Men who inspire you to age well

This post has been deleted.

Pictures Of Lilly wrote: »

Absolutely. It's what resulted in Tiger Woods' recent arrest.

But if you're taking small amounts of testosterone in your 40s, just enough to get your levels up to close to where they were at when you were, say 27, then isn't that something that the body should be able to handle. Is there a side effect to this? Does it put pressure on the liver/kidneys or something? I don't know.

I look after myself anyway, so I might end up considering it far in the future.

I'm not deadset against chemical help... but I would need to be very sure about any potential adverse effects.

That's what my worry would be... supplementing test in small amounts, might make you feel a bit younger. But is your 50 or 60 year old heart/liver/kidneys designed for it??

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly. More research into the long term effects of keeping a younger hormonal profile as we age is warranted. In one regard athletes who use banned drugs are a good sample group to look at. They take far higher doses of all sorts of stuff than would be taken in a maintenance type regime. Bodybuilders have higher instances of heart and liver damage for example, but generally it seems longevity isn't particularly affected. Some combinations may increase same. Of particular interest might be the mechanism of insulin in the body. In studies of extremely long lived individuals many lifestyle variables come into play. So you can have 100+ year olds who were smokers and drinkers, some thin, some fat etc, but one commonality is that they all keep the insulin profiles and responses of much younger people. The restricted calorie diet which increases longevity in every species so far looked at(inc our own) mimics such a profile. Even more recently it has been found that a drug used in type 2 diabetes shows strong anti ageing properties.

Some pro athletes take a very noticeable nose-dive in health, after they retire... but how much of that is down to their drug use, and how much is down to pushing their bodies to the limit too often? Hard to say...

I'm not convinced by the calorie restriction theories... but I do think restriction of certain macronutrients, can be beneficial.

Some have concerns about testosterone and prostate health and risk of cancer. On the one hand testosterone makes prostate cancer grow when present, but on the other hand men with higher natural testosterone throughout life have lower risks. One bit of research showed a correlation between the number of orgasms per week and the risk of prostate cancer. Basically the more orgasms throughout life the lower the risk. The mechanism for this was explained along the lines of more movement of seminal fluid meant any dodgy cells were flushed more regularly, but it might be that men with higher testosterone will have higher libidos and therefore will want to have more orgasms. Plus higher libido would be more likely in men who were also more fit overall.

I've heard that EPO can have similar effects on certain cancers... some people with anemia for example, who take EPO, have been shown to develop testicular cancer.

HGH is also known to cause enlargement of internal organs, including your heart.

If such regimes lengthen lives, or even more make longer lives more healthy and in less need of other medical attention, then why not?

It does require a certain leap of faith though... perhaps the point might be, how f**ked up is your body? I can understand someone, who has completely messed up their body, being prepared to be a guinea pig...

But if you're in good enough shape... why take the risk, in order to feel a bit better??

Oh it's not. Even pick up an American origin magazine and their ad space tends to be chock full of pills for every ill(followed by a separate page outlining how said meds may cause willie droop and monsterism ). This goes triple for any science type magazine. On that alone the culture looks like one of rampant hypochondria. Though in a culture of industrialised and extremely expensive medicine I suppose it makes sense to be a bit of a hypochondriac(though the French and Spanish make Americans look like amateurs).

Some Americans are far too trusting of big pharma... science isn't always progress!

Still we are already a medically augmented species. I've never had an antibiotic and the only vaccination I received was for polio, but outside some cults and hippie types I'd be very much a rarity in the West. We're living longer healthier(in general) lives because of medical intervention. Hell people are making it out of childhood at much higher rates than a century ago.

We certainly are... I often even wonder, what generational effects there are to widespread alcohol and caffeine consumption. If your father, and his father, and his father, all consumed alcohol and caffeine... (not even necessarily to excess) will this alter us as a species??

The next step, which is already happening, will be at the level of not just treating illnesses, but augmenting our health and longevity at a deeper level. Immortality is essentially an engineering problem. I can easily imagine in a thousand years time(if not sooner) people routinely living for centuries. If they choose to of course, as such lifespans bring all sorts of non medical issues.

We are kind of a reckless species, though... we seem to crave danger and excess. Can you imagine how crazy we might behave, if we knew someone could patch us together and keep us alive, even after traumatic injuries - injuries that would have previously meant certain death, or severely diminished capacity if still alive!! :pac:

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't just assume that hollywood stars should automatically age the same as the average joe/jane bloggs on the street...

I would consider it quite logical, to think that high achievers in life, might also have superior genes. Plus they're in the limelight... so they are more likely to give a sh!t about how they look, so will likely be more motivated to consistently take care of their bodies!

I don't think it's merely a simple case of having greater access to surgery and drugs.

Pictures Of Lilly wrote: »

Interesting,

I'd be inclined to assume it's a weak argument. To many variables.

The so called good genes could refer anything from natural talent/ability, to good looks, to charisma, to high will power, etc. For example, I don't seem to think they're much of a link between being street smart and making healthy life choices.

I haven't achieved much in my life in spite of my high ambitions, but I do look young for my age and make healthy life choices. Sometimes I think it's the only thing I can do right! So I hope that because I haven't gotten ahead, that it doesn't mean I'll age fast!

Just because there are potentially many variables, doesn't mean it might not be true...

I wouldn't say all high achievers are likely to age better... but certain types might.

It really depends if health and looking good is a priority, or a factor in their careers and personal lives. That's why actors are perhaps a good example... they are high achievers, for whom appearance matters.

Just a theory, I might be wrong!

....... wrote: »

You can see just looking at the very first pic google returns that she has had some work done.

Clever work though, fillers/botox - nothing surgical.

No amount of Botox/fillers will be able to give you her genetics and skin type though...

Certain skin types, age far better than others.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.