Re: Warning on HGH a baseless opinion column?

[Guest guest]

, HGH is a prescription hormone. When I investigated HGH injections myself

I found no recent references that supported a negative claim or warning, and

I've read about all of them. Today, people are taking much smaller injections

much more often in keeping with biological function, escaping the high dosage

issues of 20 years ago, and the old dose-related problems are very old news.

Because HGH injections are a prescription item, any " warning " should be directed

to the doctors who prescribe and monitor the HGH. I suspect the doctors already

have that information, so, the " warning " is very poorly targeted in addition to

being probably baseless.

As an 11 year old child your HGH release was about twice what it was as a young

adult of 20 years, and at 20 your HGH release is about double that at 36 years

of age. At 36 your HGH release was about double what it's going to be at 72.

A variance of eight times the HGH coursing through the child's veins compared to

the elderly adult is a lot of health, we have lots of data for it; cancer rates

are proven to be lower in people with higher HGH. I'd expect more people to be

interested in higher HGH than low.

Anyway, most of us do not buy HGH but prefer to maintain our own HGH release.

Secretagogues can only get an adult to release the level of HGH of a 22-25 year

old, which is still less than half the natural release of an 11 year old.

So much for the " warning " , and now I use the term very loosely and with a little

crooked smile. If you do find references we'll discuss them, but I've read the

actual work done in the field so I'm not about to embark on analysing anyone's

opinion columns. Thank you for asking my view.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>  

> Have you heard about this?  What is your view on the article?

>  

>

>  

[Guest guest]

Apparently the NY Times article regarding HGH was not " a baseless opinion

column " . I came across this recent article in Science Daily today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216141034.htm

It references the same 22 year study that was reported in the Times. I think we

have to take it seriously and perhaps think twice before investing in products

that increase HGH - especially for those of us in the senior category. It

appears that HGH is very necessary for growth until puberty but can be

problematic with regard to cancer or diabetes if too much is in the body later

in life. More studies, of course, will need to be done but I for one don't think

it's worth taking a chance.

Dee

[Guest guest]

" A long-term study finds extremely low incidence of cancer and diabetes among

individuals with a growth-stunting genetic defect. "

Great; where do we sign up? You'll have to do a GM splice to foster dwarfism in

your children but it's certainly do-able.

Seriously, Dee, it won't fly far against a mountain of adequate research on

healthy senior humans that shows " age-related " depreciation, diabetes, cancer

starts, and most existing degenerative disorders are all reduced or even

reversed while on the HGH program.

The short answer is disease is higher and death from all causes is higher in the

low HGH group. That is, genetic defect aside, which most of us aspire too.

Here's the link again to the pages of peer-reviewed HGH references; You won't go

to the page Dee because I wrote it, but the data is there and it's the same data

for all arguments and everyone else too.

It's a huge amount of positive information; The diabetes references are there

and so is Dr. Chein's work in which his HGH subjects had no cancer starts at

all. The fact that one elderly man who already had cancer was cured with the HGH

therapy was also duly noted in aeparate case study by Dr. Chien.

><http://tinyurl.com/SomaLife-gHP>

That is real expertise.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Apparently the NY Times article regarding HGH was not " a baseless opinion

column " . I came across this recent article in Science Daily today:

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216141034.htm

>

> It references the same 22 year study that was reported in the Times. I think

we have to take it seriously and perhaps think twice before investing in

products that increase HGH - especially for those of us in the senior category.

It appears that HGH is very necessary for growth until puberty but can be

problematic with regard to cancer or diabetes if too much is in the body later

in life. More studies, of course, will need to be done but I for one don't think

it's worth taking a chance.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

All of the websites touting HGH and referencing Dr. Chen also sell HGH products.

The only thing I could find not related to sales is here:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030

My preference is to err on the side of caution but I'm happy to let you and

others make your own decisions.

Dee

[Guest guest]

Dee, the data is the same for everyone; do try the references. Once you're in

PubMed on any of the studies, the right hand column has clickable relevant

studies. HGH therapy, and anti-aging therapy generally, mushroomed when the

early birds read the outcome of Chien's, Rudman's, Durk and Sandy's and lots of

other early research, precisely the stuff that I've posted, which occurred long

before the products were available. Products were developed, refined, and new

ones being developed, because the outcome is all beneficial and very much in

demand.

