|
Thanks for reading The Abstract. This month’s edition is
1,811 words, about a
7-minute read.
|
|
Is there a topic that you’d like to see more of in
The Abstract? Drop us a line at
abstract@elysiumhealth.com. Want to get
The Abstract in your inbox? Sign up
here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this month’s edition of
The Abstract, we look first at one of the most interesting questions in longevity science: Is radical life extension plausible? We cover the new study of human lifespan getting lots of attention, and offer insights from Elysium chief scientist, Leonard Guarente, Ph.D., and Stuart Kim, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Developmental Biology and Genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine and member of the Elysium Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Guarente will also host a free webinar on 11/19 about longevity science and the critical role of NAD+ and sirtuins in the aging process (your registration link is below). Also in this month’s science newsletter: how zombie skin cells may impact the brain, the diet-immunity connection, whether exercise needs to be “regular” to provide health benefits, and the nutritional differences between pasture-finished and grain-finished beef.
|
|
|
Is radical life extension possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hypothetical distribution of death with radical life extension to 110 years (A), using data from the Human Mortality Database for a population of Japanese females observed in 2019. A mortality distribution for a population experiencing radical life extension today would require over one-fourth of the birth cohort surviving beyond the age of the maximum lifespan for the species (denoted by B). Approximately 6–7% of the birth cohort would need to survive to age 150 to achieve radical life extension (denoted by C). Adapted from Olshansky, S.J., et al., Nature Aging, 2024.
|
Can the average human expect one day to live beyond 100, with plenty of time to meet our great-grandchildren, or have we mostly reached our potential? A recent study published in
Nature Aging addresses this question using data from countries where people live the longest. The authors conclude that humans may be approaching the upper limit of average life expectancy—but other scientists are more optimistic.
The researchers, led by S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., analyzed data from regions with the longest lifespans—Australia, France, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland—as well as the U.S., which has a lower life expectancy. For the 2,000 years leading up to the 20th century, life expectancy inched upward at an average of just one year every one or two centuries. Advances in public health and medicine, however, such as sanitation and antibiotics during the 20th century, brought the first longevity revolution, which saw life expectancy increase three years per decade, or what they term “radical life extension.”
This radical mortality improvement at older ages has not happened in the last 30 years. While average life expectancies increased, they did so at a slower rate. Based on this deceleration, the authors suggest that further radical life extension is implausible this century, given that biological aging itself is now the primary risk factor for disease and death. They leave room, however, for the possibility of a second longevity revolution, which could alter the course of human survival through interventions that slow
biological aging.
“We’re basically suggesting that as long as we live now is about as long as we’re going to live,” Dr. Olshansky said in an
interview with The New York Times.
Other scientists who spoke with the newspaper are more optimistic. Luigi Ferrucci, M.D., Ph.D., of the National Institute on Aging, said that delaying the onset of disease through preventative care could reduce damage related to the biology of aging. Steven Austad, Ph.D., professor of biology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, remains convinced that
“a breakthrough in targeting the aging process itself” will lead to a human alive today living to 150.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Austad (left) has a
wager with Jay Olshansky (right) that 150-year-olds
are alive today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leonard Guarente, Ph.D., Elysium chief scientist and Novartis Professor of Biology and director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at MIT, is also in the camp of scientific ingenuity.
“I am always hesitant to make a prediction that a biology or medical advance will not happen over an extended period of time,” he said.
“Breakthroughs by their nature are sudden and with major consequences, most recently, use of GLP-1 receptor agonists to treat diabetes.”
|
|
|
The Expert’s Take:
“I agree with Steve Austad that radical life extension will happen this century. First, there are 76 more years for scientific progress to be made this century. It is hard to predict the types of discoveries we will make in the next 76 years. But looking back 76 years to 1948, we could not sequence DNA and did not know about recombinant DNA or CRISPR. So, if we can assume 76 years of scientific progress going forward, who knows what types of treatments or therapies will be possible for radical extension of human life?
Second, there are animals that have exceptionally long lifespans, such as the bowhead whale (200 years) and the quahog clam (500 years). The bowhead whale is a large mammal that lives in the wild without succumbing to age-related diseases like cancer. Somehow, the whale genome has encoded a way to slow the aging clock so that lifespans are more than double than that of ours. It may be possible to understand the aging clocks of mice (2-year lifespan), humans (80 yrs) and whales (>200 years), and use that knowledge to achieve extreme human lifespan through genetic engineering.”
