I acknowledge up-front that it’s easier to criticise than it is to produce a literary work. And there is a huge amount of, fairly detailed, biochemistry in this book. Yes, Topol tries to make it accessible to a general reader, and the diagrams certainly help a lot. But, I’ve got a reasonable background in chemistry and biochemistry, and I found it a slog. And, I skipped over many sections..... rather than trying to understand/remember exactly how “Abatacept binds to its CD80 and CD 86 receptors to block T Cell activation” .
One thing, I did find slightly disconcerting was his proclivity for citing studies that were either non randomised or very small samples, or, in general, studies that, in my opinion, would not count as “evidenced based”. I think his enthusiasm for “what lies ahead” outpaced the requirement for real “evidence based” research.
Sometimes he is a bit misleading, for example, (p185) he speaks of a single injection impacting a gene and achieving a reduction in LDL Cholesterol in monkey, then leads straight into the observation “that if it works and is safe ..that people with a high risk of coronary and heart disease...a disease that kills about 700,000 Americans a year would be potential candidates”. To me, this link seems a bit of a stretch and potential over-claiming..almost in the “gee-whiz” category. Surely, not everybody with high LDL cholesterol needs this sort of therapy and surely there are other causes of coronary and heart disease.
I rather got the impression that what we have here is the Topol’s own review of literature in his field. Are we reading his summary cards of all the scientific articles he’s been reading? And how much of this is from his weekly newsletter? It’s almost like he’s trying to summarise all the on-going research in his field and make some guesses about where it is going. And, to some extent, that is exactly what I was looking for. The down-side is the huge number of diseases that he tries to cover...for example, type 1 diabetes, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis....and often it’s a bit superficial with a throw-away line about some line of research being “promising”. One thing I DID like was that he connects with the original scientific papers so one can read the original research. (Frequently, I found it less exuberant in its claims than Topol).
I found this paragraph of considerable interest and concern: “According to the World Health Organization, the average American celebrates just one healthy birthday after the age of sixty-five.....For Americans aged sixty years and above, 95 percent have at least one chronic disease, such as heart disease or diabetes, and 79 percent have at least two chronic conditions” Wow!
Topol himself sums up his thoughts in the following words:
“Overriding the aging process poses profound challenges. It’s hard to prove in people....Many of the potential ways we must alter the pace of aging carry a serious risk of cancer....One of the other obstacles that holds back a drug or intervention to promote lifespan is that aging is not considered a disease by regulatory agencies.....We have little data to support that slowing the aging process leads to a “compression of morbidity,” the concept initially proposed by James Fries in the early 1980s.....Fries proposed that over time we are moving toward an “ideal survivorship curve,” meaning that we extend healthy aging and there’s minimal time for chronic illness (fig. 13.1, left panel), as if a person suddenly falls off the cliff or dies with intact health in their sleep.
While it would be ideal for people who made it healthy, well into their eighties or nineties not to have to suffer dementia, cancer, cardiovascular disease, or frailty for many years, it’s hard to find any support for this concept.....There’s no evidence yet for safely and effectively slowing the aging process in human beings.....Notwithstanding these difficulties, I do believe we will ultimately see body-wide modulation of aging.....Most age-related diseases have a long warm-up period of at least one to two decades before symptoms manifest.
AI appears to be capable of reliably predicting tipping points before they happen in complex systems....This precision medical forecasting allows for intensive lifestyle + factors to be put in place for the individual.
Potent anti-inflammatory drug or partial epigenetic programming could be used to target an organ but might wind up slowing the aging process throughout the body.....The exponential growth we have seen with generative AI will be paralleled by the same in digital biology.
There’s a pervasive belief that we’re either immunocompetent or immunocompromised. That’s wrong!....By conducting an “immunome,” we will be able to predict a person’s response to infections, vulnerability to cancer or its spread, and propensity for developing cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases.
What if we could periodically grade an individual’s immune system?....A company called Infinity Bio19 amazingly, can take a small amount of blood and determine a person’s exposure to over five hundred viruses via their antibodies. In the same assay, the new technology can detect hundreds of autoimmune antibodies.....It is currently only available for research projects.....For a preview, my results for this test are presented in figure 13.4.
If we could get an immunome on a periodic basis, it could help to pinpoint our arc to immunosenescence and guide our decisions about potential interventions.
Until now, our medical approach has been reactive, with secondary prevention at best. A patient has a heart attack; we put them on statins and aspirin to prevent another event. For a diabetic, we treat blood sugar and lower the hemoglobin A1c.
There are two factors that remain the most formidable obstacles. One is our profound health inequity. [in the USA]. .....If expanding health span turns out to be only for the rich and privileged, then it can be considered an abject failure.....Our lack of a universal health system in the United States, the singular outlier of rich countries in the world, puts us at an unnecessary disadvantage for promoting health span expansion at the population level.
The second great obstacle is about chasing our own tails. How can we simultaneously be hyper-innovative for extending health span but ignore all the things that are shortening it?
Air pollution, micro and nanoplastics, the toxic PFAS forever chemicals, intake of ultra-processed foods....And anti-science is a threat that can only be addressed through a restoration of trust in biomedical expertise”.
My main take-away from the book is the significance of exercise. Here is what Topol himself says: Nothing surpasses regular exercise for promotion of healthy aging! Exercise can be viewed as the single most effective medical intervention that we know. Regular exercise leads to favourable adaptations of the cardiovascular system, brain, pancreas, skeletal muscle, gastrointestinal tract (enhanced production of short-chain fatty acids, SCFA), liver, adipose tissue, gut microbiome, and peripheral blood vessels.....Further, exercise protects against atherosclerosis and improves cardiovascular function.
A randomized trial showed inflammation biomarkers were suppressed more with exercise than with a GLP-1 drug.......Compared with no exercise, briskly walking 450 minutes178 per week was associated with living 4.5 years longer.....That evidence comes from a cohort of more than 650,000 individuals followed for over a decade.....A systematic review of 196 studies with more than thirty million participants reported the link to a 31 percent reduction of all-cause mortality, with a “dose response” of more activity, more benefit.
The much ballyhooed 10,000-step goal was supported by a UK Biobank study of over 72,000 participants, which found the lowest mortality risk was seen for 9,000 to 10,500 steps per day....A significant dose-response curve of benefit—the more exercise, the less cancer—was seen across seven cancer types (colon, breast, kidney, liver, myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and endometrial).....The relationship between physical exercise and cognition has been intensively studied,.....A review of the randomized trials suggests that the favourable impact of exercise is consistent but small”. [Which seems to be rather a damp squib after all the earlier build-up but at least it’s consistent and positive].
What’s my overall take on the book? Generally a bit overwhelmed by the coverage and the detail and the number of variables involved. It’s clearly not a simple field of endeavour. And I’ve given up trying to summarise it here. Generally, he writes well and makes things understandable. A bit of repetition in places...maybe unavoidable. And the worrying tendency to cite non-randomised, one off (let alone double-blind) studies. Am I going to live longer as a result. No. I don’t think so. And, I suspect that we have already seen the greatest advance in the field with the reduction in cigarette smoking. It will be hard to match that. And I suspect that effect impacts all the statistics on longevity too. Happy to give it five stars.