What do you think?
Rate this book
Lifespan: The Revolutionary Science of Why We Age - and Why We Don't Have To
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Readers' Favorite Science & Technology (2019)It’s a seemingly undeniable truth that aging is inevitable. But what if everything we’ve been taught to believe about aging is wrong? What if we could choose our lifespan?
In this groundbreaking book, Dr. David Sinclair, leading world authority on genetics and longevity, reveals a bold new theory for why we age. As he writes: “Aging is a disease, and that disease is treatable.”
This book takes us to the frontlines of research many from Dr. David Sinclair’s own lab at Harvard—that demonstrate how we can slow down, or even reverse, aging. The key is activating newly discovered vitality genes, the descendants of an ancient genetic survival circuit that is both the cause of aging and the key to reversing it.
In this groundbreaking book, Dr. David Sinclair, leading world authority on genetics and longevity, reveals a bold new theory for why we age. As he writes: “Aging is a disease, and that disease is treatable.”
This book takes us to the frontlines of research many from Dr. David Sinclair’s own lab at Harvard—that demonstrate how we can slow down, or even reverse, aging. The key is activating newly discovered vitality genes, the descendants of an ancient genetic survival circuit that is both the cause of aging and the key to reversing it.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published September 10, 2019
11639 people are currently reading
71888 people want to read
About the author
David A. Sinclair
16 books936 followersDavid Sinclair is a professor in the Department of Genetics and co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for the Biology of Aging at Harvard Medical School, where he and his colleagues study sirtuins—protein-modifying enzymes that respond to changing NAD+ levels and to caloric restriction—as well as chromatin, energy metabolism, mitochondria, learning and memory, neurodegeneration, cancer, and cellular reprogramming.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,584 reviews
March 2, 2022
Oh boy, I just finished this and I'm incredibly annoyed. I want to start off by saying that I didn't pay for this and I'm glad I didn't. I had credits on Amazon to get a kindle book so this was one of the ones I bought because I had heard Sinclair on Peter Attia's podcast and I had thought that this book would be more research and science heavy. The last almost hundred pages of this book of 300-ish pages is what put me in such a bad mood. Personally I have zero patience for self styled thought leaders of any kind and people who want to spend all my time telling me about some inevitable future. The last third of this book is about the future and supposedly is grappling with the ethics of extending human life, which it doesnt do convincingly. There was no mention of research really and Sinclair uses random studies to try to justify his idea that living forever will actually be good for us. What was the point of using that study on people who stopped to help other people to try and say that people living longer might feel less rushed and imply it would make us kinder and then to proceed to acknowledge what an idiotic thing that was to say because of the leap being made. Like just leave it out man. Also I don't care about his politics, even if a lot of it aligns with my own, like why are you telling me this. It just felt annoying and self important for him to tell me these things I dont care about. I dont want to know about Sinclair's hopes and dreams and positions on high profile issues. The best part of this book was just the middle part where he actually discussed the research and science and interesting ideas of what may be happening. I wish it had been more of that and less of this exposition of himself and his life. Also this is going to be hypocritical but it was so annoying how it didn't have as much of a cohesive structure or flow through out the book and how he jumped from thing to thing without building on it and going into depth and detail about it. I know my reviews are chaotic but I'm not charging money or styling myself as some expert in something who can enlighten you on the subject.
I feel like the whole purpose of this book is for Sinclair to expand on his on feelings and experiences around the issue of aging. It serves the purpose of persuasion to push for viewing aging in the framework he thinks it should be viewed in and to thus allow for more attention/funding towards the issue. None of that is wrong per se but it could have been done much better and concisely if he didn't jump around trying to predict the future and cover technologies that he's clearly not working on first hand and thus creating weaker sections in the book. I probably would've given it a higher rating regardless of my own expectations for a book heavier, being heavier on the science side and work being done in his lab, if it hadn't felt so grating to have it jump around so much, have him pushing himself as some predictor of the future, and having him only superficially address concerns with what he wants to do. I also would probably have given this a better rating if it weren't filled with so many anecdotes and name dropping so many people who I also don't care about. I think its great that people are accomplished and they're very impressive people etc but just giving me names and one sentence descriptions of what people are working on is useless for my own purposes.
