You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ike comments on The guardian article on longevity research [link] - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: ike 11 January 2015 07:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (27)

Comments (27)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ike 14 January 2015 03:33:04PM *  0 points [-]

Quick Google search shows plenty of results, including several papers in Scholar

The first in Scholar is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2012.00832.x/full, which quotes several other ones in the beginning that found increases in mice lifespan.

Are you unaware of these, or are they "not substantial" enough for you? If the latter, how much would mice lifespan have to be increased for it to count in your book?

Comment author: Punoxysm 14 January 2015 06:30:07PM *  0 points [-]

I'm moderately familiar with the work that exists. No need to google it for me.

I'm talking about something on the order of winning the Methusaleh mouse prize (20 years). Something that could show a concrete path towards indefinite lifespan. Calorie restriction doesn't look like it will get us there.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

Comment author: ike 16 January 2015 02:10:36PM 0 points [-]

I just saw this, published yesterday. Is it relevant?

"Our flies had median lifespans 50 to 60 percent longer than normal flies," said Christa Rhiner, one of the authors of the study.

Also, what is it adding over this from 2011?

The biologists delayed the aging of the flies' intestines and extended their lives by as much as 50 percent.

Maybe you can enlighten me if you're familiar with the field?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit