Is it time for Ageing to be classified as a disease?

sxt

Ageing is bad for you. There will never be a cure for "age related diseases" unless you treat Ageing as a disease

If there were 7 billion bill Gates in the world, and they all put all their money into "curing dementia", it simply wouldn't work unless you address Ageing itself as a disease.

This is from the NHS UK official site, regarding dementia

[url] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dementia/cure/#:~:text=There is currently no "cure,Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia[/url]
There is currently no "cure" for dementia. In fact, because dementia is caused by different diseases it is unlikely that there will be a single cure for dementia.

Research is aimed at finding cures for dementia-causing diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.

Read more about the causes of dementia.

Huge strides have been made in understanding how different diseases cause damage in the brain and so produce dementia. And with increased funding over the past few years, there are now many more research studies and clinical trials taking place.

Although a cure may be some years away, there are some very promising advances.

Ficheall

Life is a terminal std.

Montage of Feck

Compulsory euthanasia at 35 is the only cure.

Tork

OP, have you ever lost someone close to you to dementia?

Larbre34

You're dying from the moment you're born.

Geriatrics is the health care of elderly people, specifically because the unique coalescence of a combination of wear and tear illnesses and injuries in older people require specialists to care for.

So no, aging isn't a disease, but dementia, heart disease, COPD, cancer, osteoporosis, visual impairment, kidney disease etc all are. They can affect any age, but they mostly affect the mortality of the old.

EmmetSpiceland

Considering how much whinging goes on, on this site, regarding “over population” perhaps it’s time to set a limit on things. Or at least stopping investing in things like anti-malaria treatments and age-related illnesses.

Then there wouldn’t be a need for any angry individuals to be bleating on about those continuing the human race.

SeanW

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Considering how much whinging goes on, on this site, regarding “over population” perhaps it’s time to set a limit on things. Or at least stopping investing in things like anti-malaria treatments and age-related illnesses.

Then there wouldn’t be a need for any angry individuals to be bleating on about those continuing the human race.

Is this a joke?

buried

lol Yeah sure why not. Every single facet of what was once called life a 'normal life' is now deemed to be a spreader of 'disease' anyways, so - lets make the actual natural way of life, which is 'ageing', a total classification of some sort of 'disease' now too. On that note, let us all go and jump in the river because some of us just simply can't be arsed dealing with life's challenges.

FintanMcluskey

Whatever about ageing, preventing and curing obesity will take a massive burden off our health service in future.

In fact, Covid certainly wouldn’t have caused the havoc it did if obesity wasn’t as prevalent

sxt

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're dying from the moment you're born.

Geriatrics is the health care of elderly people, specifically because the unique coalescence of a combination of wear and tear illnesses and injuries in older people require specialists to care for.

So no, aging isn't a disease, but dementia, heart disease, COPD, cancer, osteoporosis, visual impairment, kidney disease etc all are. They can affect any age, but they mostly affect the mortality of the old.

Ageing is natural and medical science is not able to change this?

How do you see a cure for dementia coming about?

endacl

sxt wrote: »

Ageing is natural and medical science is not able to change this?

Yep. Look after the machine and it’ll run better for longer, but it’ll still be scrap eventually.

Temptamperu

Who wants to live forever?

buried

sxt wrote: »

Ageing is natural and medical science is not able to change this?

Get used to it. Our solar systems star, The Sun, the ultimate energy that provides this planet with life in the first place, is also ageing, The Sun too will die. And human science will be able to do nothing about it.

sxt

buried wrote: »

Get used to it. Our solar systems star, The Sun, the ultimate energy that provides this planet with life in the first place, is also ageing, The Sun too will die. And human science will be able to do nothing about it.

What about all the diseases that were death sentences 50, 100 years ago. That human science could do nothing about? But human science completely eradicated forever..

Day Lewin

Is it time for Ageing to be classified as a disease?

Not at all, comrade. Check out the Blue Zones - regions of the Earth where there are many more than the usual number of centenarians in good health.
Of course, genetics has a lot to do with it - as my GP once said to me, "If you want to live a long and healthy life, choose your parents carefully."

LOL -- but he has a point: genetics has a lot to do with predicting your performance in ageing, indeed: but so do many lifestyle factors - and they are not all diet. Community spirit, good friendships, a sense of purpose, a glass of wine, a spiritual practice and and a loving family - these are among the things that make healthy ageing possible.

Never be resentful of ageing - it is a privilege denied to many.

