Im Your Man Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 "Cambridge researcher Aubrey de Grey argues that aging is merely a disease -- and a curable one at that (...)" "(...) claims he has drawn a roadmap to defeat biological aging. He provocatively proposes that the first human beings who will live to 1,000 years old have already been born." One of the comments about the video:"Metabolism depends on the exercise and nutrition a person receives in his life. Work out and eat alot and you get a high metabolism. The benefits of this is that you'll be in a good condition for the large part of your life. (...) The downside could indeed be that it could affect your lifespan. " Whatever if eating 6-8 meals per day and working out increases metabolism which increase ageing, I do think that we need to follow what's natural, and a slow metabolism isn't very natural: eating only 2-3 meals per day (because of work, taking kids to school and all other modern things) and sitting all day long at office isn't natural at all. The only era humans had a slow metabolism was maybe during Ice Age, or in Northern countries when food is rare. What's natural would be to keep moving all day long like most animals do to search for food or like humans were doing before industrial era. At least walking and doing some manual job, if not, practicing a sport or any physical activity outside of work. And to eat all day long fruits or many small meals, like all other animals do. Another user claims Japanese live old because they " have very little tradition in sports and exercise" so they have a slow metabolism. I think it's more because they eat healthier and have less stress than Occidental nations, because they practice regularly Yoga, Tai Chi, they walk a lot and use bicycle, there's also a martial arts culture that is very present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ping Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Scientists could drastically increase the lifespan of bacteria by giving them a low-calorie diet. So yes, that's probably a given rule.I'd rather be fit though . Going to listen to the talk now. EDIT: Well, sounds interesting. Good luck to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oselifer Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Its true that excercise and much eating can decrease lifespan...However the ideal life for a long lifespan would be sth like a monks life...Zero stress,little excersice and little eating....However i don't think it worths to live even 200 years in a life like that...The best for myself is to live 80-100 years away from diseases,fit,and energetic and of course vegan ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im Your Man Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 The book I'm reading these days is about living foods, raw veganism. The author says the real age humans could live is 150 years old. Other authors have said 130 years, some people actually did live that long. There's over 50 000 Americans that are older than 100 years old right now. Maybe you're right about the monks way of life, Oselifer, but it,s not rare to see the opposite: farmers or people that have worked hard all their life, living old too, because their heart and imune system became very resistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 There's over 50 000 Americans that are older than 100 years old right now. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubby2112 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 There's over 50 000 Americans that are older than 100 years old right now. No. 50,454Number of centenarians counted in Census 2000, about 1 in every 5,578 people. In 1990, centenarians numbered 37,306 people, or 1 in every 6,667. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01cn184.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganDude Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 LOL.. For some reason I thought the US population was much smaller than it actually is. 50,000 sounded high. Sorry guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lena01 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 (edited) That was a great link to share! I ended up writing a 2 pages article and I don't know what to do with it now!Long story short? I don't argue his scientific findings and hopes. I do think it's hardly sustainable and probably not very ethical. Which goes really after the ridiculousness of his arguments on why should we try to live 1000 years. He says that it's not right to decide on what the future should be, well today we are living the yesterday's future. An unnaturally long life will just give ourselves more future-timespan to intervene in.Besides, I don't want to be a worm for a 1000 years! 80 awesome years of food and exercise will be just fine! Edited May 27, 2008 by Lena01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubby2112 Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 LOL.. For some reason I thought the US population was much smaller than it actually is. 50,000 sounded high. Sorry guys... No problem. At fist I though it sounded insane, then I thought about how small 50,000 is when compared to 300 million or whatever the current figures are and was compelled to look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now