I've had the same thought. I don't know that the meditation would slow down dementia, but I could hopefully cultivate mindfulness and cheerfulness, lest I become more and more frustrated at the world as I begin to lose comprehension of it. Also, some good drugs would be nice too.
> Meclofenoxate (centrophenoxine), as well as DMAE, have been found to increase the lifespans of mice by 30–50%, and thus may be anti-aging drugs/supplements.
Are you taking it for a specific reason? Or do you consider this a generally good supplement?
I also found it interesting and checked the cited source, it also says
Using very much higher doses than Nandy or Hochschild, Harman reported a decrease in lifespans of treated animals (he may have given an overdose long term)
> Wow, just read this on Wikipedia:
> > Meclofenoxate (centrophenoxine), as well as DMAE, have been found to increase the lifespans of mice by 30–50%, and thus may be anti-aging drugs/supplements.
Have you also checked the source? It's not a scientific publication, it's a claim from a book by a quack.
> Have you also checked the source? It's not a scientific publication
That's probably something to do with Wikipedia's editing guidelines these days. They have a rule against using primary research citations. Only literature reviews, books, and other secondary sources are acceptable.
I found the original source for the claim, which may be no better for supporting the claim for a number of reasons (why has this not been replicated, or did replication fail?):
Note: If anyone is actually interested in the field of biogerontology, I recommend following the https://www.fightaging.org blog for editorialisation of news and research papers coming out of the field.
Sorry for off topic but it is a difficult topic and goes beyond Wikipedia. I read on hacker news the complaints that many (even peer reviewed) studies are never reproduced because there is no incentive to reproduce/verify someone else's work. Also, I've read that the "sugar lobby" may have been behind previous studies linking eating fatty food with obesity. Given these facts, how do we create guidelines that allow original research?
1. The actions you should take if you knew that a serious disorder was coming for you will probably be beneficial one way or another.
2. There is nothing you can do about Alzheimers.
3. The only reason you wouldn't live the best, healthiest life you could now is because of an incorrect notion that you'll probably be fine until some set time (e.g. retirement)
Knowing these things, and the fact that stress has a negative effect on your health should compel anyone who reads the article to just live a sustainable life.
Since everyone dies and everyone knows it, the priority should be on living a nice life, free from the illusion that you'll live any given duration. Ideally, being diagnosed with something like Alzheimers would result in a shrug, just like how you would shrug if someone told you you're gonna die one day.
Alzheimers would result in a shrug, just like how you would shrug if someone told you you're gonna die one day.
Alzheimer's isn't like being dead though. It's an incredibly painful reminder to everyone you've every loved that you are no longer "you", but they have to take care of you every day anyways. Painfully re-opening wounds every time you don't remember who they are, or hurt yourself from confusion. It's a continuous living purgatory for your loved ones, with you gone but not gone.
I'd rather live the best, unhealthiest life, and hope I'm dead dead from other causes before I can cause so much pain to the ones I love.
Indeed. Personally I am confused by those wishing to die in their sleep. I'd prefer to be totally awake, cognitively aware that I'm dying. People think I'm joking when I say I'd like a violent death, if the alternative is Alzheimer's.
The trouble is a) knowing that I have it and b) having the drive to annihilate myself before I no longer can do it myself. Fortunately I live in a state where suicide is legal and available by pill, and that's a great option if I can't build up the drive to rig my death some other way.
'There is nowhere in the U.S. someone with Alzheimer’s disease can legally commit suicide with the help of a physician or friend. (Suicide itself is not a crime.) People with Alzheimer’s are not considered competent, and the disease is generally not considered terminal because a person often does not die within six months of a diagnosis.'
How would you make the decision that right now is the time to kill yourself? If future you can't wait one more day, then why didn't he do it yesterday? I think there would be a general decline in life quality but with ups and downs so you'll never know if tomorrow will be better than today so there may be no clear point when you're sure you don't want anymore.
