SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Humans probably can't live longer than 150 years, new research finds:
Science is once again casting doubt on the idea that we could live to be nearly as old as the biblical Methuselah or Mel Brooks' famous 2,000-year-old man.
New research from Singapore-base biotech company Gero looks at how well the human body bounces back from disease, accidents or just about anything else that puts stress on its systems. This basic resilience declines as people age, with an 80-year-old requiring three times as long to recover from stresses as a 40-year-old on average.
[...] Extrapolate this decline further, and human body resilience is completely gone at some age between 120 and 150, according to new analysis performed by the researchers. In other words, at some point your body loses all ability to recover from pretty much any potential stressor. The study's conclusion that the body loses all ability to cope -- or at least to recover -- from stress before age 150 is line with the conclusions of similar studies, including one from last year that pegged the maximum possible human age at 138 years.
The full study [PDF] is published and available to the public in the open journal Nature Communications.
I think that quality of life is much more important than number of years. Would you like to live longer?
Journal References:
1.) Dmitriy I. Podolskiy, Andrei Avanesov, Alexander Tyshkovskiy, et al. The landscape of longevity across phylogeny [$], bioRxiv (DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.17.995993)
2.) Aleksandr Zenin, Yakov Tsepilov, Sodbo Sharapov, et al. Identification of 12 genetic loci associated with human healthspan [open], Communications Biology (DOI: 10.1038/s42003-019-0290-0)
3.) Timothy V. Pyrkov, Ilya S. Sokolov, Peter O. Fedichev. Deep longitudinal phenotyping of wearable sensor data reveals independent markers of longevity, stress, and resilience [$], medRxiv (DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.24.20248672)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Saturday May 29 2021, @09:17PM
That only happens during cell division. If you take care of your body better, you don't need as much cell division after you've fully grown, and hence can live longer.
You can also do things like freeze your umbilical chord and some blood, and use that vast trope of unaged stem cells to make new repair materials for your failing parts.
>This basic resilience declines as people age
Yes, but this is a ridiculous argument for the maximum age. Our teeth didn't stick around long till we made fluoride toothpaste and floss (and sugar to counteract that). Our feet didn't have shoes. We didn't have face lotion. Do you need as much resilience when you got antibiotics to help you with it?
This is completely bs research. These people made up an arbitrary amount of stress and damage the body needs to recover from, and determined you die when you can't handle it. Well cool and all, however that does not determine the maximum age a person can live, or predict it in any freaking way.
We minimize stress on the body, we minimize damage to the body, we use external tools and chemicals to handle that stress and damage instead of the body. We introduce stem frozen young cells into the body when the body is old. This article is meaningless.
>at some point your body loses all ability to recover from pretty much any potential stressor
yes, but that point is not defined by age. It's defined by the amount of stress the body has been exposed to and has had to recover from. that point also assumes we can't introduce younger tissue into the body.
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/zx1634 [healthlinkbc.ca]