« Now We've Come So Far, So Fast | Main | Campaign for Real Beauty »
August 4, 2005
Aubrey de Grey Doesn't Think CR Will Work
One of my blog readers asked that question in email last night.
"I think he's wrong," said MR as he separated salad greens from their stems. It's 6:20 am and he's making our salads. MR wrote a rebuttal to Aubrey's article about weather and CR that was accepted by Gerontology, but he had to withdraw it due to page charges. Now he's resubmitted it to another journal and is waiting for approval. So I can't spoil the punch line by telling you too much (wait for the movie: it will be a lot like Star Wars Episode III) but yes, we know that CR isn't high on Aubrey's list, and we still think it's a good idea.
One thing Aubrey, MR and I do agree on is that CR in itself isn't nearly enough to solve the problem of aging. No one, not even CR's most fierce proponenets, suggests that CR will reverse aging, or even put it off indefinitely. To do that, we need a completely different kind of biomedicine. That's why both MR and I are members of the Three Hundred. We do CR because we want to live long enough to see the results of Aubrey's work, and the work of the many scientists who are pursuing anti-aging interventions that might actually succeed.
We also think that judging from the inherent defects of CR, pursuing CR mimetics is a waste of time. If the thing itself won't get you more than a couple of decades under even the most hopeful of predictions, why pursue drugs that mimic it? The only reason to pursue CR mimetics would be if we truly didn't think that more effective interventions were within the realm of possiblity. Then we'd have no better options. MR says there are more technical reasons but that it would take me a long time to explain it, and he is almost finished with making breakfast.
We'd like to point out that Aubrey de Grey, for all his disapproval of CR, really likes my cooking. He will be making a special one-day-only appearance in Philadelphia at my birthday party on Sunday, August 7. Get your tickets now!
Posted by april at August 4, 2005 6:17 AM
Comments
For the avoidance of doubt: though I think that CR will probably give humans only 2-3 years of extra lifespan at most, I certainly don't disapprove of it -- the health benefits are clear, as shown in the Holloszy and Fontana work, and even 2-3 years may make a big difference to quite a lot of people. So I approve of CR.
Posted by: Aubrey de Grey at August 4, 2005 6:55 AM
How far is Philadelphia from Washington, DC (by car or plane)? I want to meet Aubrey again!
Posted by: Kip Werking at August 4, 2005 4:35 PM
Well not everyone gets to live to the average life expectancy anyway. CR might just help you do that and in good health. CR is worth doing because it may enable you to be quite healthy and in good shape for when these therapies eventually come. I assume it would be easier to fix up a person that did CR than persons on the unhealthy western diet.
Like you said aubrey, "deaths door comes a lot sooner for some people". With CR you could have the best chance of beeing in good shape for we finally get these true anti aging therapies. It could take a second or third generation of therapies to bring people back that are frail and closer death.
CR is well worth it. I'd find it kind of hard to eat the amount a typical person does anyway!
Posted by: Matt at August 4, 2005 6:41 PM
"wait for the movie: it will be a lot like Star Wars Episode III" What, lifeless, and with a foregone conclusion? ;)
Posted by: James at August 5, 2005 10:41 AM
Aubrey doesn't do CR, nor does he eat in a healthy manner, so on these subjects it's hard to take him seriously. These two things combined would indeed add at least 10-20 years to *his* life. Because, in effect, when you do not eat well, you are shortening your life.
Practically no one lives a normal, healthy lifespan because...
[1] Before the era of antibiotics we lost too many people to simple illnesses and infections.
[2] At the time when antibiotics and medical advances were coming into play, our food options were significantly degrading due to processed grains, trans fats, and the over-usage of sugars.
So, throughout history we've been besieged with unhealthy conditions that have caused most people to die prematurely and unnaturally. Except for rare genetically crippled people, we all have the capacity to live to 90-100. That's assuming we eat well, exercise well, and get decent medical care when sick.
CR can probably add 10 years to a persons life, if started reasonably young, pushing our window out to 100-110, on average.
If Aubrey continues to eat poorly, he'll likely die at a typical age, in his 70's. So, for him, eating well and CR could indeed add 20+ years to his life, not 2-3 as he so erroneously suggests.
All of this said, I'm a huge fan of his work, I've contributed money to the MPrize, and hope to benefit from it. It find it ironic, though, that even though I'm two years older that him, I'm more likely to benefit from his work than he is, simply because I take care of my health, and avoid health damaging foods.
Posted by: Scott Miller at August 6, 2005 12:59 PM
Aubrey never claimed that CR plus eating well could only get one 2-3 yr. He claimed that CR alone would have this limitation. Similarly, although Aubrey is not as picky about his eating as someone such as, for example, MR, his eating could be worse. He's still slender (and not, I think, malnourished). I know of no research showing that enhancing one's diet beyond the healthiness of Aubrey's diet can add a whopping 20 years to one's life expectancy. Remember that the rewards of food pickiness obey the Law of Diminishing Returns. Aubrey is already slender, married, and keeps busy with rewarding, meaningful work. That suggests he'll have a greater life expectancy others without those attributes.
Anyway, I'm curious to know how the birthday party went! I wish I had been there but it was so far.
Posted by: Kip Werking at August 8, 2005 1:24 AM