About protein and Neanderthals...

[RRM]

Thank you for your kind words, summerwave.

I was wondering though if protein is USED as sugar, if it has a different profile.

Protein used for (re)construction purposes retains its nitrogen.
Protein used as energy is split into energy and nitrogen.
So, its a different profile.
Consuming more protein, all the extra is redundant, used as energy
(fatty-like or sugar-like) and results in having to deal with extra nitrogen.

Of course, how and how well we can cope with nitrogen,
very much differs per specie.

For example, rockfish eat crustaceans and other fish-- they are not vegetarian. And again, they grow indefinitely: the oldest are the largest. They also become more fertile with age.

Yes, it is claimed that such animals dont die of old age,
but solely due to "the perils of living in the wild".
But, as there is a 210 year old baleen whale,
if they are not subject to senescence, there also must be older individuals.
Why are there no 300 year old rockfish?

An excellent indicator for longevity is maturity, as delayed reproduction
is normally associated with aging very slowly.
According to Bjorndal (1985) green sea turtles naturally take up to 50 years to reach maturity on a low protein diet.
It seems to be a trade off; less reproduction in exchange for a constant,
competitor-free food source.
When they feed on sea grass (very high in cellulose, virtually left uneaten by other animals),
they need lots of time to digest, while gaining little nutrients,
particular protein, which decreases their growth rate, delaying maturity.
When fed a high protein diet, they grow much faster, mature sooner,
and die younger.

That trade-off, you also see in other "senescence-free" species.
(short and long living individuals)

Hmmm, maybe thats whats happening with us;
we ingest so much of all the nutrients, that we mature sooner (young girls
looking like adult women),
and have reached our maximum lifespan, despite our high-tech hospitals.

[Oscar]

Hmmm, maybe thats whats happening with us;
we ingest so much of all the nutrients, that we mature sooner (young girls
looking like adult women),
and have reached our maximum lifespan, despite our high-tech hospitals.

I'm not so sure. It seems that going from a normal diet to the Wai Diet slows down aging. My suggestion would be that substances in a cooked food diet accelerate aging and thus speed up maturity and lower the maximum age (of course also due to the many diseases and disorders).

As research in the Netherlands has shown, on average we are 'healthy' until 45 years of age. After that we get chronic diseases and disorders. Our high-tech hospitals mainly extend that unhealthy period.

Of course there are many unanswered questions which make a more precise life-span prediction difficult. For instance: how does someone age who has been on a wai-like diet for his/her whole life? Are we genetically degraded after ages of bad food? And if so, will this recuperate over generations (like in Pottenger's experiment)?

[RRM]

My suggestion would be that substances in a cooked food diet accelerate aging and thus speed up maturity and lower the maximum age

Hmmm, i dont know whether accelerated aging actually speeds up maturity in individuals.
Evolutionary, yes, to compensate for a decrease in the fertile period.
But for reproduction, women of over 45 are redundant anyway,
and there is no need to compensate for a decrease in maximum age,
as there is not a decrease in the fertile period.

Im thinking about a correlation between overweight (too much nutrients)
and early maturity.
Are the children not getting bigger and bigger?
In animals, high nutrient exposure correlates with early maturity.
So, why not in humans?

[Oscar]

But in the Middle Ages women were already giving birth during their teens, so they must have been mature quite early, right?

[summerwave]

I wonder about these related topics all the time....

What an excellent conversation. (What double luck to have both of you weigh in)!

I myself have nothing to add; I'll just listen. I wondered too about the lifespan figures... of course their lives aren't infinite.

It is rather like the scientists claim that extinction is natural and 100% inevitable, no matter the species-- BUT-- there are some organisms that have been around 2 billion years.... so some have not become susceptible yet. I also wonder about lifespan for the "negligibly senescent" organisms, as it seems "endless" only if you are a human that rarely lives 100 years. (To double that seems like forever, to the egocentric human mind, much like a child thinks an hour is a long time)....

Anyway, thank you both!

[summerwave]

I have read somewhere (I cannot find it) that the top variable correlated to female lifespan is the act of conceiving and giving birth naturally at age 45 or later. No other variable is correlated with reaching age 90, for women, like this one is.

Of course it is a causality riddle: does the birth itself confer advantage? Or does one have the advantage (of aging slowly, somehow), in advance, which allows one to give birth at this age?

I am sure we would ALL be living longer if women were "allowed," in the past, to delay childbearing.... if it wasn't the only path to economic livelihood (through a man's livelihood and protection) from an early age. If, like these negligibly senescent organisms, women didn't feel compelled to give birth until later than they do, and those who could passed on their genes (and for those who couldn't it wouldn't be a big deal), we would all be related to long-lived women. I am sure the human lifespan has been shortened down because so many women, through so much of history, were rather "chained" to reproductive lives from a very early age.

Turtles don't have these social pressures.

[gracie]

Yes, I have been researching centenarians lately and noticed this late childbearing/longevity correlation among women.

