HN Explorer

Ask HN: What can I do today to prepare for anti-aging tech of the future?

39 points by TechBro8615 ↗ HN
Given the state of anti-aging research today, is it clear yet which technologies will be the first to have some success at prolonging life? If we have a general idea of what classes of technology will be available in 20-30 years, then we should be able to guess what it will not be able to do, or what constraints it might have that increase its effectiveness.

What anti-aging technologies will be available in 20-30 years, and what can I do today to prepare to derive maximum benefit from them when they arrive?

I’m looking for answers beyond the obvious exercise and be healthy, although I should probably start with that. :)

51 comments

[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] thread
nyhwtt
You can sign up for cryogenic conservation of your body in case your near death so that you can be woken up when scientists find a way to revive you.
tompark
Since life extending technologies may or may not yield ways to repair serious body damage, you should make sure to maintain parts that may not be fully repairable, like gums/teeth, knees/joints, neck/posture (vertebrae fusing), etc. Not sure what maintenance you can do about the eyes though (most people need reading glasses by mid/late-40's).

Let's suppose that real results come out of current research into NAD-boosting and other methods for reducing defects when cells split and for reducing senescence of cells. That would extend your potential lifetime but you can still die from accidents/violence, cancer, and diseases incl heart disease, so you need to take preventative measures for those factors.

David Sinclair suggests that you should cut sugar/desserts from your diet (because it encourages cell splitting), and reduce damage to your body, e.g. use sunscreen (because cell defects arise when repairing cell damage).

If humans could grow biblically old, like 600-900 years, one thing to consider is it's possible they might start looking like Ferengi, since cartilage just keeps growing.

nootropicat
I think hype is way ahead of reality. I'm not aware of any experiments that reliably extended the lifespan of healthy mice (ie. not one intentionally modified to have some specific illness).

I will believe it's actually starting to happen when it becomes possible to pay money to get new hair (not hair transplants, or blocking DHT). Hair is infinitely simpler than repairing complex organs and we can't even do that.

Artificial organs appear much more achievable - as in only requiring investments into engineering problems rather than completely new discoveries.

robot
The low hanging fruit is to eat less. It is a known fact that people with diabetes live longer due to the stringent diet they are on perpetually. Processing food and burning energy speeds up aging.
acqbu
neat advice, thanks
gingersnap
The question is, do you actually live longer or does it only feel that way?
gregjor
Have children. That’s the easy natural way to prolong the life of your genes, the unit evolution and natural selection works with. Kids and grandkids also keep you on your toes and help you feel younger. Technology to extend the life of an individual so far only extends the more grim elderly part, which unfairly imposes costs on the young with no offsetting benefit. Wanting to live forever or get revived somehow in the future seems deeply narcissistic and no different from believing in an afterlife. Better to make the most of every day you have than put your hopes into getting more days.
qgin
Having children or grandchildren is even more of a reason to be interested in research that prevents the diseases of aging (longevity). When you get the diseases of aging that precede death, like Alzheimer’s or cancer or heart disease or just simply becoming frail, your children and grandchildren suffer greatly. What is narcissistic about not wanting your children and grandchildren to watch you suffer one or more of the extremely predictable diseases of aging and perhaps need to stop their own lives to become your caretaker?

Longevity research has never been about extending the sick part of life. It’s about avoiding the sick part of life for as long as possible.

gregjor
The history of extending human life through sanitation, disease prevention (vaccines and antibiotics), and treatment for chronic conditions has so far led to even worse conditions brought on by age. Centuries ago almost no one lived long enough to die from heart disease, cancer, or dementia. Now those are common, diseases of old age, imposing tremendous costs. I don’t propose going back to 35 year lifespans or some kind on Logan’s Run future, but we may have to acknowledge diminishing returns of extending lifespans through treatment of (not cures for) chronic conditions of aging. Nature seems to have imposed limits on lifespan, and viewing aging as a condition to cure seems both unnatural and narcissistic. It’s also a path that will be available mainly to the wealthy and powerful.

As much as I’d like to live to 120 to see my own grandkids grow up, I’m not sure I want 100-year-old members of Congress, or Presidents, or business tycoons. We all need to make room for the next generation at some point.

