Scientists discover the secret of ageing

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs

If I'm reading this right, aging is apparently one of the body's ways of stopping cancer by destroying or shutting down damaged cells.



You are.


...It's been known for a while, and now they've found the specific mechanism(s).

And this fact is one of the reasons "Immortality" research tends to flounder - immortal cells tend to become cancerous, and cancerous cells are immortal.




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

I am reading doubletalk in this article. most people have no concept of the telomere issue and so wont question their hypothesis...I smell a rat.


Hi SaturnFX - I freely admit the science for this is a bit over my head.

But, I have found a few more resources -

NewCastle Univ - Scientists solve ageing puzzle

The above actually has a short vid about the research.

The below appears to be the actual research..

Feedback between p21 and reactive oxygen production is necessary for cell senescence

Like I said, its over my head - but I wanted to share in case it helps.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Oh yeah, double-talk indeed. It's really old news and it's quite evident that researchers have a long way to go.

-Dev



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Thanks for that.

That information provides insight into why antioxidants can be counter productive if over consumed. Reactive oxygen species(ROS) are produced by the mitochondria to stop cell proliferation and/or to destroy the cell. Antioxidants counteract those free radicals, thereby allowing the cells to continue to divide.

-Dev



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Oh yeah, double-talk indeed. It's really old news and it's quite evident that researchers have a long way to go.

-Dev


Yes, I suspect that there is far more development in this field than what they are releasing into the public.
There has been research into the telomere truncating since I was a kid...and now they are basically saying not to look over there without any definitive answer as to why they suddenly deep 6ed it...and give a small drop of progress 20 years later.

I am not saying this isnt a welcome achievement mind you, but its very suspicious...this could simply be my ignorance showing and the pace of longevity science truely is slower than a sleeping senator.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Strange, I thought it was the loss of telemeres on DNA strands that caused aging. Each time cells divide, they lose bits of DNA (telemeres) until they reach the Hayflick limit (too many telemeres are lost) and cells stop reproducing. Telemerase prevents the loss of telemeres and aging but can cause immortal cells (cancer).

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
What's with the website in the OP??

Every time I go there, it tells me that I have used up my one free article? Do I have to register to read articles now?

Anyone got any suggestions?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Fantastic and refreshing post.

One of the men at the forefront of this revolution is Dr Aubrey De Grey.

Below is the final 10 minutes of BBC's Time: Time Life film. It has a nice finish and includes the whole of De Greys appearance in the film.

The good Dr De Grey raises some interesting issues about immortality.

www.youtube.com...

Watch the link and ask now yourself

Would you drink the Elixir of Life?


I would



[edit on 11232009 by RWM88]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Also, might be of interest to many: www.bestsyndication.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Well, it appears that we have a dilemna here. In order for us to live longer, then our (healthy) cells must be able to divide indefinitely. However, it appears that cells don't really divide until they're old or about to become cancerous.
The only way then is to find a way for the cells to duplicate themselves, before they start to degenerate. Either that, or find a way for the cells to repair themselves, instead of just simply destroying themselves.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Don't think i want to some slave 300 years thankyou very much.... i'm looking forward to getting my place with space and living a great life away from any main City!!

I'll be watching the Wildlife and living amongst Greenery..... much better than all these bricks and concrete...

Also there will be many more wars to live through i'm sure and whether i want to be living where there is a possible Nuke fallout i dunno.... won't be nice though....



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Yea and guess what.......if they can stop a cell from turning off they can possibly engineer it to only live a certain age......say 35. Early death so they won't have to pay for our butts....I mean aren't we worthless essentially after 35...........just sayin.......... this could really be a death nill to the cell.........somethings we should just not mess with.....scary stuff.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Yes. It is indeed a paradox. The current scientific battle between free radicals and anti-oxidants is very complicated. Someone in a previous post wanted to become immortal. I hope he sees this and understands the complexity of the situation.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kratos40
 


Oh yes, I forgot to mention Telomerase and the effect they have on Telomeres.

Just a hint...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kratos40
 


This study will be quickly used against antioxidant promoters in the very next debate that arises...

I foresee this study being used by oncologists to boost their case that antioxidants are bad during chemotherapy.