In my view after undenatured whey and selenium, HGH therapy generally,

specifically secretagogues, is the #2 anti-aging approach. And, you don't need

to be diagnosed as critically low in HGH before you can take advantage of the

therapy without a prescription by using sewcretagogues that are already on the

market.

We're not sure if HGH therapy slows aging but the health/youth markers indicate

a plateau of youthful adult virility and strength that is not otherwise very

common for people of advancing age; time will tell if anyone lives much longer

or suddenly dies even though they are cancer-free and in better health, but it

would seem to be a life extender. Meanwhile, it improves tone, organ and gland

function, sleep patterns and heals damage etc, and can dramatically improves

quality of life.

HGH therapy fortifies against the top causes of death. That done, what you will

die of and when is anyone's guess, probably relevant to your other deficiencies

or toxin load.

all good,

Duncan

>

> All of the websites touting HGH and referencing Dr. Chen also sell HGH

products. The only thing I could find not related to sales is here:

> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030

>

> My preference is to err on the side of caution but I'm happy to let you and

others make your own decisions.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> We're not sure if HGH therapy slows aging but the health/youth

> markers indicate a plateau of youthful adult virility and strength

> that is not otherwise very common for people of advancing age;

> time will tell if anyone lives much longer or suddenly dies even

> though they are cancer-free and in better health, but it would

> seem to be a life extender. Meanwhile, it improves tone, organ

> and gland function, sleep patterns and heals damage etc, and can

> dramatically improves quality of life.

I think different people prioritize differently when it comes to quality of life

vs. quantity of life. Personally, I'd rather have a more robust quality of life,

even if it meant I might not live as long. I saw a video of a gathering of

people doing caloric restriction for life extension, and they were scrawny,

Auschwitzian stick people. I'd rather die earlier than live a longer life as a

frail emaciated skeleton.

[Guest guest]

I have felt much the same way about caloric restriction. However, as

I eat more healthily with undenatured whey, heavy cream, fish oil,

and coconut oil every day, I have less appetite for big heavy meals.

I am by no means scrawny, but I have no interest in large meals. I

used to eat 2 dozen chicken wings in a meal. Now I eat 5 wing

drumettes. I used to eat half a chicken in one meal. Now I eat 1/2

of a split breast. I used to eat a pound steak. Now I am quite

satisfied with 4 ounces of steak.

Alobar

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Stanley

<j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote:

>

> I think different people prioritize differently when it comes to quality of

life vs. quantity of life. Personally, I'd rather have a more robust quality of

life, even if it meant I might not live as long. I saw a video of a gathering of

people doing caloric restriction for life extension, and they were scrawny,

Auschwitzian stick people. I'd rather die earlier than live a longer life as a

frail emaciated skeleton.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

You keep repeating the same thing hoping that if you say it over and over people

will believe it. That seems to be the case with the promotion of HGH after only

one study. And the PubMed articles seem to deal only with it's use in

individuals who are deficient before puberty and could find none that support

your claims regarding the aging. But apparently you chose to ignore the Mayo

Clinic article that says:

" What can human growth hormone do for otherwise healthy adults?

Studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone are limited. Although it

appears that human growth hormone injections can increase muscle mass and reduce

the amount of body fat in healthy older adults, the increase in muscle doesn't

translate into increased strength. It isn't clear if human growth hormone may

provide other benefits to healthy adults .What are the risks of taking human

growth hormone if you don't need it?

Human growth hormone may cause a number of side effects for healthy adults,

including:

Carpal tunnel syndrome

Swelling in the arms and legs

Joint pain

Muscle pain

For men, enlargement of breast tissue (gynecomastia)

Human growth hormone may also contribute to conditions such as diabetes and

heart disease. "

But, as I said, I'm happy to let others make their own choice.