Gregor Samsa

sxt wrote: »

Whar about all the diseases th t6kilked6peopke 59

This is what I imagine posting during a stroke to be like.

buried

sxt wrote: »

What about all the diseases that were death sentences 50, 100 years ago. That human science could do nothing about? But human science completely eradicated forever..

I'm not talking about any of those and either were you, you want 'ageing' classified as a disease, right? Well, by that logic, your solar systems star, the thing that allows you the gift to be alive is also 'ageing'. So, our Sun is 'diseased' too right? How do you invisage human science dealing with that? It can't. Ageing and death is a natural process. Wake up to that fact and you will lead a far more content existence the short time while we are here.

sxt

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

This is what I imagine posting during a stroke to be like.

Do you think ageing is natural or should it be classified as a disease?

Gregor Samsa

sxt wrote: »

Do you think ageing is natural or should it be classified as a disease?

This is also what I imagine posting during a stroke to be like.

Temptamperu

There are doctors looking into ageing. There was a great Joe Rogan about it where he interviews David Sinclair.

Temptamperu

Temptamperu wrote: »

Who wants to live forever?

No way. That's also why I disagree with the idea of Heaven. All that lazing about on clouds in the shape of chaise longues, doing fcuk all. There's only so much Philadelphia on cream-crackers I can eat, this lockdown has proved that.

sxt

Temptamperu wrote: »

There are doctors looking into ageing. There was a great Joe Rogan about it where he interviews David Sinclair.

David Sinclair is head of aging research in Harvard

George Church (who Co invented crispr) is head of departments in Harvard and mit

Both these people believe ageing should be classified as disease.

blackvalley

sxt wrote: »

Do you think ageing is natural or should it be classified as a disease?

Definitely should be classified as a disease and we should go into immediate level six lockdown until a cure is found.:D

buried

Don't get born everybody lest you disease the place up even further you disgraceful bits of tissue

sxt

buried wrote: »

Don't get born everybody lest you disease the place up even further you disgraceful bits of tissue

What about diseases like smallpox and polio? Was it wrong to eradicate them?

Leg End Reject

Portrait in the attic to age for you, be grand.

"The precise nature of ageing has always been a mystery. Now, scientists at Tel Aviv University in Israel have finally found what they claim to be success in reversing the human ageing process."


https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/science/israeli-scientists-claim-to-biologically-reverse-human-ageing-process-for-first-time-ever.html

buried

sxt wrote: »

What about diseases like smallpox and polio? Was it wrong to eradicate them?

If science has the capability to eradicate an actual disease that wont interfere with the natural order of things then that's fair enough. You are talking about AGEING, which is natural, it is just as natural as birth, by your logic and some lads on the Joe Rogan show, we should now start looking at other natural occurring forces such as birth as some sort of disease now too, right? I mean, you are 'ageing' the moment you are born. So by that sort of bat$hit logic you yourself are 'diseased' and a self drain on health resources too, right?

Whats the other scenario you want science to be the saviour to grant you? 'Eternal life' is it? Because everybody being granted 'eternal life' wouldn't be a drain on any other natural resources now would it?

Greyfox

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No way. That's also why I disagree with the idea of Heaven. All that lazing about on clouds in the shape of chaise longues, doing fcuk all. There's only so much healthy on cream-crackers I can eat, this lockdown has proved that.

Madness, even a semi existence is better than dying. Id rather live forever than be wormfood. Ageing is natural and normal and certainly not a disease but its also horrible. Youth is wasted on the young.

seenitall

Ageing is one of the most natural processes. Trying to stop ageing (aka the deterioration of physical organism in time) is, and always will be, akin to trying to stop the sun rising in the east. I mean, OP, Bill Gates and you can try, but I wouldn’t place many bets on your success. Unless we go into cyborg territory; but I’m talking about the biological constraints of the living experience. What is poetically called, “the way of all flesh”.

I’m absolutely in love with ageing - I can’t get enough of it, tbh. To paraphrase the famous philosopher Cameron Diaz, “it sure beats the alternative”.

sxt

seenitall wrote: »

Ageing is one of the most natural processes there is. Trying to stop ageing (aka the deterioration of physical organism in time) is, and always will be, akin to trying to stop the sun rising in the east. I mean, OP, Bill Gates and you can try, but I wouldn’t place many bets on your success. Unless we go into cyborg territory; but I’m talking about the biological constraints of the living experience. What is poetically called, “the way of all flesh”.

I’m absolutely in love with ageing - I can’t get enough of it, tbh. To paraphrase the famous philosopher Cameron Diaz, “it sure beats the alternative”.