Once you've lost too much of your mind to really know what's going on, you're not someone who should be trusted to make that decision- just as we don't think mentally ill people should be trusted with that decision.
>Ideally, being diagnosed with something like Alzheimers would result in a shrug, just like how you would shrug if someone told you you're gonna die one day.
That isn't reality, though. I wouldn't want to have that big black cloud hanging over me.
If I'm not having symptoms, and there's no way to treat the disease they want to test for, I've no interest in taking the test. Life is stressful enough.
I knew a guy who was diagnosed with cancer, freaked out, and had a fatal heart attack a few days later. Maybe that was already in the cards, but I suspect he'd have lived for a few more years without that cancer diagnosis.
I'd fly to Africa, walk out into a herd of Cape Buffalo, and slap one of those bastards right in the face as hard as I could. Why people want to live forever is beyond me.
>You might want to look for a less painful and less expensive suicide method
Well sure, at least regarding the pain part. My preference would be massive heart attack at the peak of sex.
>then proceed to not suffer and donate the money saved to charity.
Been doing the charity thing all my adult life. Choosing when and how I die is a control of premium value, however selfish. Quantity of life doesn't interest me as much as quality of life.
> Quantity of life doesn't interest me as much as quality of life.
I really do wish hedonism and epicureanism got more respect—after all, the greatest joys in life are often communion—sharing food, experiences, stories. Only very shallow interpretations focus on physical pleasures.
I have the same reaction when someone says they only want to live ~80 years. What a terrible outcome when the universe is so massive. There's so much to see, do, try, experience and learn.
There are trillions of galaxies out there and every one of them is different. I could easily happily fill thousands of years just in our solar system.
I'd like to live long enough to explore other solar systems and galaxies and yet the earth by itself is far too large to ever meaningfully explore in a few lifetimes, much less one.
I simply want to see what all is out there. Now, granted, plenty of people consider that a very selfish desire (based on a scarce resources premise) and I'll openly admit to that. It's about as selfish a desire as there can be. I'm ok with that, it's also not a desire that can be actual (not in my lifetime anyway). As such it's equivalent to wanting to be able to fly around like Superman. My desire to learn and experience more will never halt, as such my desire to live an extremely long time will never cease.
But don’t forget, our brain is limited to some extent and won’t be able to hold that amount of information. You’ll live to a thousand years, but you’ll probably only vividly remember the last five decades, and some smatterings from the past. Is that really meaningful?
Actually I also desire for longevity for reasons like yours, but I’ve been thinking, perhaps it’s more important to measure the quality of experiences rather than number of years. Wisdom, basically - and from history, we know that a deep level of that is attainable irrespective of background and age.
And then, there is also the eventual apathy towards life and wonder. I’m most afraid of that.
You’ll live to a thousand years, but you’ll probably only vividly remember the last five decades, and some smatterings from the past. Is that really meaningful?
I just want to get really good on the mandolin, and that’s probably going to take a few decades more than I actually have. And that’s what I think about when I watch movies about immortals (Highlander and the like). While you’re thinking “oh, the things he must have seen! The rise and fall of empires! The loves won and lost!”, I’m thinking, “he must play a hell of a violin by now.” So I might only remember the last fifty years, but I’ll always be better on the mandolin than I was last year. Who knows, maybe I’d have time to get good on the fiddle?
There’s something sweet about that :) But a few centuries later, you sure you’ll still enjoy it?
Myself, I’m prone to getting frustrated that I can’t learn faster, but we just have to make peace with that. Being in ignorance and pain can sometimes be what makes life so poignant. Who knows, there will never be enough years that we can be satisfied with.
Well any practical thought about extending lifetimes means rich people can live for ever and poor people can’t. If it’s free, good luck figuring out who gets food.
Second of all, superman would not have an enjoyable life. He’s alone, immortal, and can only turn to himself for ethical guidance. This is a central theme of his character.