Anyway this is 2.5 stars from me, this might be a good read for someone else but as someone with more of a science background who wants to read books on research that are rigorous and more heavily focused on the research itself, which actually goes over things like limitations of said research in a more thorough fashion, this didn't appeal to me at all. I don't enjoy people predicting the future either, regardless of how much merit those predictions have and how often that person is right, because the future isn't set and is shaped by decisions we make today and I'd much rather here how people themselves are working to shape it and why they think we should work to shape it that way. Just people espousing what is and isn't possible isn't really appealing to me because I already am open to trying things out and I would much rather they saving their persuasion for others. Also I wanted Sinclair to talk about the science, if I wanted to political theory I would go to other sources, nothing is worse than high profile people, especially thought leaders, worrying about things like the far right and left and polarization. Like everyone's entitled to their opinions on it but write a separate book or something. You don't see me begrudging Pinker for being annoying about it and I simply choose not to pick up his book because I know it'll annoy me with its framing.
I know I should just stop but also this isn't the reason I rated it 2.5 stars because halfway through when he was talking about research I was probably at 3.5-4 stars rating wise but man as someone with a fundamentally surly temperament there's nothing more annoying than people who insist we need to be optimistic. Like yeah things are getting better but who cares, how is it useful to focus on that instead of problems and addressing them. Like maybe I just don't care enough about feeling good about things and so this just wouldn't appeal to me anyway.
Also Sinclair said he isn't afraid to die at the end of the book but insists through out the book that death is painful and horrible. Sinclair needs to read about Montaigne's experience with death and how it changed his fears of death by showing him actually its not bad. I also have almost died and can also attest that when it's happening it isn't painful at all, it just happens and in fact at points you feel euphoric even. I'm going to leave it at that because my own feelings of death weren't really relevant to how I felt about the book in general.
Anyways TL;DR: this was 2.5 stars because I was expecting a book that was heavier on covering the science in this area and because the last 100 pages pissed me off. Others may enjoy it if they go in knowing what to expect and have less curmudgeonly personalities.
I feel like the whole purpose of this book is for Sinclair to expand on his on feelings and experiences around the issue of aging. It serves the purpose of persuasion to push for viewing aging in the framework he thinks it should be viewed in and to thus allow for more attention/funding towards the issue. None of that is wrong per se but it could have been done much better and concisely if he didn't jump around trying to predict the future and cover technologies that he's clearly not working on first hand and thus creating weaker sections in the book. I probably would've given it a higher rating regardless of my own expectations for a book heavier, being heavier on the science side and work being done in his lab, if it hadn't felt so grating to have it jump around so much, have him pushing himself as some predictor of the future, and having him only superficially address concerns with what he wants to do. I also would probably have given this a better rating if it weren't filled with so many anecdotes and name dropping so many people who I also don't care about. I think its great that people are accomplished and they're very impressive people etc but just giving me names and one sentence descriptions of what people are working on is useless for my own purposes.
Anyway this is 2.5 stars from me, this might be a good read for someone else but as someone with more of a science background who wants to read books on research that are rigorous and more heavily focused on the research itself, which actually goes over things like limitations of said research in a more thorough fashion, this didn't appeal to me at all. I don't enjoy people predicting the future either, regardless of how much merit those predictions have and how often that person is right, because the future isn't set and is shaped by decisions we make today and I'd much rather here how people themselves are working to shape it and why they think we should work to shape it that way. Just people espousing what is and isn't possible isn't really appealing to me because I already am open to trying things out and I would much rather they saving their persuasion for others. Also I wanted Sinclair to talk about the science, if I wanted to political theory I would go to other sources, nothing is worse than high profile people, especially thought leaders, worrying about things like the far right and left and polarization. Like everyone's entitled to their opinions on it but write a separate book or something. You don't see me begrudging Pinker for being annoying about it and I simply choose not to pick up his book because I know it'll annoy me with its framing.
I know I should just stop but also this isn't the reason I rated it 2.5 stars because halfway through when he was talking about research I was probably at 3.5-4 stars rating wise but man as someone with a fundamentally surly temperament there's nothing more annoying than people who insist we need to be optimistic. Like yeah things are getting better but who cares, how is it useful to focus on that instead of problems and addressing them. Like maybe I just don't care enough about feeling good about things and so this just wouldn't appeal to me anyway.