That's like something written one hundred years ago

Be open minded to what is possible today

seenitall

sxt wrote: »

That's like something written one hundred years ago

Be open minded to what is possible today

Lol ok! I’ll be following your progress with this idea of fighting ageing with interest! *thumb-up*

Leg End Reject

sxt wrote: »

That's like something written one hundred years ago

Be open minded to what is possible today

An eternity of existing and working sounds like a living hell.

Where will everyone live and work? Where will we get enough food?

Ageing is a natural chronological process, we should all hope to live long enough and die quickly while still independent.

Ubbquittious

I think it's time we put a stop to this dieing codology.

Just as you're getting the hang of this life thing your body falls apart and you perish. No craic at all

Then we usher in a new generation to make the same mistakes as ourselves. Better to all become millennia-old sages. Of course people will still die in accidents if we cure this pesky aging thing. The only way it would be feasible is if only a very small number of children were allowed to be born every year.

Wibbs

Increasing longevity or better yet increasing youthful health for much longer is almost certainly possible. It's essentially an "engineering" problem. Some animals don't age at the same rate as humans. The albatross for example. If you take a 40 year old one and look at markers for aging they don't look very if at all different to a 10 year old one. IIRC there's one out there that's over 70 and she's still flying around and hatching an egg every year. You couldn't pick her out of a lineup of 30 year old birds.

Metabolic rate is part of it. Generally speaking the slower, the longer an organism lives, but quite a few beat that. Humans for a start. Bats a much better example. Most rodents are high metabolic rate animals who don't last very long, a few years. Bats also rodents with an even higher metabolic rate can live far longer. If we figure out these mechanisms I could see us engineering longer lived far more healthy humans. Insulin seems to play a big part. Pretty much every animal model placed on a very low calorie high nutrient diet lives longer and healthier. One common thread with families of centenarians is they have very good insulin responses, likely a genetic trait. Eating a healthy diet and exercising is a way of "cheating" those genetics.

So until the magic pill comes along, eat less(for many in the west a lot less), eat better, avoid sugars like the plague, eat less meat and no processed meat at all, donate blood, doubly so if you're a man, have a good social life, have lots of sex, have a sense of spirituality, don't be a clean freak, move more, floss, get out in the sun, drink some red wine, don't smoke*, have a purpose, force yourself to be optimistic, don't stop learning new things and don't stop exposing yourself(missus!) to new experiences.






*and if you do, don't inhale. A few studies have shown pipe smokers live longer on average

Leg End Reject

Wibbs wrote: »

Increasing longevity or better yet increasing youthful health for much longer is almost certainly possible. It's essentially an "engineering" problem. Some animals don't age at the same rate as humans. The albatross for example. If you take a 40 year old one and look at markers for aging they don't look very if at all different to a 10 year old one. IIRC there's one out there that's over 70 and she's still flying around and hatching an egg every year. You couldn't pick her out of a lineup of 30 year old birds.

Metabolic rate is part of it. Generally speaking the slower, the longer an organism lives, but quite a few beat that. Humans for a start. Bats a much better example. Most rodents are high metabolic rate animals who don't last very long, a few years. Bats also rodents with an even higher metabolic rate can live far longer. If we figure out these mechanisms I could see us engineering longer lived far more healthy humans. Insulin seems to play a big part. Pretty much every animal model placed on a very low calorie high nutrient diet lives longer and healthier. One common thread with families of centenarians is they have very good insulin responses, likely a genetic trait. Eating a healthy diet and exercising is a way of "cheating" those genetics.

So until the magic pill comes along, eat less(for many in the west a lot less), eat better, avoid sugars like the plague, eat less meat and no processed meat at all, donate blood, doubly so if you're a man, have a good social life, have lots of sex, have a sense of spirituality, don't be a clean freak, move more, floss, get out in the sun, drink some red wine, don't smoke*, have a purpose, force yourself to be optimistic, don't stop learning new things and don't stop exposing yourself(missus!) to new experiences.






*and if you do, don't inhale. A few studies have shown pipe smokers live longer on average

How does donating blood help?

buried

Wibbs wrote: »

Increasing longevity or better yet increasing youthful health for much longer is almost certainly possible. It's essentially an "engineering" problem. Some animals don't age at the same rate as humans. The albatross for example. If you take a 40 year old one and look at markers for aging they don't look very if at all different to a 10 year old one. IIRC there's one out there that's over 70 and she's still flying around and hatching an egg every year. You couldn't pick her out of a lineup of 30 year old birds.