Or in the extreme, to propose increasing free radical-promoting minerals iron and copper intakes above current levels.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by jjjtir]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


Oh yes I know this quite well. Read a book titled "The Iron Time Bomb" by Bill Sardi. It has many quite interesting insights. And yes, copper is involved as well...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
[warning - semi-rant ahead!]

The Financial Times obviously gave the article somewhat of a spectacular title - " Scientists discover the secret of ageing " - but it's not just forged to tingle our sense of sensation, but in my opinion also to misrepresent the facts. The article's first paragraph -



One of the biggest puzzles in biology – how and why living cells age – has been solved by an international team based at Newcastle University, in north-east England.


- states the ageing of living cells to be one of the biggest puzzles. However, like SaturnFX and DBriefed, I'd like to disagree; I'm not up to date on the topic of telomeres, but the first thing that occurred to me is that there are but very few cells that are supposed to keep alive. Of course we all know that our skin sheds in a matter of weeks from generation, but it's not just our skin cells that have a short lifespan:



Each kind of tissue has its own turnover time, related at least partially to the workload endured by its cells. Epidermic cells, forming the easily damaged skin of the body, are recycled every two weeks or so. Red blood cells, in constant motion on their journey through the circulatory system, last only 4 months. As for the liver, the human body's detoxifier, its cells' lives are quite short - an adult human liver cell has a turnover time of 300 to 500 days.

Cells lining the surface of the gut, known by other methods to last for only five days, are among the shortest-lived in the whole body. Ignoring them, the average age of intestinal cells is 15.9 years, Dr Frisén found. Skeletal cells are a bit older than a decade and cells from the muscles of the ribs have an average age of 15.1 years. When looking into the brain cells, all of the samples taken from the visual cortex, the region responsible for processing sight, were as old as the subjects themselves, supporting the idea that these cells do not regenerate. 'The reason these cells live so long is probably that they need to be wired in a very stable way,' Frisén speculates. Other brain cells are more short-lived. Dr Frisén found that the heart, as a whole, does generate new cells, but he has not yet measured the turnover rate of the heart's muscle cells. And the average age of all the cells in an adult's body may turn out to be as young as 7 to 10 years, according to him.

Why then, if the body remains so eminently capable of renewing its tissues, doesn't the regeneration continue forever? Some scientists believe this is explained by the accumulation of mutations in the DNA, which gradually degrades its information. Another theory blames mitochondrial DNA, which lack the repair mechanisms available for the chromosomes, whilst a third theory postulates that stem cells, which are the source of new cells in each tissue, eventually grow feeble with age.

from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

I apologise for the long quote, but the last paragraph puts it better then I could. And yet, it's not about the lifespan of individual cells - it's about the complete system and the regeneration of needed cells. Even most of the average grandma's cells are around 10 years old, according to the 'nuclear' study quoted above. Of course the results of the study of ageing of individual cells can be applied to the stemcells that allow for reproduction, but that is not how FT.com presented it - instead, it claims 'the secret of ageing' has been discovered. Even the quoted study doesn't touch the whole regeneration issue ; the scientists avoided it on purpose, because keeping your scope narrow increases your depth and/or accuracy of investigation. FT.com clearly advocates the exact opposite, as demonstrated by the title and first paragraph. Maybe a secret of ageing has been found - a lot of useful information came forward in the study - but certainly not the one and only secret, and really, only when applied to the very, very few cells that we keep our whole lives.

Not much of a secret when noone's in on it anyway.. ;]


P.S. Thanks for sharing, hope you don't mind my quasi-informal rant!



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I think they are just showing progress in the wrong direction. Just to fool you!! Everything we know is backwards. From all the research Ive ever done I think they have it figured out (how too make people stay young) already. And its just too big of a secret too let escape for them.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Shortly after we cure Cancer, we will reverse Aging. Though I am not sure which will come first. Now if only there were a way to control Cancerous cells, In order to live forever........That, is quite the Paradox.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Paradox.]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Thanks for sharing! Very fascinating indeed. I would love to live an extra 2-400 years just to see how the world changes and see what new things science has learned (time travel, our origins, etc). I hope one day it's possible to get an injection and then BAM! An extra 200 years added to your life. But there would be a downside. The earth would eventually get overpopulated because people aren't dying but people are still being born. With the good comes the bad.





top topics
 
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join