X-Message-Number: 14421 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:02:14 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: about antioxidants and human aging Once more on oxidation: In a previous message I discussed results with worms which showed that increasing their ability to respond to oxidation of their body components increased their lifespan considerably. My main point was that we aren't worms; means to decrease rate of oxidation (antioxidants) may help worms much more than they help us (though they may still help). We are not machines any more than worms. Basically we, even in our brains (and neuroscientists are finding far more repair possibilities in our brains than they thought possible only a few years ago) have various means for self-repair of damage. This self-repair goes down as we age, for reasons still not completely known. However a variety of biochemicals with stimulate our brain in various ways also seem to increase self-repair: deprenyl, dilantin, levodopa, HGH, and others. Yes, along the way these substances also seem to increase the presence of natural antioxidants. It seems to me that their main effect consists of their effect on self-repair, while their increase in levels of antioxidants is a part of their effect rather than the whole of it. (My opinion. There are gerontologists who have bought the antioxidant theory almost completely). A little thought will convince you that we probably can't have COMPLETE self repair, if only because we are single beings and total repair would need duplication of everything. However if we bring in the use of devices (which may not look anything like our machines) which DO carry out complete repair of a human being we'd likely live far longer than a puny 120% of current lifespans. It's because we provably make much more of the antioxidants which our body normally makes that a pure antioxidant theory of aging looks shaky to me. For that matter, any cellular changes have at best an indirect role: we can and do replace most of our cells, and at a rate which makes it hard to see how our lifespans depend only on the eventual inability of our cells to reproduce. So what am I saying? I'm saying that a physiological theory of aging has far more chance of working long term than any concentration on single-cells or any single reaction such as oxidation. Just what form such theories may take presently seems hard to see, but none of the theories depending on only one single kind of factor are likely to explain or prevent aging. They're still valuable because they may help us SLOW our aging, and remain alive while better ideas are found. No, I'm not Greg Fahy. However I have looked at drugs which work against aging, and wrote a book on all those known to work in mammals (I ignored those working in other creatures such as insects precisely because the physiology of insects is too far from our own). The book is A GUIDE TO ANTIAGING DRUGS. Periodically one more drug is found to work on HEALTHY MAMMALS, and not to harm us human beings; it then gets added to the book, together with any other useful information found out about other drugs in the book. The latest drug combination found to increase lifespan of a healthy mammal is a preparation made from Ginkgo biloba, but there are sure to be more coming down the road. And yes, when we find out just how aging works in our PHYSIOLOGY, I will report that, too. (A very good theory of how aging EVOLVED already exists, but tells us little about how it works). Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14421