Also Sinclair said he isn't afraid to die at the end of the book but insists through out the book that death is painful and horrible. Sinclair needs to read about Montaigne's experience with death and how it changed his fears of death by showing him actually its not bad. I also have almost died and can also attest that when it's happening it isn't painful at all, it just happens and in fact at points you feel euphoric even. I'm going to leave it at that because my own feelings of death weren't really relevant to how I felt about the book in general.
Anyways TL;DR: this was 2.5 stars because I was expecting a book that was heavier on covering the science in this area and because the last 100 pages pissed me off. Others may enjoy it if they go in knowing what to expect and have less curmudgeonly personalities.
October 3, 2019
Being part of the health enhancement community for my entire career I was familiar with the topics and theories on aging as presented by Havard Med School staffer Dr. David Sinclair.
Many of Dr. Sinclair's recommendations such as calorie restriction (CR), exercise, sleep and moderate to low protein intake are well vetted.
Other suggestions including the intake of NAD, Metformin, and Rapamycin MAY have anti-aging effects but are less well known and have potential downsides.
Since living long sounds dreadful with a broken body and mind I tend to focus more on healthspan. My personal recommendations did not change as a result of reading this book.
-Sleep 7-9 hours each night. Find your sweet spot.
-Strength Train 2-3 times per week
-Do 3 conditioning sessions per week mixing sessions that are long and easy to short and challenging. Murdering yourself with three ten minute WODS leaves a lot to be desired.
-Eat when the sun comes up and stop when the sunsets. Time-Restricted Eating (TRE) On occasion skip a meal.
-Don't get fat. Limit your sugar and alcohol.
-Read, play word games, Lumosity and meditate
-Find someone to love
-Get a dog, walk them, pet them.
Never forget, Your DNA loads the gun, but your lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Many of Dr. Sinclair's recommendations such as calorie restriction (CR), exercise, sleep and moderate to low protein intake are well vetted.
Other suggestions including the intake of NAD, Metformin, and Rapamycin MAY have anti-aging effects but are less well known and have potential downsides.
Since living long sounds dreadful with a broken body and mind I tend to focus more on healthspan. My personal recommendations did not change as a result of reading this book.
-Sleep 7-9 hours each night. Find your sweet spot.
-Strength Train 2-3 times per week
-Do 3 conditioning sessions per week mixing sessions that are long and easy to short and challenging. Murdering yourself with three ten minute WODS leaves a lot to be desired.
-Eat when the sun comes up and stop when the sunsets. Time-Restricted Eating (TRE) On occasion skip a meal.
-Don't get fat. Limit your sugar and alcohol.
-Read, play word games, Lumosity and meditate
-Find someone to love
-Get a dog, walk them, pet them.
Never forget, Your DNA loads the gun, but your lifestyle pulls the trigger.
September 13, 2020
Immortality sounds... nice. Too utopic, still, but prolonging life for spans that seem unimaginable at the moment may be a standard procedure in a not so far future.
Sinclair, a professor of genetics and expert in the field of the science of aging from the Harvard medical school, summarizes the status quo of how to stay young and healthy as long as possible.
At the moment, the way to a longer life is a pretty hard one, focussing on some elemental and prooven elements:
Workout for both strength and endurance.
Have a happy relationship and a social network of few, close, real, true friends. Tricky.
Rarely eat until you are replete, calory restriction, fasting, detoxication, time-restricted eating, and a healthy diet are some of the most important factors because they can slow the aging process. Other factors are nice too, but those are the ones that don´t just boost your happiness and immune system, but really let you get old slower. Not just each cigarette shortens your life, but each extra snack too.
Pets aren´t a bad idea.
Find fulfillment in work, but a work-life balance too.
Perfect sleeping cycle between 7 and 9 hours with or without power naps, but one between 15 to 30 minutes might be recommended.
No orgies, drugs, very small doses of alcohol and sugar, no getting fat and untrained.
Curiosity, trying new things, always searching for something new and different, brain training, puzzles, foreign languages, self-reflection, life-long learning.
Mindfulness.
Be happy and resistant to stress, be conscious, meditate. Control of emotions and thoughts
Etc.