Metabolic rate is part of it. Generally speaking the slower, the longer an organism lives, but quite a few beat that. Humans for a start. Bats a much better example. Most rodents are high metabolic rate animals who don't last very long, a few years. Bats also rodents with an even higher metabolic rate can live far longer. If we figure out these mechanisms I could see us engineering longer lived far more healthy humans. Insulin seems to play a big part. Pretty much every animal model placed on a very low calorie high nutrient diet lives longer and healthier. One common thread with families of centenarians is they have very good insulin responses, likely a genetic trait. Eating a healthy diet and exercising is a way of "cheating" those genetics.

So until the magic pill comes along, eat less(for many in the west a lot less), eat better, avoid sugars like the plague, eat less meat and no processed meat at all, donate blood, doubly so if you're a man, have a good social life, have lots of sex, have a sense of spirituality, don't be a clean freak, move more, floss, get out in the sun, drink some red wine, don't smoke*, have a purpose, force yourself to be optimistic, don't stop learning new things and don't stop exposing yourself(missus!) to new experiences.






*and if you do, don't inhale. A few studies have shown pipe smokers live longer on average

But sure 'living longer' is also known as 'ageing' W, but now it seems that some folk heavily indoctrinated up on the humanity self loathing scale now want the natural process of 'ageing' deemed some make of 'disease' for some bat$hit reason

Greyfox

Greyfox wrote: »

Madness, even a semi existence is better than dying. Id rather live forever than be wormfood. Ageing is natural and normal and certainly not a disease but its also horrible. Youth is wasted on the young.

Why so? All that shrivelling and composting we do — I'm sure the brain degenerates as it ages, too – why is that good? Let's face it, older people are lovely, very pleasant, but hardly something you'd aspire to? I will live to 39, only to be murdered in my sleep by a jealous lover, please god.

fryup

if ageing is a disease...is botox the cure?

karlitob

sxt wrote: »

Ageing is bad for you. There will never be a cure for "age related diseases" unless you treat Ageing as a disease

If there were 7 billion bill Gates in the world, and they all put all their money into "curing dementia", it simply wouldn't work unless you address Ageing itself as a disease.

This is from the NHS UK official site, regarding dementia

[url] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dementia/cure/#:~:text=There is currently no "cure,Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia[/url]
There is currently no "cure" for dementia. In fact, because dementia is caused by different diseases it is unlikely that there will be a single cure for dementia.

Research is aimed at finding cures for dementia-causing diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.

Read more about the causes of dementia.

Huge strides have been made in understanding how different diseases cause damage in the brain and so produce dementia. And with increased funding over the past few years, there are now many more research studies and clinical trials taking place.

Although a cure may be some years away, there are some very promising advances.

You’re mistaking diseases common in older persons with the normal process of ageing that occurs from the moment of conception to the day you die.

People have always lived as long as they did now, it’s just that more people are living longer. They previously died of singular causes - cancer, resp and cardiac. And as a consequence, we’re only beginning to understand the types and extent of these diseases and the treatments that are effective.

Even if we did know what to do, the problem is that older people collect a lot of diseases. So it’s hard to determine the interactions between intervention effects and diseases.

I know you’re talking about senescence itself - telomeres etc. Which I have no knowledge of.

Nearly all people aged 85+ are frail. The question should be how we can help people at different levels of ability/disability improve their quality of life. The absence of disease is not the presence of wellness.

Rothko

SeanW wrote: »

Is this a joke?

Very strange comment, isn't it?

peckerhead

At 56, I've significantly outlived both of my parents, so fortunately have no clear picture in front of me as to what awaits me.

Probably a few more years of IBS and a bit of lower back pain, then hopefully a big mo-fo of a heart attack.

It's the only way to be sure.

endacl

sxt wrote: »

Do you think ageing is natural or should it be classified as a disease?

I think anybody genuinely asking that question understands the meaning of neither ‘natural’ nor ‘disease’.

Temptamperu

gods how my back hurts at 40 I dont want to see 60.

Wibbs

Leg End Reject wrote: »

How does donating blood help?

It seems lower iron levels may be in play with longevity. Though the healthy donor effect may also be in play.

buried wrote: »

But sure 'living longer' is also known as 'ageing' W, but now it seems that some folk heavily indoctrinated up on the humanity self loathing scale now want the natural process of 'ageing' deemed some make of 'disease' for some bat$hit reason

Oh I defo hear you B, but if we step back and look at ageing and see reduced function and increased risks of comorbidity factors as part of the process it does look like a "disease", or a condition anyway. If we had a "Condition X" that massively increased the risks for cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders and led to a reduction in strength, mobility, a gradual loss of senses and a drop in cognitive functions and a major upswing in overall mortality as it progressed I reckon we'd be looking hard for a cure, or at least a treatment plan.