I want to live a limited life because humans are sad confused little things individually; only generationally do we really make progress as a community. I would like to fully enjoy my life, but why would a longer one mean a better one? Seems like a trick of the mind, and one we will use to endlessly exploit each other.
I sympathize with this viewpoint, but I need to play devil's advocate a little, to highlight the problems with predictive diagnoses:
Most Americans with this genotype go on to develop late-onset dementia.
Let's say "most" is 90%. Let's also say the accuracy of this test is (and I don't know if this is realistic or not) 98%.
Does the 11.8% chance of no dementia on a positive result give me enough to follow through with a plan? For me, no, though I appreciate attitudes would vary.
for me, using 23andme and other components of genetic testing related to health risk factors (all four of my grandparents passed away from or are currently battling cancer) helped me make some long-term decisions regarding my habits and lifestyle, and it did influence my decision to go into a healthcare-related field as a career. I like to think of it more as "I'd like to know what I'm up against," rather than "I have a morbid curiosity about what non-accident deaths will most likely happen to me"
I know genetically for some this may be unavoidable but perhaps by living a healthy life you could delay it to a point where you would pass away before it took over.
Obesity, Insulin Resistance, have been linked to this disease/condition. Maybe regular fasting, exercise, taking supplements (Lions Mane come to mind), CBD oil, coconut oil, medications like Metaformin, etc might help. It would be worth a shot since there are no real alternatives at the moment.
(It hasn't been traumatic knowledge for me -- anyone with severe dementia in their biological family knows that there is some heredity there, whether or not they know they have this particular gene variant)
I also learned I have one variant (not two) and was already fairly aware as well due to my family history. I already live as healthy a life as I can and focus on enjoying it. Can't really do much of anything else.
To me the greatest benefit of this knowledge is being able to prepare loved ones and family for the inevitable - beyond that, there's not really much to be done and the knowledge hasn't really impacted me much.
Regarding long term care, I have a relative who ended up on disability in their 40s and I pushed them hard to get an appropriate supplemental plan with Medicare to be sure they'd have coverage - eligibility to purchase that coverage is only for 6 months when you first get on disability, then wait until 65.
It basically came down to "with your issues, what are the odds you'll need to spend a few weeks in rehab after a bad fall within the next 20-25 years?"
I'm in my 30s and I found out in my 30s. I'm glad to have found out, but it hasn't really changed my life. As an above poster said, to me it's akin to saying "you're going to die someday, live a good life and take care of yourself"
Does 'simple' mean 'you can buy it in Amazon and perform it in the privacy of your own home'? Because needing to book an office visit with someone who has had about a decade of medical training just to get the test done is not exactly 'simple' in my book. And sharing those results with the increasingly invasive systems of insurance and government and otherwise doesn't fill me with anticipation.
Overall I definitely do want to know, though. If I know that I am highly likely to contract dementia I can start doing things to attempt to combat it, or at least plan 5 or so years before that point to begin using hard drugs. You don't get any money back if you leave your body in good shape. I'd prefer to slide it smoking and smouldering across the finish line, missing both bumpers and with only one headlight hanging out. Then explode.
It's a heck of a lot simpler than a brain autopsy, or a spinal tap.
And the real breakthrough isn't about people being able to know their demise, it's that they're are a lot of things that we suspect from a epidemiological perspective lower rates of alzheimer's but which have no effect once the disease is progressed.
Can Alzheimer's disease also be known as Type 3 diabetes?
"Brain insulin resistance (diabetes) is very much like regular diabetes," de la Monte said. "Since the underlying problems continue to be just about the same, we believe that the development of new therapies would be applicable for all types of diabetes, including Alzheimer's disease, which we refer to as Type III diabetes."
Suzanne M. de la Monte, Edward Re, Lisa Longato, Ming Tong. Dysfunctional Pro-Ceramide, ER Stress, and Insulin/IGF Signaling Networks with Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, June 22, 2012, supplement; DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2012-111728
Same author four years prior:
"brain insulin resistance is sufficient to cause AD and that additional significant abnormalities, such as ongoing DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction, are required."