There is a huge and completely unnecessary exposition and anecdote problem in Sinclair´s writing, a prime example of very clever and competent people who don´t take the time to invest in creative writing and science communication skills, not to speak of show, don´t tell. Instead of driveling about the organization, unimportant parts of research, himself, and even some completely irrelevant things, he could have used these dry, boring knowledge as exposition by including it in stories, not making it an appendix one asks why it´s there, because readers want the science of aging, not the boredom of bureaucracy that let´s one feel immortal by slowing time to zero. That´s especially a missed chance because there are so many sciences and knowledge around this topic of, well, dying later, that dozens of books could be written about it from the perspectives of different fields.
By simply avoiding this inflation with the help of a professional science writer, cutting aways at least half of the redundancy and empty narrative calories and pimping the rest, as many of the leading science nonfiction writers use to do, he could have made a solid 5 star and presented his knowledge in a much more appealing way. When people write autobiographies, they should name, and not camouflage, their mindchild.
The hard truth is, until a probable wonder cure may make one immortal, the only way to possibly live until this point is to live the very hard life of an always hungry, happy, curious, positive, etc., ascetic. Good genes might be helpful too and in understanding those might lie one of the first medical applications, first in adding them in vitro fertilization processes to create long-living humans and later possibly in adult ones too or even create new longevity genes. To pimp telomeres so much that they last forever and youth never goes is more of a long-term perspective.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejuven...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_ex...
Sinclair, a professor of genetics and expert in the field of the science of aging from the Harvard medical school, summarizes the status quo of how to stay young and healthy as long as possible.
At the moment, the way to a longer life is a pretty hard one, focussing on some elemental and prooven elements:
Workout for both strength and endurance.
Have a happy relationship and a social network of few, close, real, true friends. Tricky.
Rarely eat until you are replete, calory restriction, fasting, detoxication, time-restricted eating, and a healthy diet are some of the most important factors because they can slow the aging process. Other factors are nice too, but those are the ones that don´t just boost your happiness and immune system, but really let you get old slower. Not just each cigarette shortens your life, but each extra snack too.
Pets aren´t a bad idea.
Find fulfillment in work, but a work-life balance too.
Perfect sleeping cycle between 7 and 9 hours with or without power naps, but one between 15 to 30 minutes might be recommended.
No orgies, drugs, very small doses of alcohol and sugar, no getting fat and untrained.
Curiosity, trying new things, always searching for something new and different, brain training, puzzles, foreign languages, self-reflection, life-long learning.
Mindfulness.
Be happy and resistant to stress, be conscious, meditate. Control of emotions and thoughts
Etc.
There is a huge and completely unnecessary exposition and anecdote problem in Sinclair´s writing, a prime example of very clever and competent people who don´t take the time to invest in creative writing and science communication skills, not to speak of show, don´t tell. Instead of driveling about the organization, unimportant parts of research, himself, and even some completely irrelevant things, he could have used these dry, boring knowledge as exposition by including it in stories, not making it an appendix one asks why it´s there, because readers want the science of aging, not the boredom of bureaucracy that let´s one feel immortal by slowing time to zero. That´s especially a missed chance because there are so many sciences and knowledge around this topic of, well, dying later, that dozens of books could be written about it from the perspectives of different fields.
By simply avoiding this inflation with the help of a professional science writer, cutting aways at least half of the redundancy and empty narrative calories and pimping the rest, as many of the leading science nonfiction writers use to do, he could have made a solid 5 star and presented his knowledge in a much more appealing way. When people write autobiographies, they should name, and not camouflage, their mindchild.
The hard truth is, until a probable wonder cure may make one immortal, the only way to possibly live until this point is to live the very hard life of an always hungry, happy, curious, positive, etc., ascetic. Good genes might be helpful too and in understanding those might lie one of the first medical applications, first in adding them in vitro fertilization processes to create long-living humans and later possibly in adult ones too or even create new longevity genes. To pimp telomeres so much that they last forever and youth never goes is more of a long-term perspective.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejuven...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_ex...
September 18, 2024
The book is about aging and how to slow down or even reverse the effects of aging. 😎
Dr. Sinclair argues that aging is not an inevitable part of life and that there are things we can do to increase the number of years we can live in good health and quality life.
He examines the science behind aging, including the role of DNA damage, epigenetics, and metabolism.
One of the main strategies he recommends for extending health span is caloric restriction or intermittent fasting.
He also discusses the potential benefits of certain supplements, such as NAD+ boosters, resveratrol, and metformin.
Dr. Sinclair emphasizes the importance of exercise and maintaining a healthy diet for extending the health span.
