Evolutionary origin of aging, and why it matters for anti-aging research

Aging is not something that happens to us -- it is an active function of the body. To evolutionary biologists, this is a surprise, maybe a shock. But there's lots of diverse evidence that it's true.
Once we know that aging is "on purpose", we can devise strategies for slowing or even reversing aging. There are modest anti-aging strategies that anyone can adopt, and there is a dramatic new technology for rejuvenation, almost ready for human trials.
(An hour-long presentation from an iPAK seminar, Sept 2024)

[@davidkatz2897]

Thank you for the video!

[@germainclaude6585]

thank you

[@chaelcanterbury8787]

Great video, keep it up. I prefer reading the detailed blog entries instead, but once in a while it's refreshing to get an umbrella "digest" that covers the state of the situation in a form of a more casual presentation.

[@kleffbois]

Thank you for a fantastic presentation! I look forward to reading your website and following your videos. Do you have a link to the study on DHEA extending the life of mice? I was always of two minds with DHEA - it seems to have many benefits and be high in youth, but also stimulates IGF-1 which seems very negative for aging, especially cancer. Thanks again

[@jmitteld]

Thank you for the correction, Kleffbois -- I misspoke about DHEA in mice. "DHEA is essentially a human molecule." I recommend this article for a review of the benefits and risks of DHEA: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-014-0259-8 "In the elderly, DHEA exerts an immunomodulatory action, increasing the number of monocytes, T cells expressing T-cell receptor gamma/delta (TCRγδ) and natural killer (NK) cells. It improves physical and psychological well-being, muscle strength and bone density, and reduces body fat and age-related skin atrophy stimulating procollagen/sebum production."

[@bob-ss4wx]

Excellent presentation looking at the picture of aging. Hope you are faring well after your accident.

[@jmitteld]

For those who don't know me, I was hit by a speeding SUV in a head-on collision with my bicycle 3 years ago. The probability of survival in this case is nil. Miraculously, there was no damage to my brain, my spine, or any internal organs. I benefited from excellent surgeons, who saved my life and rebuilt my legs. In the interim, my body has performed miracles of its own. I'm swimming, hiking, and bicycling on a vigorous schedule. Today, I ran a 5K road race, a benefit for my neighborhood elementary school. I'm VERY SLOW, but grateful that I can run.

[@joshlocher71]

@@jmitteld hi my name is josh what is this rejuvenation technology that is almost ready for human trials i am eager to know is it a pill a cream or injection what is it

[@jmitteld]

@@joshlocher71 It's in the last few minutes of the video. I've also blogged about it here: joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/2024/05/27/robust-rejuvenation-with-exosomes/

[@noobkiller100]

Very interesting

[@carinaekstrom1]

I don't believe number 2 at all. The community is not served by individuals selfdestructing. If it was about balance it would be better to not be so fertile. No, it's just a fight against entropy. Nature would like to keep us alive forever if it could. It's doing its best. But humans can renovate a lot of things that nature can't, without creating any harmful side effects.

[@jmitteld]

Hey Carina -- no fair telling me "I don't believe..." before you even listen to the video. If statement #2 was obvious, or if it followed easily from known evolutionary principles, why would anyone need this video? So yes, it's surprising, but please hear the evidence before you put out an opinion that it must be wrong.

[@carinaekstrom1]

@@jmitteld I like the part about Mrna. For the main subject I see no evidence, nothing that can't be explained by normal wear and tear. What would the individual parts know about population regulation anyway, or why even want it? One man can have hundreds of offspring, and that would only be a positive for the species (as long as incest was avoided). Probably saved us from extinction a few times as well. Denis Noble also opposes the selfish gene theory, but does not have a population regulation idea attached to it. The fertility period in healthy humans is also being prolonged, as we live longer, healthier lives. Nature doesn't have to worry about depending on inbuilt systems to make us die, there's enough environmental causes of death. No one will ever be completely indestructable, but I'm sure we will find ways to stay young and healthy for as long as we are alive, and I agree that we should focus on systems that control major aging processes. I just don't agree on your reasoning why these systems exist. To me the systems´ functions are about where to prioritise a limited source of energy and repair. Anything systemic is usually more energy efficient.

[@jmitteld]

@@carinaekstrom1 Have you listened to any of the evidence? How do you explain DAF2 and AGE1 and P66shc? How do you think about hormesis? Are semelparous organisms an exception? Why does epigenetic change consistently turn on self-destructive proteins like FSH and TGF beta late in life?

[@carinaekstrom1]

@@jmitteld I listened to the video. Some things I have not heard about before, but the way you explain away the things I have heard about tells me that the rest is probably the same, which is nothing there. There were several things I wanted to comment on, including epigenetics and hormesis. But there's no space or sense in going into details about all this. I could see that you didn't want to consider other possibilities. An overview of evolution in general tells me that the Idea does not hold water.