Your last quote is the opposite of what the paper says. The authors write that insulin resistance is not sufficient to cause AD and that other things are required:
> Therefore, T2DM and obesity may contribute to, i.e., serve as cofactors of AD but by themselves are probably not sufficient to cause AD. Moreover, the findings in the T2DM/obesity model indicate the unlikelihood [emphasis here] that brain insulin resistance is sufficient to cause AD and that additional significant abnormalities, such as ongoing DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction, are required.
Pardon the editorial (I realize it's not very HN) but this type of fear mongering fluff does the public more harm than good.
The point being epigenetic is real. It does the general public more harm than good to perpetuate the myth that they (via lifestyle, diet, etc.) have no say in their genetic destiny.
No doubt sometimes some of these genes really matter. But often they are dormant notes of what might be if you don't take care of yourself.
p.s. I just finished reading "Grain Brain." Regardless of what you think about gluten, he makes very strong case for: where you take your body, your brain is going to follow. He mentions Alzheimer's often.
Yup. Agreed. It's just some people are fond of latching on to anything "...gluten..." and then using that to push back againt. I didn't want to get into that politics, and wanted to recommend it as a brain hack type of manual. At least that's how I see it.
I am getting a bit irritated when I read the news about Alzheimers since for a couple of years there is a treatment which was developed by Dr Dale Bredesen. Dr Bredesen looked at all factors which were linked with Alzheimers and combined many together into a treatment strategy. He also defined 3 subtypes of Alzheimers. The result is that his treatment cures 9 out 10 patients with mild Alzheimers. The fact that Bill Gates invests in new drug treatments is insane.
59 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] thread> Meclofenoxate (centrophenoxine), as well as DMAE, have been found to increase the lifespans of mice by 30–50%, and thus may be anti-aging drugs/supplements.
Are you taking it for a specific reason? Or do you consider this a generally good supplement?
Using very much higher doses than Nandy or Hochschild, Harman reported a decrease in lifespans of treated animals (he may have given an overdose long term)
Have you also checked the source? It's not a scientific publication, it's a claim from a book by a quack.
That's probably something to do with Wikipedia's editing guidelines these days. They have a rule against using primary research citations. Only literature reviews, books, and other secondary sources are acceptable.
I found the original source for the claim, which may be no better for supporting the claim for a number of reasons (why has this not been replicated, or did replication fail?):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/05315565739...
Effect of dimethylaminoethyl p-chlorophenoxyacetate on the lifespan of male Swiss Webster albino mice, J Exp Gerontol 8: 177, 1973
Author: R. Hochschild of "Microware Instruments Co" of California.
doi (for sci-hub): 10.1016/0531-5565(73)90024-7
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/05315565739...
Note: If anyone is actually interested in the field of biogerontology, I recommend following the https://www.fightaging.org blog for editorialisation of news and research papers coming out of the field.
Jeez. I haven't paid much attention, but every time I hear something about Wikipedia's editing guidelines, they're getting it horribly wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Origin...
1. The actions you should take if you knew that a serious disorder was coming for you will probably be beneficial one way or another.
2. There is nothing you can do about Alzheimers.
3. The only reason you wouldn't live the best, healthiest life you could now is because of an incorrect notion that you'll probably be fine until some set time (e.g. retirement)
Knowing these things, and the fact that stress has a negative effect on your health should compel anyone who reads the article to just live a sustainable life.
Since everyone dies and everyone knows it, the priority should be on living a nice life, free from the illusion that you'll live any given duration. Ideally, being diagnosed with something like Alzheimers would result in a shrug, just like how you would shrug if someone told you you're gonna die one day.