I’m 61 with grandkids. I don’t look forward to my body and mind falling apart, a process already well underway. I hope to die suddenly and unexpectedly (as Julius Caesar supposedly said) rather than lingering on for years in a bed fed through a tube while my family feels obligated to keep me alive as long as technologically possible.

qgin
I think that’s the big difference between how medicine up until now has approached aging and how longevity research approaches aging. Longevity research is about preventing the state that causes people to get those diseases of aging in the first place, not trying to find bandaids once people are already sick. Can’t imagine how preventing Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease could be a bad thing.
D-Coder
> Centuries ago almost no one lived long enough to die from heart disease, cancer, or dementia.

Right, they were dying of infections, starvation, childbirth and cholera, appendicitis and anthrax, typhoid and typhus, polio and tetanus. Are you saying that those were better?

gregjor
Talking only about elderly people, not children or young adults, I would say it's better to die quickly rather than withering away from cancer or dementia over many years. That would be my preference, and the few people in my family who have slowly wasted away from incurable chronic conditions expressed a desire to just end it. That doesn't mean dying from an infection or sepsis is somehow better than dying from cancer or dementia, but acute conditions get closer to the sudden and unexpected death I would prefer. Other people have different opinions on this, of course.
annyeonghada
>Centuries ago almost no one lived long enough to die from heart disease, cancer, or dementia. Now those are common, diseases of old age, imposing tremendous costs. I don’t propose going back to 35 year lifespans

This is false. The life expectancy one you reached puberty was very similar to the current one. The 35 years lifespans were due to insane infant mortality. Modern medicine has been able to avoid the death of children but it hasn't being able to extend the duration of your healthy life other than from the statistical point of view.

gregjor
I was careful to use the term "lifespan" rather than "life expectancy" to avoid this error. Historically people died mainly of infections or sepsis. Modern medicine has developed treatments for those, so now cancer, heart disease, and dementia -- formerly fairly rare because people would die of something else first -- are the leading causes of death among the elderly. These conditions, which can take years to cause death, require long-term expensive treatment, with very little difference in average lifespan of people who reach adulthood.
t-3
Get rich. The average or even moderately wealthy probably won't have any chance at access to these technologies if they come to fruition. You'll also need a lot of extra wealth to keep yourself from an extra-long dotage in poverty.

For myself, I plan to die before I hit 60. I'm not going to spend decades in pain and misery for no reason, life already sucks without my body falling apart. Kevorkian diet all the way!

altdataseller
What happens if you are still alive at the age of 60?
t-3
If I'm not in pain, I don't care. If I live in pain, I'll get myself some painkillers and take them all probably.
qgin
No other medical treatments work this way. Private insurance and socialized healthcare systems will jump at the chance to prevent their members from becoming afflicted with the extremely predictable and expensive diseases of aging (Alzheimers, cancer, heart disease…)

People say “if it ever comes it will only be for the super rich” because they are afraid to let themselves experience the emotion of wanting something that might not be possible.

hasbot
I've known several active people in their mid-70s. If you're generally healthy and active you should be okay until 70.
otikik
You will have stopped existing way before your body reaches 60.

What I mean by this is that current-you and 60-year-old you will be so different from each other that they could be different individuals entirely. You will likely still share some atoms by mere chance, but most of your 60yo body will be made of different atoms. 60yo’s mind will have many memories and experiences in common with you, but also a bunch of different ones. And their circumstances will also be different.

Think about 10-year-old you. Did they have plans for current-you? Have you fulfilled those plans?

t-3
> Think about 10-year-old you. Did they have plans for current-you?

No.

more_corn
I’ve had a surprisingly consistent sense of self. At least as far as I can remember. My personality, sense of fairness, hopes dreams, interests. All consistent. I’ll certainly be the same person at 60. Hopefully wiser and handsomer.
otikik
Leaving aside the fact that you are using your brain to evaluate its own consistency, how can you know that yours is “surprising”?

I think most people do feel a strong sense of self, and that they feel it is extremely consistent. I am having trouble picturing some who isn’t like that in my head, actually. Perhaps someone who’s barely conscious, or a baby.

I also think that despite that feeling, change is unavoidable for everyone and uncomfortable for a lot of us. Some will go to extremes like changing their own memories in order to avoid admitting that they changed.

kbelder
With a little bit of care, your physical and mental health can be excellent well past 60, believe it or not. Not every day is a misery for many 70-year-olds.

But, on the other hand, if you think your life sucks before you're 60, you'll probably think it sucks after you're 60. It's probably more about personality than physical health.

biguanide
Among the most promising anti-aging drugs is metformin.