Dee

[Guest guest]

I agree with you totally ; however, living with diabetes doesn't add to the

quality of life and dying of cancer isn't a whole lot of fun :-)

Btw, regarding the one man on Dr. Chen's HGH study who was cured of his cancer

- Dr. Chen had added DHEA and melatonin to the protocol. There is some very good

research on the anti-cancer qualities of melatonin. So perhaps if you do decide

to go for the HGH you could add some melatonin as a preventative. Here is some

good info on melatonin's anti-cancer effects:

http://tinyurl.com/4ugn58e

And some quotes: " 10. There are nearly a thousand studies showing that melatonin

supplementation has important oncostatic effects: both in cancer prevention, and

also during chemotherapy, where it cuts down the side effects.

11. Melatonin levels decline with age, and melatonin supplements have been shown

to have anti-aging benefits. "

Best,

Dee

>

> I think different people prioritize differently when it comes to quality of

life vs. quantity of life. Personally, I'd rather have a more robust quality of

life, even if it meant I might not live as long. I saw a video of a gathering of

people doing caloric restriction for life extension, and they were scrawny,

Auschwitzian stick people. I'd rather die earlier than live a longer life as a

frail emaciated skeleton.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I agree with you totally ; however, living with diabetes

> doesn't add to the quality of life and dying of cancer isn't

> a whole lot of fun :-)

I have no intention of getting HGH injections. I have used amino acid

secretagogues, and the only noticeable effect was deeper sleep.

After decades of buying into all sorts of new age, vegetarian nonsense about the

idealness of whole grains and beans, and getting fatter and fatter as I entered

middle-age, I shifted to a low-ish carb, paleo/primal diet, lost weight, and

started weightlifting. I'm not terribly worried that a diet containing organic,

pasture-raised red meat is going to shorten my life, but if it does, I'd rather

have the quality of life of a diet that doesn't make me fat and put me to sleep

every afternoon. I'm pretty sure that the insulin spikes and blood sugar swings

of a starch-based diet are far worse for me than eating steak a few times a

week.

[Guest guest]

Again, I totally agree. I subscribe to basically the same diet as you after

a similar experience. I also tried the secretagogues at one time and noticed no

effect at all. I mistakenly thought your original response was in support of

using HGH despite the latest 20 year study.

Best,

Dee

> >

> > I agree with you totally ; however, living with diabetes

> > doesn't add to the quality of life and dying of cancer isn't

> > a whole lot of fun :-)

>

> I have no intention of getting HGH injections. I have used amino acid

secretagogues, and the only noticeable effect was deeper sleep.

>

> After decades of buying into all sorts of new age, vegetarian nonsense about

the idealness of whole grains and beans, and getting fatter and fatter as I

entered middle-age, I shifted to a low-ish carb, paleo/primal diet, lost weight,

and started weightlifting. I'm not terribly worried that a diet containing

organic, pasture-raised red meat is going to shorten my life, but if it does,

I'd rather have the quality of life of a diet that doesn't make me fat and put

me to sleep every afternoon. I'm pretty sure that the insulin spikes and blood

sugar swings of a starch-based diet are far worse for me than eating steak a few

times a week.

>

[Guest guest]

Dee, most of the PubMed research papers I posted on HGH therapy on my site is on

healthy senior adults, senior diabetic adults, senior adults with osteoporosis,

with heart disease, with kidney disease, with osteopenia, and with arthritis.

Pertinent information in every respect. Here again is the data page; the data is

the same for everybody and there are many studies:

http://tinyurl.com/SomaLife-gHP

The study you posted as a negative is an academic focus on genetically abnormal

dwarfs, not healthy senior adults.

Having one or more defective genes, the subjects are *guaranteed* to have skewed

biology, and these unfortunates are commonly singled out for small studies in

order to mercifully correct their plight while they are still children. No

non-mutant controls were used because normal kids have 8-15 times the HGH

release and they are tall, robust and healthy, totally unlike the subjects.

See the problem? The differences simply can't be overlooked to make an argument,

and, there may well have been several other differences or reasons dwarfs don't

get cancer or diabetes. Only one criteria was used in the study and an opinion

made on only one criteria is still essentially baseless. It is interesting

academically, but as a practical matter having a defective gene in HGH release

doesn't support biology very well, we have scads of data to support that, and

low HGH is treatable with HGH and an optimal result can be obtained.