Alzheimer's isn't like being dead though. It's an incredibly painful reminder to everyone you've every loved that you are no longer "you", but they have to take care of you every day anyways. Painfully re-opening wounds every time you don't remember who they are, or hurt yourself from confusion. It's a continuous living purgatory for your loved ones, with you gone but not gone.
I'd rather live the best, unhealthiest life, and hope I'm dead dead from other causes before I can cause so much pain to the ones I love.
The trouble is a) knowing that I have it and b) having the drive to annihilate myself before I no longer can do it myself. Fortunately I live in a state where suicide is legal and available by pill, and that's a great option if I can't build up the drive to rig my death some other way.
for Alzheimer's?
http://assisted-dying.org/blog/2011/01/10/can-an-alzheimers-...
'There is nowhere in the U.S. someone with Alzheimer’s disease can legally commit suicide with the help of a physician or friend. (Suicide itself is not a crime.) People with Alzheimer’s are not considered competent, and the disease is generally not considered terminal because a person often does not die within six months of a diagnosis.'
Once you've lost too much of your mind to really know what's going on, you're not someone who should be trusted to make that decision- just as we don't think mentally ill people should be trusted with that decision.
That isn't reality, though. I wouldn't want to have that big black cloud hanging over me.
If I'm not having symptoms, and there's no way to treat the disease they want to test for, I've no interest in taking the test. Life is stressful enough.
I knew a guy who was diagnosed with cancer, freaked out, and had a fatal heart attack a few days later. Maybe that was already in the cards, but I suspect he'd have lived for a few more years without that cancer diagnosis.
Wouldn't you prefer, if you could, to live for longer free of Alzheimer's?
Well sure, at least regarding the pain part. My preference would be massive heart attack at the peak of sex.
>then proceed to not suffer and donate the money saved to charity.
Been doing the charity thing all my adult life. Choosing when and how I die is a control of premium value, however selfish. Quantity of life doesn't interest me as much as quality of life.
I really do wish hedonism and epicureanism got more respect—after all, the greatest joys in life are often communion—sharing food, experiences, stories. Only very shallow interpretations focus on physical pleasures.
I have the same reaction when someone says they only want to live ~80 years. What a terrible outcome when the universe is so massive. There's so much to see, do, try, experience and learn.
There are trillions of galaxies out there and every one of them is different. I could easily happily fill thousands of years just in our solar system.
I'd like to live long enough to explore other solar systems and galaxies and yet the earth by itself is far too large to ever meaningfully explore in a few lifetimes, much less one.
I simply want to see what all is out there. Now, granted, plenty of people consider that a very selfish desire (based on a scarce resources premise) and I'll openly admit to that. It's about as selfish a desire as there can be. I'm ok with that, it's also not a desire that can be actual (not in my lifetime anyway). As such it's equivalent to wanting to be able to fly around like Superman. My desire to learn and experience more will never halt, as such my desire to live an extremely long time will never cease.
Actually I also desire for longevity for reasons like yours, but I’ve been thinking, perhaps it’s more important to measure the quality of experiences rather than number of years. Wisdom, basically - and from history, we know that a deep level of that is attainable irrespective of background and age.
And then, there is also the eventual apathy towards life and wonder. I’m most afraid of that.
Edit: typo
I just want to get really good on the mandolin, and that’s probably going to take a few decades more than I actually have. And that’s what I think about when I watch movies about immortals (Highlander and the like). While you’re thinking “oh, the things he must have seen! The rise and fall of empires! The loves won and lost!”, I’m thinking, “he must play a hell of a violin by now.” So I might only remember the last fifty years, but I’ll always be better on the mandolin than I was last year. Who knows, maybe I’d have time to get good on the fiddle?
There’s something sweet about that :) But a few centuries later, you sure you’ll still enjoy it?
Myself, I’m prone to getting frustrated that I can’t learn faster, but we just have to make peace with that. Being in ignorance and pain can sometimes be what makes life so poignant. Who knows, there will never be enough years that we can be satisfied with.