I'm not talking about longer life as such, but imagine if we made it possible that - like a few organisms out there - we lived on average to 80, but stayed like 25 year olds through most of those 80 years. Think of the cognitive advantages alone and how that could help us as a species. That the average mind stayed open and driven and energised enough to keep in play along with lived experience throughout life. Now granted some can get close to that, but I would argue they're a minority and a small one too.

Though such a change would require a big shift in human psychology too. If anything for me, that's more the barrier than any almost inevitable scientific breakthroughs. Our mortality and ageing defines us and the stages we feel ourselves to be in and how we view the world because of those stages defines us. I've long reckoned that if in the morning we could take a pill and live to be a thousand or more, most of the human population would voluntarily tap out around 100 years of age or even younger. Some would drift and hang around for a while after that, until boredom or the many shocks of the new would make us adrift morons and maybe one in a million would make it to a 1000. And only a tiny fraction of them would be sane. Or vital.

Day Lewin

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems lower iron levels may be in play with longevity. Though the healthy donor effect may also be in play.

Oh I defo hear you B, but if we step back and look at ageing and see reduced function and increased risks of comorbidity factors as part of the process it does look like a "disease", or a condition anyway. If we had a "Condition X" that massively increased the risks for cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders and led to a reduction in strength, mobility, a gradual loss of senses and a drop in cognitive functions and a major upswing in overall mortality as it progressed I reckon we'd be looking hard for a cure, or at least a treatment plan.

I'm not talking about longer life as such, but imagine if we made it possible that - like a few organisms out there - we lived on average to 80, but stayed like 25 year olds through most of those 80 years. Think of the cognitive advantages alone and how that could help us as a species. That the average mind stayed open and driven and energised enough to keep in play along with lived experience throughout life. Now granted some can get close to that, but I would argue they're a minority and a small one too.

Though such a change would require a big shift in human psychology too. If anything for me, that's more the barrier than any almost inevitable scientific breakthroughs. Our mortality and ageing defines us and the stages we feel ourselves to be in and how we view the world because of those stages defines us. I've long reckoned that if in the morning we could take a pill and live to be a thousand or more, most of the human population would voluntarily tap out around 100 years of age or even younger. Some would drift and hang around for a while after that, until boredom or the many shocks of the new would make us adrift morons and maybe one in a million would make it to a 1000. And only a tiny fraction of them would be sane. Or vital.

You've definitely got a point here.
Sure, modern medicine can get us to 90 or 100, but in what condition? Staggering on a Zimmer in a nursing-home with an oxygen thingy up your nose? Who wants that?

Hence my fascination with the Blue Zones; have a read of this - Sardinia

https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/sardinia-italy/

Of special interest to men, who generally miss the gravy train for longevity.

Wibbs

True, but they have a higher percentage of a particular gene that protects them(IIRC it's something to do with cholesterol and cardiovascular disease?). Their healthy lives make a huge difference, but the genetics really add to that.

Day Lewin

You or I may even carry that gene - who knows?

In times gone by, people dropped like flies from infectious diseases, septicaemia, undiagnosed conditions like cancers, and anything remotely surgical. Not to mention famine and war.

Nowadays, we have the best chance ever to not mess up good healthcare with poor choices. Simple ways in strong communities are absolutely central to longevity.
To quote one writer (in The Okinawa Way) "Loneliness is a better predictor of death than smoking" Shocking but true.

One major thing that causes aging is not sleeping enough. Too little sleep makes people look really haggard and is not good for the body - it is not THAT much craic to stay up regularly hanging off bottles of wine and sneaky fags and feeling hyper emotional and drunkenly nostalgic. Go to bed. You will feel and look much better in the long run.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why so? All that shrivelling and composting we do — I'm sure the brain degenerates as it ages, too – why is that good? Let's face it, older people are lovely, very pleasant, but hardly something you'd aspire to? I will live to 39, only to be murdered in my sleep by a jealous lover, please god.

aren't you nearly there?

Day Lewin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why so? All that shrivelling and composting we do — I'm sure the brain degenerates as it ages, too – why is that good? Let's face it, older people are lovely, very pleasant, but hardly something you'd aspire to? I will live to 39, only to be murdered in my sleep by a jealous lover, please god.

Oh, what a shame- when you still have so much to learn!