Would dwarfism be another " optimal result " ? I doubt it. The reality is that such

a defect will not be implemented by the general public, and it's a grave mistake

to deliberately reduce HGH in the general population to match defective dwarf

subjects when adequate data exists that shows decent hormonal values also reduce

cancer and diabetes.

In fact, the very group of individuals with the highest HGH, that is, children

and healthy old people being treated with HGH therapy, have the lowest figures

of all groups for cancer starts, while adults with the lowest HGH have the

highest incidence of cancer and the other degenerative illnesses.

'Nuf said.

Moving on, the reference you sent in about side effects from HGH injections is

very old; that's why it says studies on humans are limited. Today they aren't.

Anyway, it is still an embarrassment to the participating doctors because these

effects, it turns out result only from high-dosing; early inept handling of the

treatment involved doctors giving a week or 10 days worth of HGH in a single

injection.

Anyway, high-dosing on HGH doesn't happen today as the doctors are better

informed. More, many pople do their own at home so are in a position to do two

or three small daily injections.

With natural HGH relesase the body avoids all these side effects even though the

actual HGH release is several times higher in children during a week than even

the average of the adult's weekly injection. I'm a supporter of secretagogues

that produce HGH release as there are never side effects and high-dosing is

impossible.

Dee, I hope this better critique better answers your questions. I've gone down

all these rabbit holes on this subject and if you had too during your search for

negative opinions you'd be in a better position to comment and probably would

have not mentioned either the dwarf study or the antique one. The data is the

same for everyone and there are hundreds of research papers that support even

HGH injections. Here again is the data page:

http://tinyurl.com/SomaLife-gHP

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan,

>

> You keep repeating the same thing hoping that if you say it over and over

people will believe it. That seems to be the case with the promotion of HGH

after only one study. And the PubMed articles seem to deal only with it's use in

individuals who are deficient before puberty and could find none that support

your claims regarding the aging. But apparently you chose to ignore the Mayo

Clinic article that says:

>

> " What can human growth hormone do for otherwise healthy adults?

> Studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone are limited. Although it

appears that human growth hormone injections can increase muscle mass and reduce

the amount of body fat in healthy older adults, the increase in muscle doesn't

translate into increased strength. It isn't clear if human growth hormone may

provide other benefits to healthy adults .What are the risks of taking human

growth hormone if you don't need it?

> Human growth hormone may cause a number of side effects for healthy adults,

including:

>

> Carpal tunnel syndrome

> Swelling in the arms and legs

> Joint pain

> Muscle pain

> For men, enlargement of breast tissue (gynecomastia)

> Human growth hormone may also contribute to conditions such as diabetes and

heart disease. "

>

> But, as I said, I'm happy to let others make their own choice.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Duncan, I saw nothing there that referenced PubMed papers - and in reference to

secretagogues the Mayo Clinic also had this to say:

quote: " Some websites sell a pill form of human growth hormone and claim that it

produces results similar to the injected form of the drug. Sometimes these

dietary supplements are called human growth hormone releasers. There's no proof

that these claims are true. Likewise, there's no proof that homeopathic remedies

claiming to contain human growth hormone work. "

Can we end this now? You aren't likely to convince me as I've heard it ALL

before. If, however, there are members (besides yourself and your wife) who have

achieved great results from SomaLife, I invite them to give us their report.

Dee

[Guest guest]

, I agree with you on quality of life probably being better than quantity,

and I want both Starving like you mentioned vields very little robustness,

energy, recovery or lymph movement; these weaklings are biologically impaired.

Robustness should be a life extender in the longer term anyway, particularly if

the main impairment to robustness, low HGH secretion, has been taken care of.

Robustness and attributes of youthfulness, or " youth markers " is what keeps

coming up in the references on HGH therapy on senior adults. Two of those lists,

along with the percentage of people who improved (from one study) are posted in

my HGH references.

Gooogle ranks my site in position #1 and #2 in a search on HGH references

because it's the world's top site right now for this kind of content.

all good,

Duncan

> >

> >

> > We're not sure if HGH therapy slows aging but the health/youth

> > markers indicate a plateau of youthful adult virility and strength

> > that is not otherwise very common for people of advancing age;

> > time will tell if anyone lives much longer or suddenly dies even

> > though they are cancer-free and in better health, but it would

> > seem to be a life extender. Meanwhile, it improves tone, organ

> > and gland function, sleep patterns and heals damage etc, and can

> > dramatically improves quality of life.

