span by just lower the risk of death from secondary aging. Luigi fontanna also showed that CR slows down Primary aging!

Quality and quantity of Life - I am not sure how many of you here on are on CR but for those that are not, why do you assume that CR results in poor quality of life? - because the news reports say so? Believe me, if CR resulted in a poor quality of life I would give up on it right away, and i'm sure other CRONers feels the same way too. I believe in quality and quanitity, and health (which CR helps with) is one of the main factors that determain quality.

I want quantity and quality... CR will give me that.

I think it's silly to say that CR is worthless, yes aubrey made an argument that CR might only extend life by 2-3 years... but that doesn't mean hes right.

the bottom line is - WE DON'T KNOW ! and the only way we are going to know is by doing the experiment.

at a guess I believe CRONers can easily expect an average life span anywhere from 95-105. I wouldn't want to guess on maximum.

I think it's silly to say that CR is worthless, yes aubrey made an argument that CR might only extend life by 2-3 years...

I don't understand how people can scoff at 2-3 years. I guess it doesn't seem like much to those of us in our 20's, but imagine you are elderly and on your death bed. How much would 2-3 years be worth at that point? If CR wouldn't destroy my self-image and self-esteem, I would be all over it like a fat kid on cake, whether it gave me 2 years or 20. Every moment is precious.

Don:

Generally, I find the topic boring and inconsequential when compared to the more meaningful activity of philosophical inquiry.

I hear you there. I think I might have burned myself out a bit last spring/summer, but I learned a lot and you and I both seemed to grow in our understanding. I've gotten the impression that you've continued in your personal study since then, as some aspects of your position seemed to have changed in the meantime.

Jay, what's wrong with Aubrey's argument? Sounded pretty convincing to me, but I don't make any claims of expertise when it comes to biology.

As a basic and poorly backed hypothesis, not much. (Don't get me wrong, he's got some research in there here and there, but it's incomplete, and not enough to make a significant argument IMHO.) It's an interesting analysis to help sober the opposite extreme (30%-40% increase in maximum LS).

And at any rate, his argument mainly applies to maximum lifespan, the tail end of the curve. The mean lifespan seems to show a much better response, as CR improves most common health markers (fasting blood glucose, insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, cholesterol, arterial elasticity, visceral fat, etc., etc., ad nauseum, with a few exceptions here and there of course). The prevention of premature death isn't the same thing as extending life, but it does help increase mean lifespan.

For the lucky few who weren't going to die prematurely, CR will probably only buy them 2-10 years, and we won't really know if it's closer to 2 or 10 until cohort studies are complete (decades from now). But for the majority of us who, statistically speaking, aren't so lucky, CR can add many more years by helping to prevent premature death.

Will some premature deaths happen because of CR? I'm sure some will. But statistically, on the balance, a properly conducted CR regimen should easily add a decade to mean lifespan. Of course, this depends on your definition of ad libitum in a human diet. Some would argue that a true AL diet is lower than what we'd expect, while others would consider that a slight CR to begin with. So ultimately, it'll be hard to pin down, especially since SENS and other life extending technologies will probably make more and better long term CR studies irrelevant.

In animal studies on rodents and rhesus monkeys you see the effect on CR on lifespan, but as far as I am aware scientists do not intervene with drugs or surugically for something like cancer for example. A CR animal might be able to function pretty well for its age but regardless of other physiological functions, it will die of cancer.

This is not true for humans, both CR and modern medicine working together can imo produce some very long lived people. Also, Like funk says... 2-3 years could be the difference between oblivion and a very long life.

CR is the best method we know for preventing premature death, extending mean and maximum life span. Hardly worthless.

I also knowthat I would want to be in the best condition possible for when real anti aging therapies are available.

I voted 5-10 years but only after another 20-30 years of additional research. By that time we should be able to micro manage the nutrients in our bloodstream that keep hormone levels finely tuned and systems and cells operating at near-peak performance thus any theoretical damage from improper nutritional balance would be next to zero.

It's very possible that the mega dopers may be doing just as much damage based on our current level of knowledge.

Admittedly, I am new to all of this and know nothing about calorie restriction. What about world class athletes than typically burn an insane amount of calories and are forced to eat numerous large meals throughout the day to maintain their weight? These athletes typically have very low resting heart rates and are in ideal health. I'm noticing a huge contradiction here.

These athletes typically have very low resting heart rates and are in ideal health.

Do they maintain this extreme metabolic taxation until their elder years? Few do and even those that do don't necessarily extend their lives. Optimization for athletic ability probably means nothing in regards to optimization in terms of longevity. [airquote] Current [/airquote] evidence shows that exercise is good for us but we could easily discover that sitting on your ass while ingesting a very specific nutrient load is the optimal balance in regards to its impact on longevity. Until we get out of this rediculous cycle of "research indicates that we need to do more research on {insert research topic here}" then discussions like this will go on ad infinitum.

Great discussion! I'm glad that there are so many people interested in quanitfying the benefits. On the other hand, it looks like the poll is pretty much tied in all categories...! That's a surprise -- I was expecting more of a consensus.

I delve into the supplements / nutritional forums every once in a while, and it's always a bit overwhelming. So much varying research (and lack thereof) along with opinions on different optimal regimens. Personally, I play a lot of sports, and I'm an account manager with an unlimited corporate expense account... which makes a CR-type lifestyle quite difficult. [sfty]

It would require major lifestyle changes and significant "self denial" for me to engage in optimal supplementation and nutrition. Costs that are much more difficult to make if the expected benefit is 1-2 years. However, if the consensus here was > 10 years, then it would definitely be worth it. Maybe the poll will shift to a firm position as more people vote...

Then again, as someone here said, you'd hate to miss "escape velocity" by 1 year... [:o]

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

It would require major lifestyle changes and significant "self denial" for me to engage in optimal supplementation and nutrition.

Who would you trust as to what the optimal mix is? There is so much contradiction and so little empircal data I rarely stumble into these forums unless I'm feeling masochistic.