Stuart Kim, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Developmental Biology and Genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine, member of Elysium’s Scientific Advisory Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS MONTH
|
|
What We’re Reading
|
|
|
|
These are third-party articles about science that we find interesting but have no relationship to Elysium or any of our products. Elysium’s products are not intended to screen, diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
|
|
|
Zombie skin cells may be aging your brain
Halloween has passed, but here’s a scary new finding from Mayo Clinic: Senescent or “zombie” cells accumulate in the skin as people age, and these cells can contribute to systemic aging. (Sun exposure and DNA damage are key drivers of cell senescence in the skin.) In the study, researchers transplanted senescent fibroblasts into the skin of young mice, which led to increased senescence in nearby and distant tissues. This included the brain, where markers of senescence increased and cognitive function declined. The mice also experienced accelerated physical decline and impaired muscle function. The findings suggest that senescent cells in the skin may accelerate aging in other organs, helping to explain the connection between skin and brain disorders—though further research is needed to see if the same result would extrapolate to humans. Researchers are now investigating whether topical
senolytics could offer systemic benefits. (Mayo Clinic)
Your diet can change your immune system
Nutrition studies have sometimes led to confusing signals for the average person—caused by a combination of marketing claims based on limited evidence, exaggerated headlines based on animal studies, and the difficulty of conducting long-term nutrition studies in humans. But new approaches to studying the relationship between diet and immunity at the molecular level are building credibility. For example, researchers have discovered that the dietary fiber chitin (found in mushrooms, crustaceans, and edible insects) activates an immune response known as type 2 immunity, which improves metabolic markers and increases levels of GLP-1 (popular weight-loss drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic are GLP-1 mimetics). Scientists are also characterizing the immune-system effects of interventions such as fasting, and vegan and keto diets. The goal of these mechanistic studies is to pave the way for rigorous clinical trials that can establish dietary interventions for a variety of diseases. (Nature)
How often should you exercise for optimal health?
National guidelines recommend at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week. But does it matter how those minutes are distributed across the seven days? A new study led by Dr. Shaan Khurshid from Massachusetts General Hospital answered that question with the help of UK Biobank data on nearly 90,000 participants aged 40 to 69. They discovered that people who got their 150 minutes of exercise on one or two days per week experienced similar health benefits as those who spread their activity throughout the week. Specifically, both groups saw a reduced risk of more than 250 health conditions compared to people who were inactive (less than 150 minutes), with the most significant benefits observed for diseases affecting the cardiovascular system and metabolism. The findings suggest that whether you’re a daily jogger or weekend warrior, the most important factor for disease prevention is getting your 150 minutes. (National Institutes of Health)
Pasture-finished cows are healthier—and more nutritious to eat
Advocates of eating pasture-finished beef often tout its health benefits, but what does the science say? A new study examines the nutritional differences between pasture-finished beef (fed diverse species of grasses, forbs, and shrubs) and grain-finished beef (fed total mixed rations rich in grains). Researchers used a metabolomics approach to analyze more than 1,500 compounds in samples from two commercial U.S. beef operations. The differences were profound: Pasture-finished beef contained 4.1 times more omega-3 fatty acids, 3.1 times more alpha-tocopherol (a form of vitamin E), 9.4 times more niacin (vitamin B3), and 2.6 times higher total phytochemical content. The pasture-finished cattle also had lower markers of oxidative stress and better mitochondrial function, both signs of better overall metabolic health. The authors point out that more research is necessary—larger studies and clinical trials to understand the impact of nutritional differences on human health—before generalizing the findings.
(Scientific Reports)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TERM OF THE MONTH
|
|
Radical life extension
|
|
/ˈræd.ɪ.kəl laɪf ɪkˈsten.ʃən/
|
|
|
|
Researchers formally define “radical life extension” as an increase of three years per decade, or a 0.3-year annual increase in period life expectancy at birth. According to the study discussed above, advances in public health and medicine in the early twentieth century led to a longevity revolution characterized initially by large and rapid increases in life expectancy, from an average of one year every one or two centuries for the previous 2,000 years to three years of life added per decade during the twentieth century. However, this mortality improvement at older ages has not happened in the last 30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGING 101
|
|
What is your biological age—and why does it matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biological age measures the pace at which your body has aged for every year you've been alive. It reflects a combination of your genetics, accumulated lifestyle factors, and other determinants such as demographics, diet, and exercise habits. Tracking your biological age over time can be vital to understanding lifestyle choices that are supportive or harmful to your rate of aging. (Read more)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