Here is an article about it (sorry, all the academic articles require subscriptions )
http://www.nationalpost.com/life/health ... id=1597156

I'm one of those girls who doesn't want children, OR if I somehow change my entire worldview (and/or the earth can suddenly manage to sustain over 7 billion people), I would only want to do it after age 40. My mother had me at almost 40, and I turned out fine and she's going strong (despite a horrible diet).

My step-mother actually had a baby last year, at age 51; she is on the verge of getting pregnant again. Despite already having two teenage children, she's decided to spend money on fertility treatments. I have to bite my tongue about her decision (very, very--very-- hard), but she is an example of how science can indeed "unchain" women from their reproductive lives.

Although the article I included says that women who use fertility treatments to conceive at a later age to NOT get the benefit of longevity. (btw, I'm also not sure how valid the gene-correlation is.) Interesting!

[RRM]

But in the Middle Ages women were already giving birth during their teens, so they must have been mature quite early, right?

Yes, but here the cause could be very different.
In the middle ages early maturity might have been caused by short life expectency,
a well known evolutionary adaptation.
Currently, early maturity may be a direct consequence of high nutrient intake in early life.

I myself have nothing to add; I'll just listen.

Hmmm....
How does the above correspond with the following?

I wondered too about the lifespan figures... of course their lives aren't infinite.
It is rather like the scientists claim that extinction is natural and 100% inevitable, no matter the species-- BUT-- there are some organisms that have been around 2 billion years.... so some have not become susceptible yet. I also wonder about lifespan for the "negligibly senescent" organisms, as it seems "endless" only if you are a human that rarely lives 100 years. (To double that seems like forever, to the egocentric human mind, much like a child thinks an hour is a long time)....
...
I have read somewhere (I cannot find it) that the top variable correlated to female lifespan is the act of conceiving and giving birth naturally at age 45 or later. No other variable is correlated with reaching age 90, for women, like this one is.

Of course it is a causality riddle: does the birth itself confer advantage? Or does one have the advantage (of aging slowly, somehow), in advance, which allows one to give birth at this age?

I am sure we would ALL be living longer if women were "allowed," in the past, to delay childbearing.... if it wasn't the only path to economic livelihood (through a man's livelihood and protection) from an early age. If, like these negligibly senescent organisms, women didn't feel compelled to give birth until later than they do, and those who could passed on their genes (and for those who couldn't it wouldn't be a big deal), we would all be related to long-lived women. I am sure the human lifespan has been shortened down because so many women, through so much of history, were rather "chained" to reproductive lives from a very early age.

Turtles don't have these social pressures.

Yes, I have been researching centenarians lately and noticed this late childbearing/longevity correlation among women.

Whatever the correlation, it is not related to general "negligible senescence".
As this review study concludes that "centenarians certainly do not show negligible senescence".
Though they may have missed that this negligible senescence may be limited to the reproductive organs,
as its often limited to certain organs.

The late conception by itself cannot be the cause, because when you make that happen by cheating (fertility treatments),
it doesnt work (longevity wise).
So, i actually opt for the gene-correlation;
when you are genetically disposed to be fertile a bit later in life,
it may be that your fertility was retarded.
Retarded maturity of the reproductive organs may lead to a decreased risk of diseases in which the sex hormones are involved (osteoporosis, hormone-induced cancers)

[summerwave]

Ah; well, it is something I heard about 15 years ago, before fertility treatments seemed to become the norm....


At the time I had noted that many women in my family had conceived and given birth naturally age 40-45-- it was at a time when there was near-hysteria about "biological clocks ticking" as women were entering the workplace in enormous #s in the U.S. Indeed I have one female relative whose 2 children are 25 yrs apart in age; the second was born when she was 45 or 46.

The reason I said I didn't have anything to add is that I do not have the citation; it is hearsay; it is really nothing more than an anecdote until I find the research, and so it is really "nothing" in the scheme of a good conversation....

[RRM]

Of course it is something!
And I was just making fun of you....

[summerwave]

Well, I dearly love to be made fun of, so that is a two-way street of happiness my friend

[Kookaburra]

Whatever the correlation, it is not related to general "negligible senescence".

What is negligible senescence?

[Kookaburra]

Speaking of aging, do you think being on the Wai Diet will make us live longer? Maybe one of us can break the World Record of 122 years old? What do you guys think?

[RRM]

What is negligible senescence?

In negligibly senescent animals there is no measurable reduction in the age-related capacity to reproduce,
no measurable age-related decline in normal functioning,
and no measurable age-related increase in death rate.
Which all is the case in senescent organisms.
Examples of negligibly senescent animals:
Rougheye rockfish, Aldabra Giant Tortoise, lobsters and sea anemones.

Speaking of aging, do you think being on the Wai Diet will make us live longer? Maybe one of us can break the World Record of 122 years old? What do you guys think?

I honestly do think so.

[Oscar]

Speaking of aging, do you think being on the Wai Diet will make us live longer? Maybe one of us can break the World Record of 122 years old? What do you guys think?

I too believe that. Seeing how the diet slows down aging enormously, that wouldn't be a surprise. Of course we have to keep in mind the age at which you start, how healthy your body was when you started, how strict you are, possible genetic weaknesses, etc. 122 might not be that old for us.