Re: Studies identify modifiable factors associated with exceptionally long life

[Guest guest]

[ ] Studies identify modifiable factors associated

with exceptionally long life

However, if he had adverse factors, his probability of living to age

90 was reduced to the following amount:

* Sedentary lifestyle, 44 percent

This is a circular function. If they are healthy, they'll be active.

Regards

[Guest guest]

Is not the " adverse factor " of interest here the

sedentary lifestyle itself, not something else that results

in a sedentary lifestyle? If so, it is not circular.

-Dave

>

>

> [ ] Studies identify modifiable factors associated

> with exceptionally long life

>

>

> However, if he had adverse factors, his probability of living to age

> 90 was reduced to the following amount:

>

> * Sedentary lifestyle, 44 percent

>

> This is a circular function. If they are healthy, they'll be active.

>

> Regards

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks: It seems to me what we need to see, as always, is evidence. Specifically: whether the average or maximum lifepans of 'essentially sedentary' human males eating 1800 calories a day (or 'essentially sedentary' human females eating 1400 calories; or the equivalent in some mammalian species) are any different from those of human males eating 1800 calories a day and expending 100 calories a day (or 200, or 500) in some form of exercise. [As often noted here no one as far as I know disputes that a certain minimum amount of exercise is essential - being bed-ridden clearly is not healthy. The issue is where the thresholds are beyond which additional exercise provides no additional benefit, and becomes counter-productive because of the generation of free radicals?] If anyone knows of such a study, as SPECIFICALLY outlined above, please post it. Another oddity here is that we now have one paper which claims to show that the telomeres of exercisers are longer than those of sedentaries. Yet there have been quite a number of studies which found that exercise does not extend maximum lifespan. There is something awry here. Surely, if longer telomeres mean anything for lifespan one would have thought they would have extended maximum lifespan. As usual the jury is still out. But are all the studies showing that exercise does not extend maximum lifespan about to be contradicted by as many other which say the opposite? Perhaps. But it doesn't seem likely. Rodney.

> >> > > > [ ] Studies identify modifiable factors associated> > with exceptionally long life> > > > > > However, if he had adverse factors, his probability of living to age> > 90 was reduced to the following amount:> > > > * Sedentary lifestyle, 44 percent> > > > This is a circular function. If they are healthy, they'll be active.> > > > Regards> >>

[Guest guest]

It's not clear that there is any conflict in studies, is it? If

exercising increases average lifespan, but not maximum lifespan, it is

not a surprise that an active 50 yr-old will have longer telomeres

than a sedentary 50 yr-old, and so the active 50 yr-old is likely to

live longer. He/she has a better chance of making it to 100, but that

would not necessarily indicate an increase in maximum lifespan in a

statistical sense. And one should not discount the importance of

increasing average lifespan, especially if you like to play the odds!

(and I think that most of us in this group do). Does CR negate the

effect that exercise has on increasing *average* lifespan? Any study

showing this?

-Dave

> > >

> > >

> > > [ ] Studies identify modifiable factors

> associated

> > > with exceptionally long life

> > >

> > >

> > > However, if he had adverse factors, his probability of living to age

> > > 90 was reduced to the following amount:

> > >

> > > * Sedentary lifestyle, 44 percent

> > >

> > > This is a circular function. If they are healthy, they'll be active.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave:

Regarding your question:

" Does CR negate the effect that exercise has on increasing *average* lifespan? Any study showing this?"

This is, of course, the issue. I am not aware of any experiments which have investigated this question specifically ............ not so much whether the effects of exercise are "negated", as you put it, but rather whether all the benefits for average lifespan that are shown to accrue from exercise in ad lib mice, are equally well helped by CRON without the need for exercise.

In other words, whether the rectangularization of the survival curve seen in ad lib mice that exercise is similarly (or more so, or less so) evident in CRON animals without exercise.

There is a very similar argument regarding alcohol. It clearly helps ad libbers. But does it add benefit above an beyond those of CRON? So far as I know (SFAIK) no one has investigated this one either.

Until someone can show a study that investigated this point I doubt there is much to be gained from further discussion. Either there is an extra benefit for average lifespan beyond that of CRON (which is believable) or there isn't (which is believable).

JMO. fwiw. What would be worth a lot more than my opinion would be a couple of papers reporting the results of studies of this specific issue.

In the meantime we each place our bets. And we will not bet right every time.

Rodney.

> > > >> > > >> > > > [ ] Studies identify modifiable factors> > associated> > > > with exceptionally long life> > > >> > > >> > > > However, if he had adverse factors, his probability of living to age> > > > 90 was reduced to the following amount:> > > >> > > > * Sedentary lifestyle, 44 percent> > > >> > > > This is a circular function. If they are healthy, they'll be active.> > > >> > > > Regards> > > >> > >> >>