According to him, he doesn't give medical advice and endorse supplements or other products.
Overall, "Lifespan" is a book that presents a compelling argument for the possibility of extending the human lifespan and improving health in old age through scientific research and lifestyle changes.
I may follow his advice to improve my life. 😀👍
Dr. Sinclair argues that aging is not an inevitable part of life and that there are things we can do to increase the number of years we can live in good health and quality life.
He examines the science behind aging, including the role of DNA damage, epigenetics, and metabolism.
One of the main strategies he recommends for extending health span is caloric restriction or intermittent fasting.
He also discusses the potential benefits of certain supplements, such as NAD+ boosters, resveratrol, and metformin.
Dr. Sinclair emphasizes the importance of exercise and maintaining a healthy diet for extending the health span.
According to him, he doesn't give medical advice and endorse supplements or other products.
Overall, "Lifespan" is a book that presents a compelling argument for the possibility of extending the human lifespan and improving health in old age through scientific research and lifestyle changes.
I may follow his advice to improve my life. 😀👍
September 20, 2019
Coming from a perspective of someone who studies evidence-based nutrition, exercise, and healthy lifestyle factors for over a decade now, this book is a must-read.
Solving aging is one of the final frontiers for humankind, and the information David has provided here is a big step in the right direction. It has the power to bring more awareness to solving aging as well as shift strong limiting beliefs that have been deeply rooted in public as well as the scientific community.
We've come very far in research, but sadly the mainstream still hasn't caught up as many of the theories often mentioned have already been invalidated. Big thanks to David and his team for putting together all the most up-to-date longevity research in one place.
Having read this book I'm even more excited about future research and grateful to be alive in this time where such research is taken seriously.
Solving aging is one of the final frontiers for humankind, and the information David has provided here is a big step in the right direction. It has the power to bring more awareness to solving aging as well as shift strong limiting beliefs that have been deeply rooted in public as well as the scientific community.
We've come very far in research, but sadly the mainstream still hasn't caught up as many of the theories often mentioned have already been invalidated. Big thanks to David and his team for putting together all the most up-to-date longevity research in one place.
Having read this book I'm even more excited about future research and grateful to be alive in this time where such research is taken seriously.
July 25, 2021
This is a fascinating book covering the latest advances (including from his lab at the Harvard Medical School in Boston and others) in ageing research.
Dr Sinclair starts by discussing our attitudes towards ageing – most people think of it as inevitable. As a result, while many serious diseases such as cancer, heart diseases, dementia and others have received considerable funding, ageing still continues to receive a small fraction of that. Also, grants awarded to ageing are often used up for research into diseases more prevalent typically in old age (such as dementia), rather than ageing itself. The fact though is that ageing leaves you more susceptible to many diseases and also invariably affects quality of life for many. The advances in medicine have improved the average age by greatly reducing early deaths and fighting diseases. Humankind has so far however not been able to raise the maximum age – very few make it past 100.
Ageing need not be considered inevitable says Dr Sinclair, and should rightfully be declared a disease. There is now a reasonably good understanding of why we age. While side effects such as telomere shortening were known since some time, the underlying cause may be simpler and more focused. It is the result of the survival circuit (which all organisms have) being unable to cope with increasing damage which can no longer be repaired. Research is reaching a point where this can be arrested – in a few years. Even if medical intervention to significantly increase lifespan is years out – there is a lot we can do even today. There is evidence that intermittent fasting, exercise (such as yoga and some strenuous), a careful diet plan (lots of veggies, nuts avoiding meat, processed foods, dairy & sugar) and some already available medication (the evidence though is not fully conclusive) can do a lot to extend lifespan. He also cites his personal example and that of his father, who remains active well into his eighties. I looked at some of his photos and he certainly looks well younger than his age of 50+!
The last section covers what we can expect in the future and the impact of arresting ageing on society and nations. This section is unnecessarily longer than required, and goes into some simplistic ethical discussions (as expected steering clear of the speciesism and animal cruelty rampant in medical research).
This is an excellent and very readable book which I strongly recommend all read. If you are looking for detailed diet information ‘How Not to Die’ is an excellent book. ‘Brain Food’, ‘The Diabetes Code’, and ‘The Case against Sugar’ are informational reads as well. There may be some amount of information which will seem contradictory but it is not difficult to resolve it to make a decision.
My rating: 4.5 / 5.