>

> I think different people prioritize differently when it comes to quality of

life vs. quantity of life. Personally, I'd rather have a more robust quality of

life, even if it meant I might not live as long. I saw a video of a gathering of

people doing caloric restriction for life extension, and they were scrawny,

Auschwitzian stick people. I'd rather die earlier than live a longer life as a

frail emaciated skeleton.

>

[Guest guest]

If it wasn't SomaLife GHP Dee or one of the drug secretagogues, there are no

other products on the market that are guaranteed or patented for the purpose, so

you could easily have shopped a HGH soundalike product.

Doctors who use secretagogues profess 95% effectiveness anyway and having about

200 people on the product over the years I have to agree. My wife now seems more

like 32 than 50, and I'm more like 42 than 56 with the same approach.

It's nice to be this vigorous; I easily keep up to the kids and their 20

something friends; hiking/exploring, grandchildren, dog, camping, caving, all

night loving, all that youthful stuff in my quality of life. Hope I can keep it

for anbother 50 years

Wasn't that latest 20 year study you're referring to that one on dwarfs with

genetic abnormalities? Try the studies on senior adults.

all good,

Duncan

>

> Again, I totally agree. I subscribe to basically the same diet as you

after a similar experience. I also tried the secretagogues at one time and

noticed no effect at all. I mistakenly thought your original response was in

support of using HGH despite the latest 20 year study.

>

> Best,

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Dee you're not on the same page then. Where the quoted passage has a link to

pubmed or reads something like PMID: 2355952 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] you

know its from PubMed. There are pages of links.

http://tinyurl.com/SomaLife-gHP

(by the way everyone SomaLife has been available in stores or the manufacturer

for 3 years now, not from me, I don't carry it)

The passage you just posted Dee could well be paraphrased from my own article

below; I'm sure it will look familiar:

The Straight Goods on HGH

I wrote this article for the local paper after the health food stores had a run

on HGH " homeopathic " as a result of earlier columns on HGH increase for

anti-aging and Fat Wars. I know that sublingual HGH and homeopathic do not

increase HGH or IGF-1 levels, and I didn't want anyone to be saying, " I tried

that HGH crap -- didn't do nothin' fer me!! " based on anything I wrote. As the

anti-aging specialists and sports nutritionists have found, there is indeed lots

of crap out there, and generally HGH supplements are proven failures. . . .

here's why:Duncan Crow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Body Electric (by Duncan Crow)

Judging by the calls I received, people are more interested in reducing their

weight than living longer. But the process is the same; all I did was highlight

different reasons to start the process. If you're fat, diabetic, arthritic,

fatigued and have sleep disturbances and myalgia, you can change that if you

want to; longevity is simply the natural outcome of optimal health.

Many people are deficient in the amino acid tryptophan, which is needed to

produce melatonin (your sleep inducing hormone). Tryptophan also regulates

intracellular water. High-alpha-lactalbumin whey protein isolates are excellent

tryptophan containing proteins. They promote sleep, produce muscle mass, and

produce glutathione; they are significant life extenders.

Human growth hormone (HGH) also promotes sleep and stimulates increased lean

body mass, which is a significant life extender since depletion of lean body

mass results in muscle weakness, organ failure and death. More than muscle size,

lean body mass encompasses bone density, organ density and vitality, restoration

of shrinking cells back to their normal size and restoration of intracellular

and extracellular water.

Several people called to express confusion about the many supplements that claim

to raise growth hormone levels. Some even thought they were buying concentrated

HGH at the store for just a few bucks rather than a thousand or so. That sure

would be the deal of the century. Indeed, some off-the-shelf products claim in

large letters that they have HGH but disclaim it elsewhere for the falsehood it

is. Real HGH is NOT available off-the-shelf in Canada. This is hype refined to a

high art so let's deal with it right now.

Injectable HGH is effective but expensive, and although less expensive HGH

increasers have been tried, doctors and health professionals have had uniformly

disappointing results with them. Take, for example, homeopathic HGH or IGF-1.