I better take off my musing hat now..
Second of all, superman would not have an enjoyable life. He’s alone, immortal, and can only turn to himself for ethical guidance. This is a central theme of his character.
I want to live a limited life because humans are sad confused little things individually; only generationally do we really make progress as a community. I would like to fully enjoy my life, but why would a longer one mean a better one? Seems like a trick of the mind, and one we will use to endlessly exploit each other.
Point being, watch the weather and plan, fine, but don't become certain until you see rain falling from the sky.
Most Americans with this genotype go on to develop late-onset dementia.
Let's say "most" is 90%. Let's also say the accuracy of this test is (and I don't know if this is realistic or not) 98%.
Does the 11.8% chance of no dementia on a positive result give me enough to follow through with a plan? For me, no, though I appreciate attitudes would vary.
Obesity, Insulin Resistance, have been linked to this disease/condition. Maybe regular fasting, exercise, taking supplements (Lions Mane come to mind), CBD oil, coconut oil, medications like Metaformin, etc might help. It would be worth a shot since there are no real alternatives at the moment.
(It hasn't been traumatic knowledge for me -- anyone with severe dementia in their biological family knows that there is some heredity there, whether or not they know they have this particular gene variant)
To me the greatest benefit of this knowledge is being able to prepare loved ones and family for the inevitable - beyond that, there's not really much to be done and the knowledge hasn't really impacted me much.
It basically came down to "with your issues, what are the odds you'll need to spend a few weeks in rehab after a bad fall within the next 20-25 years?"
Would you have wanted to find out if you were in your 20's?
Overall I definitely do want to know, though. If I know that I am highly likely to contract dementia I can start doing things to attempt to combat it, or at least plan 5 or so years before that point to begin using hard drugs. You don't get any money back if you leave your body in good shape. I'd prefer to slide it smoking and smouldering across the finish line, missing both bumpers and with only one headlight hanging out. Then explode.
And the real breakthrough isn't about people being able to know their demise, it's that they're are a lot of things that we suspect from a epidemiological perspective lower rates of alzheimer's but which have no effect once the disease is progressed.
"Brain insulin resistance (diabetes) is very much like regular diabetes," de la Monte said. "Since the underlying problems continue to be just about the same, we believe that the development of new therapies would be applicable for all types of diabetes, including Alzheimer's disease, which we refer to as Type III diabetes."
Suzanne M. de la Monte, Edward Re, Lisa Longato, Ming Tong. Dysfunctional Pro-Ceramide, ER Stress, and Insulin/IGF Signaling Networks with Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, June 22, 2012, supplement; DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2012-111728
Same author four years prior:
"brain insulin resistance is sufficient to cause AD and that additional significant abnormalities, such as ongoing DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction, are required."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769828/
> Therefore, T2DM and obesity may contribute to, i.e., serve as cofactors of AD but by themselves are probably not sufficient to cause AD. Moreover, the findings in the T2DM/obesity model indicate the unlikelihood [emphasis here] that brain insulin resistance is sufficient to cause AD and that additional significant abnormalities, such as ongoing DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction, are required.
The point being epigenetic is real. It does the general public more harm than good to perpetuate the myth that they (via lifestyle, diet, etc.) have no say in their genetic destiny.
No doubt sometimes some of these genes really matter. But often they are dormant notes of what might be if you don't take care of yourself.
p.s. I just finished reading "Grain Brain." Regardless of what you think about gluten, he makes very strong case for: where you take your body, your brain is going to follow. He mentions Alzheimer's often.
It's not just gluten. Look into enrichment. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*pBs90R1LfdGOfpTS....
Most people are actually sensitive to the additives added to fortified wheat sold in the States, especially Vitamin B[0] and Iron[1].
[0]: https://freetheanimal.com/2016/05/enrichment-promotes-everyt...
[1]: https://freetheanimal.com/2015/06/enrichment-theory-everythi...