Dr Sinclair starts by discussing our attitudes towards ageing – most people think of it as inevitable. As a result, while many serious diseases such as cancer, heart diseases, dementia and others have received considerable funding, ageing still continues to receive a small fraction of that. Also, grants awarded to ageing are often used up for research into diseases more prevalent typically in old age (such as dementia), rather than ageing itself. The fact though is that ageing leaves you more susceptible to many diseases and also invariably affects quality of life for many. The advances in medicine have improved the average age by greatly reducing early deaths and fighting diseases. Humankind has so far however not been able to raise the maximum age – very few make it past 100.
Ageing need not be considered inevitable says Dr Sinclair, and should rightfully be declared a disease. There is now a reasonably good understanding of why we age. While side effects such as telomere shortening were known since some time, the underlying cause may be simpler and more focused. It is the result of the survival circuit (which all organisms have) being unable to cope with increasing damage which can no longer be repaired. Research is reaching a point where this can be arrested – in a few years. Even if medical intervention to significantly increase lifespan is years out – there is a lot we can do even today. There is evidence that intermittent fasting, exercise (such as yoga and some strenuous), a careful diet plan (lots of veggies, nuts avoiding meat, processed foods, dairy & sugar) and some already available medication (the evidence though is not fully conclusive) can do a lot to extend lifespan. He also cites his personal example and that of his father, who remains active well into his eighties. I looked at some of his photos and he certainly looks well younger than his age of 50+!
The last section covers what we can expect in the future and the impact of arresting ageing on society and nations. This section is unnecessarily longer than required, and goes into some simplistic ethical discussions (as expected steering clear of the speciesism and animal cruelty rampant in medical research).
This is an excellent and very readable book which I strongly recommend all read. If you are looking for detailed diet information ‘How Not to Die’ is an excellent book. ‘Brain Food’, ‘The Diabetes Code’, and ‘The Case against Sugar’ are informational reads as well. There may be some amount of information which will seem contradictory but it is not difficult to resolve it to make a decision.
My rating: 4.5 / 5.
August 14, 2024
دکتر دیوید سینکلر محققی هست که به طور تخصصی بر روی پیری کار کرده. ابتدای کتاب در مورد مادربزرگش صحبت میکنه و بعد به مرگ اون و مرگ مادرش میرسه تا مقدمات موضوع رو برای ما روشن کنه. بعد توضیحاتی راجع به تکامل و سلولها و RNA و DNA و از این قبیل چیزها میده. سپس وارد سادهترین بخش کتاب برای خواننده میشه، چه کنیم که دیرتر پیر بشیم؟ یا بیشتر عمر کنیم؟ این قسمت به طور طبیعی. کارهایی که میگه به طور مختصر اینهاست
۱- رژیم فستینگ یا روزه
۲- کم خوردن یا دریافت کالری کمتر
۳- کاهش مصرف پروتئین حیوانی نسبت به گیاهی
۴- ورزش روزانه در حد عرق کردن
۵- سرما (مثلا چند دقیقه با تیشرت در زمستان بیرون رفتن)
۶- گرما (مثلا سونا)
توضیح بیشتر اینکه رنج دمایی بدن رو جا به جا کنید، یه پیشنهاد شخصی هم بدم که بعد از حمام آب گرم، پاهاتون رو با آب سرد بشویید و لذت ببرید :))
۷- سیگار نکشید از دود و آلودگی فرار کنید
۸- سختگیری در استفاده از ظروف پلاستیکی
۹-عدم مصرف گوشت و نوشیدنی فرآوری شده
۱۰- مراقبت در برابر تابش طبیعی و مصنوعی