Even Dr Koch's patented longevity vitamin Vitacel GH7, which is nothing more

than vitamins, outperforms both. Says Dr. Koch, " Three years of revealing market

data shows escalating sales month after month on the GH7, with continual repeat

sales... while 98% of the customers who bought homeopathic HGH and or IGF-1

never returned for another order. " What went wrong? Nothing at all; any

homeopath can tell you that seriously diluted HGH is not a real homeopathic mix,

and the fact remains that certain blood concentrations are required for growth

hormone to be effective.

You see, the liver must convert a portion of the HGH to its active form,

insulinlike growth factor (IGF-1); lab analysis showed that if the IGF-1 levels

in the blood did not increase by 30 ng/ml, the experiment failed. Dr. Ron

Meyers, head of a multi-doctor longevity center in California, says the best

product he found during his clinical studies through 1999 increased IGF-1 by

only 2 or 3 mcg; the " strongest " oral HGH spray contains 1200 ng/ml before it

enters your 5 liters of blood! Doing the math, you need not just a squirt, but

125 ml daily, or 4.5 of the one-ounce bottles even if it was all absorbed, and

we know it is hardly absorbed at all. Through many years of trial, Dr. Myers and

other health professionals established that about a hundred competing products

failed to deliver on the HGH and IGF-1 promise and it would be decidedly

unprofessional to recommend any of them.

Except one, and it's as elegant as it is simple. It's not available in stores in

Canada; you buy it directly from the manufacturer. Health professionals

immediately see its value because they know about HGH and about secretagogues.

To distinguish this nugget from the gravels, the magic words to them are

" crystalline, free-form amino acid stack " . They know that's what facilitates the

penetration through the blood-brain barrier. With this mix they see the same

fantastic results that they were seeing with HGH injections in more than 90% of

clients; that's why health professionals are the largest proponents of this new

supplement. At last, doctors and health professionals have the ability to

cost-effectively and reliably deliver the HGH and IGF-1.

By reliably, I refer again to Dr. Myers, who says that it works on everybody,

and for diabetes II, regenerating the pancreas, weight loss, sleep disturbances,

lowering blood pressure and cholesterol, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid

arthritis, patients can improve in only matter of weeks instead of months or

even years that nutritional therapies alone would commonly take. And in

fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue cases, improvement can be noted that just

wouldn't have happened previously. Hear it for yourself in Dr. Meyers' audio

interview. (If the interview doesn't open, you need to install a free copy of

the Real Video Player.)

When it comes to effective HGH supplements, rather than trying everything on the

market to find out for yourself what won't work, doesn't it just make sense to

use what the doctors found is reliable enough to stake their reputations on?

all good,

Duncan

>

> Duncan, I saw nothing there that referenced PubMed papers - and in reference

to secretagogues the Mayo Clinic also had this to say:

>

> quote: " Some websites sell a pill form of human growth hormone and claim that

it produces results similar to the injected form of the drug. Sometimes these

dietary supplements are called human growth hormone releasers. There's no proof

that these claims are true. Likewise, there's no proof that homeopathic remedies

claiming to contain human growth hormone work. "

>

> Can we end this now? You aren't likely to convince me as I've heard it ALL

before. If, however, there are members (besides yourself and your wife) who have

achieved great results from SomaLife, I invite them to give us their report.

>

> Dee

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Who says that these are the only options? There is little reason to

believe that they are and I, for one, expect both a long and robust

life. So far, at least for me, at age 69, the longevity option has no

downside and the " stick people " option does not begin to hold water. I

have Duncan Crowe to thank for his sage advice years ago (at the correct

time) along with several others along the way. One thing for certain,

the internet contains a wealth of knowledge that was never available for

my father only thirty years ago and he was searching diligently for the

facts before he died of a massive heart attack and stroke.

My priorities don't include compromise. When the time is right, I will

gently step out of my body with no regrets. Life has been good.

Cheers,

Jim

>I think different people prioritize differently when it comes to

quality of life vs. quantity of life. Personally, I'd rather have a more

robust quality of life, even if it meant I might not live as long. I saw

a video of a gathering of people doing caloric restriction for life

extension, and they were scrawny, Auschwitzian stick people. I'd rather

die earlier than live a longer life as a frail emaciated skeleton.<