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