از اینجا به بعد شروع میکنه در مورد اینکه پیری دقیقا چی هست و چه اتفاقی در بدن باعث میشه ما پیر بشیم صحبت میکنه و تحقیقات خودش و تیمش و نتایجش. چندتا نکتهی منفی به نظرم میرسه از اینجا به بعد کتاب، اول اینکه گویا این کتاب نوشته شده که بگه من خیلی آدم باحال و خفنی هستم! این حسی بود که از خوندن کتاب میگرفتم، خودپسندی عمیقی احساس کردم. دوم اینکه درسته کتاب نسبتاً علمی است، اما برای عموم نوشته شده و جامعهی هدف عموم مردم بودهاند، برای این جامعهی هدف عبارات و توضیحات بیش از اندازه و اندکی پیچیده و حوصله سر بر بود. مورد بعد اینکه حدس و گمان خیلی توی کتاب بود، شاید بیش از چهل درصد از کتاب به پیشبینی ها و حدس و گمانهای نویسنده اختصاص پیدا کرده. این جملهی کتاب هم عجیب بود «از نظر علمی مرگ اجتنابناپذیر نیست»، از یک متخصص در علوم تجربی این جمله عجیبه، مشاهدات چیز دیگهای میگه بر اساس علوم تجربی. بگذریم، در مجموع کتاب بدی نبود و اطلاعات خوبی داشت و نکات منفی رو هم ذکر کردم.ه
۱- رژیم فستینگ یا روزه
۲- کم خوردن یا دریافت کالری کمتر
۳- کاهش مصرف پروتئین حیوانی نسبت به گیاهی
۴- ورزش روزانه در حد عرق کردن
۵- سرما (مثلا چند دقیقه با تیشرت در زمستان بیرون رفتن)
۶- گرما (مثلا سونا)
توضیح بیشتر اینکه رنج دمایی بدن رو جا به جا کنید، یه پیشنهاد شخصی هم بدم که بعد از حمام آب گرم، پاهاتون رو با آب سرد بشویید و لذت ببرید :))
۷- سیگار نکشید از دود و آلودگی فرار کنید
۸- سختگیری در استفاده از ظروف پلاستیکی
۹-عدم مصرف گوشت و نوشیدنی فرآوری شده
۱۰- مراقبت در برابر تابش طبیعی و مصنوعی
از اینجا به بعد شروع میکنه در مورد اینکه پیری دقیقا چی هست و چه اتفاقی در بدن باعث میشه ما پیر بشیم صحبت میکنه و تحقیقات خودش و تیمش و نتایجش. چندتا نکتهی منفی به نظرم میرسه از اینجا به بعد کتاب، اول اینکه گویا این کتاب نوشته شده که بگه من خیلی آدم باحال و خفنی هستم! این حسی بود که از خوندن کتاب میگرفتم، خودپسندی عمیقی احساس کردم. دوم اینکه درسته کتاب نسبتاً علمی است، اما برای عموم نوشته شده و جامعهی هدف عموم مردم بودهاند، برای این جامعهی هدف عبارات و توضیحات بیش از اندازه و اندکی پیچیده و حوصله سر بر بود. مورد بعد اینکه حدس و گمان خیلی توی کتاب بود، شاید بیش از چهل درصد از کتاب به پیشبینی ها و حدس و گمانهای نویسنده اختصاص پیدا کرده. این جملهی کتاب هم عجیب بود «از نظر علمی مرگ اجتنابناپذیر نیست»، از یک متخصص در علوم تجربی این جمله عجیبه، مشاهدات چیز دیگهای میگه بر اساس علوم تجربی. بگذریم، در مجموع کتاب بدی نبود و اطلاعات خوبی داشت و نکات منفی رو هم ذکر کردم.ه
February 26, 2020
Highly recommended. There is a lot of complicated science in this book (at least to me), but there are ideas and views that cannot be ignored. You may not agree with everything the author espouses, particularly some of his political views, but this book provides a lot of important things to think about and, if you are so inclined, to discuss with others. Providing thought provoking ideas is always good.
September 17, 2019
The book consists of 1) a history of aging and longevity related science, 2) a a handwavey survey of some interesting metabolic pathways and genetic/epigenetic programming techniques that Prof. Sinclair and friends have pursued, 3.) philosophical, aesthetic, and moral arguments on why pursuing lifespan extension is good.
It's well-written and I enjoyed Prof. Sinclair's distinctive writing style and purview. I learned a bit on what papers and authors I should read more deeply for Parts (1) and (2), but I was disappointed in the overall depth and lack of systematic, holistic discussion of how the individual research streams came together. I thought (3) was finely articulated, but no conceptual new grounds were covered.
The main thesis that Sinclair builds up is his "Information Theory of Aging." He's inspired by Claude Shannon's seminal work and the TCP/IP protocol, but the analogy is not very well-fleshed out and feels like a forced analogy. Essentially, Prof. Sinclair believes that epigenetic 'debris' accrues on DNA and aging cells lose differentiation. Sinclair believes this can be reversed because each cell has a stored copy of 'youthful' epigenetic state that can re-programmed towards. It's an intriguing idea but he unfortunately doesn't provide much evidence or even a mechanism of how this actually works in practice.
