Jump to content
Fernando Gabriel

Who would live longer?

Recommended Posts

Fernando,

I don’t understand your question.  An active person should outlive an inactive person if all other variables are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more interesting question is:  who will live longer,  Michael Rae  or Dean Pomerleau? 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fernando, the loss of muscle mass affects your whole body and will result in all sorts of issues in the future.

As I noted earlier, at 18 you are not fully developed and restricting nutrients is likely to come back and bite when you are older.

As will the lack of physical activity.

As to Dean, I thought he was born in 1724 and is just entering middle age?

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sibiriak said:

who will live longer,  Michael Rae  or Dean Pomerleau

Michael Rae.

  😉

    --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sibiriak said:

The more interesting question is:  who will live longer,  Michael Rae  or Dean Pomerleau?

I too would bet on Michael, for the simple reason that over the next several decades he is very likely to have the inside track on emerging SENS rejuvenation technologies. This coupled with his strong motivation to try them as a result of an unusually acute aversion to his own mortality, means Michael will likely outlive us all, if he doesn't die early trying interventions before they are fully vetted. 

--Dean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to resort to exotic reasoning - MR will outlive us all, because he's younger... that alone is completely enough. Assuming no accidents, incurable infectious disease or other force majeure factors. Any actuary could've told you that - knowing absolutely nothing about any of the people involved, statistically the only reasonable bet is on the youngest person. Nothing more to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

MR will outlive us all

The question was "who will live longer",  not who will outlive who.   And it wasn't really  a serious question, of course,  but more a playful allusion to Dean's  high-activity/CE approach  compared to  Michael's "calories, calories, calories" emphasis.

 

Metabolism, Aging, CR & Exercise

By Dean Pomerleau

https://www.crsociety.org/topic/11225-metabolism-aging-cr-exercise/?tab=comments#comment-12657

EXERCISE

https://www.crsociety.org/topic/11392-exercise/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-17737

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But... that doesn't matter insofar as I can see? Both MR and Dean engage in activity, certainly enough to cover the "minimum" - any excess would only make a tiny difference in lifespan if any. And given the age difference, that would remain by far the most controlling factor. 

There's a pretty decent book by Gretchen Reynolds "The First 20 minutes: Surprising Science Reveals How We Can Exercise Better, Train Smarter, Live Longer"

The gist of it is that science tells us that we derive the vast majority of health/longevity benefits from relatively small amounts of exercise ("the first 20 minutes"), and any additional activity has asymptotic benefits if any. The book is worth reading, although it has one near-fatal flaw, in that it cites studies which it then does not index. 

Anyhow, I suspect that both Dean and MR easily cover those first 20 minutes, and therefore any difference between them after that are marginal at best wrt. longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And given the age difference, that would remain by far the most controlling factor.

Again, the question --not a serious one--was about total  lifespan--birth to death.  It doesn't matter who started living first.

Quote

science tells us

It's great when "science"  speaks in a single, unequivocal, authoritative voice.  

In any case,  I apologize for hijacking this thread with my facetious question.

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Science tells us" is a very common figure of speech. Here is how common it is - performing a google search for this expression provides vast numbers of returns, proving that this is indeed an extremely popular and widely understood expression:

https://www.google.com/search?q=science+tells+us&oq=science+tells+us&aqs

This expression has a certain meaning in common usage. Common usage is a linguistic concept:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enter common usage

The meaning of "science tells us" in common usage is: there is rough consensus in science regarding this topic. The reading of "speaks in one unequivocal, authoritative voice" is therefore incorrect in common usage, and this fact can be established by the link I gave to the google search for this term - obviously, those pages upon pages of results in no instance use it to mean "science speaks in one unequivocal, authoritative voice." Hope this clears it up. If necessary, I can elaborate further :)

Oh, and just in case it is not clear - it is widely accepted that rough consensus in science does not imply lack of any dissenting voices. It is also understood that the nature of science is such, that what is consensus today, may be overturned tomorrow. One would not think this elaboration would be necessary, but here we are. I think nobody needs to be told that science rarely "speaks in one unequivocal, authoritative voice", unless one is attempting to make a pedantic "gotcha" point, which in this particular instance missed badly due to an incorrect reading of the common usage of this term (as can be seen in the google search results - seems everybody in those endless results understands that, but of course that doesn't include the odd individual who may wish to willfully and linguistically incorrectly misread it in argumentative point scoring). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 10:34 PM, Dean Pomerleau said:

I too would bet on Michael, for the simple reason that over the next several decades he is very likely to have the inside track on emerging SENS rejuvenation technologies. This coupled with his strong motivation to try them as a result of an unusually acute aversion to his own mortality, means Michael will likely outlive us all, if he doesn't die early trying interventions before they are fully vetted. 

--Dean 

Dean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the answer is a U shaped curve.

The 5% body fat isn’t healthy, and 40% fat isn’t healthy.

Common sense says ideal is 15% to 25% long term, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×