Type 2 diabetics on metformin live 15% longer than non-diabetics. This is remarkable considering how big a health disadvantage diabetes itself is.

Metformin seems to mimic fasting somehow, by interfering with mitochondrial function.

For more information I refer you to David Sinclair's numerous discussions on this topic. He takes 1 gram of metformin per day with his evening meal.

This is not medical advice.

efkiel
IIRC metformin may also cause fertility problem in men, after prolonged use (which is required to get slow-aging effect).
biguanide
That is correct. Metformin has a number of downsides.

You will lose your appetite and it will be hard to want to eat. You will tend to lose weight and eat just enough.

It can make you nauseous and you will probably find the bitter taste and fishy (amine) smell of the pills to be repulsive.

It is not an easy drug to take, and like you said, it may also affect male fertility.

But it is well-studied and safe, and offers various benefits.

JonChesterfield
Longevity with weight loss and reduced risk of kids should be saleable
more_corn
Infertility is not necessarily a problem.
4g
Seems like simply fasting should yeild the same results without the side effects. Any reason not to recommend fasting then?
biguanide
It seems to mimic exercise, too. Not just fasting.

Metformin has numerous other effects: it reduces carbohydrate absorption in the gut, changes the gut microbiome, increases insulin sensitivity, reduces the liver's conversion of proteins to glucose, changes the way proteins accumulate in the brain (thereby making dementia less likely), etc.

When you're on metformin you can feel the physiological stress. It's like a mild attack on your whole body, a persistent slight discomfort. It's like a very mild poison.

pkrotich
I came here to post this! I happen to have type 2 diabetes (won a gene lottery, I guess) and I’m on metformin party due to purported anti-aging benefits.

At the begging I had nausea issues with it but eventually switch to longterm release and I’m the side effects went away unless I don’t eat.

It truly helps with controlling the appetite and brought my diabetes under control. I don’t feel any younger but I hope the studies/discussion mentioned are truly legit.

qgin
The NIH Interventions Testing Program has identified 6 compounds that significantly extend HEALTHY life (in model animals). Some of these compounds have been tested in multiple model animals and the effect is conserved across all of them.

Human trials are expensive and obviously take multiple decades, so you’ll be dead before to see that data.

The compounds so far are:

rapamycin, acarbose, 17-alpha-estradiol, canagliflozin, asthaxanthin, meclizine

anamax
> meclizine

The anti-nausea drug?

qgin
That’s the one. It apparently is also an inhibitor of mtorc1
chmaynard
Stay alive!

Disclaimer: I'm 73 and I hope to be gone long before this brave new world emerges. The rest of you will be stuck with Larry Ellison ... forever.

demygale
If wealth disparity continues to increase these treatments will likely be unavailable to average people. Get rich or support economic policies that prevent oligarchs and billionaires.
hrgiger
Nope, I dont agree, if this kind of cancellation was a motive our progress in academic research should already slowed down.
DantesKite
Avoid accidents that could trivially kill you. Cycling and motorcycles are ones people underestimate the danger of.
t0suj4
IIRC the longest living people kept doing physical activity. So I second that.

Also having good relations with people around you can take you miles.

sn9
The fountain of youth is regular strength training, cardio, quality sleep, good relationships, indulging your curiosity and learning new things, and a diet high in protein (for the exercise) and plenty of plant based whole foods like leafy green vegetables.

You'll delay as many of the diseases of aging as much as you can by doing those things. Packaging their effects in a pill would make you the richest person in history.

meristohm
What do you think about adding "acceptance of death" to that list?
sn9
Probably great for your day-to-day mood, but I don't think it's in the same category of the things I listed in terms of your long-term health.
reducesuffering
While nutrition science is short on proofs, generally everything I've read on the latest science points to a correlation between high protein intake and reduced longevity.
sn9
I suppose you'd have to ask yourself if you want longevity at any cost or a high quality of life for however many years you get.

Every study looking at strength training has shown it has huge effects for quality of life and health and strength training requires high protein intake.

That doesn't mean you can't still get the majority of your calories from whole food plant sources.

meristohm
As a teacher and a parent (and friend, neighbor, acquaintance, etc--person who interacts with other people), one of the ways I can live on is to help others learn and grow. I've mostly accepted that I will die, and that gets easier as I observe all the living and dying of plants, fungi, and animals every day. I am not so important as the stories I value, and those can live on for thousands of years.