Recommended for novice longevity enthusiasts, but there's not much new insight for the serious reader unfortunately.
It's well-written and I enjoyed Prof. Sinclair's distinctive writing style and purview. I learned a bit on what papers and authors I should read more deeply for Parts (1) and (2), but I was disappointed in the overall depth and lack of systematic, holistic discussion of how the individual research streams came together. I thought (3) was finely articulated, but no conceptual new grounds were covered.
The main thesis that Sinclair builds up is his "Information Theory of Aging." He's inspired by Claude Shannon's seminal work and the TCP/IP protocol, but the analogy is not very well-fleshed out and feels like a forced analogy. Essentially, Prof. Sinclair believes that epigenetic 'debris' accrues on DNA and aging cells lose differentiation. Sinclair believes this can be reversed because each cell has a stored copy of 'youthful' epigenetic state that can re-programmed towards. It's an intriguing idea but he unfortunately doesn't provide much evidence or even a mechanism of how this actually works in practice.
Recommended for novice longevity enthusiasts, but there's not much new insight for the serious reader unfortunately.
August 29, 2021
The book is 99% of personal anecdotes, tedious and lengthy lab studies, descriptions of yeast cells, government funding, and epigenetics.
And 1% on how you should:
• exclude animal proteins
• exclude sugar
• exclude dairy
• eat a lot less of everything else (calorie restriction).
I'm following it.
And 1% on how you should:
• exclude animal proteins
• exclude sugar
• exclude dairy
• eat a lot less of everything else (calorie restriction).
I'm following it.
August 21, 2025
Really enjoyed the book. Will provide a better review once I catch up with the rest of my life.
May 12, 2023
2,5 Sterne
Bin durch folgendes Video auf Sinclair und seine Forschung gestoßen: https://youtu.be/n9IxomBusuw.
Wer sich nur für die Maßnahmen interessiert, der ist mit dem Video besser bedient. Das Buch hat lange Passagen, die sich generell mit seiner Forschung und der seiner Kolleg:innen beschäftigen, die ich persönlich sehr spannend fand.
In der 2. Hälfte beschäftigt er sich mit der Frage welche Risiken bzw. Kritischen Gesichtspunkte mit einem hohen Alter verbunden sind/sein könnten.
Themen um Überbevölkerung, Gesundheitssystem, Arbeitspolitik, Rentenalter, staatliche Finanzierung für Forschung, effizientes Leben, Ressourcen, Klimawandel, Ethik seiner Arbeit werden besprochen.
Er zitiert zwar die ein oder andere Studie (bezogen auf die letzt genannten Punkte), präsentiert allerdings weitestgehend seine persönliche Meinung. Da er ein äußerst optimistischer Mensch ist, ufert das etwas in eine pathetische Rede aus.
Vieles zum Altern wird mantraartig wiederholt.
Ein kurzes knackiges Buch zu seiner Forschung wäre m.E. sinnvoller gewesen. Das oberflächliche wildern in anderen Fachbereichen bekommt dem Buch nicht.
Bin durch folgendes Video auf Sinclair und seine Forschung gestoßen: https://youtu.be/n9IxomBusuw.
Wer sich nur für die Maßnahmen interessiert, der ist mit dem Video besser bedient. Das Buch hat lange Passagen, die sich generell mit seiner Forschung und der seiner Kolleg:innen beschäftigen, die ich persönlich sehr spannend fand.
In der 2. Hälfte beschäftigt er sich mit der Frage welche Risiken bzw. Kritischen Gesichtspunkte mit einem hohen Alter verbunden sind/sein könnten.
Themen um Überbevölkerung, Gesundheitssystem, Arbeitspolitik, Rentenalter, staatliche Finanzierung für Forschung, effizientes Leben, Ressourcen, Klimawandel, Ethik seiner Arbeit werden besprochen.
Er zitiert zwar die ein oder andere Studie (bezogen auf die letzt genannten Punkte), präsentiert allerdings weitestgehend seine persönliche Meinung. Da er ein äußerst optimistischer Mensch ist, ufert das etwas in eine pathetische Rede aus.
Vieles zum Altern wird mantraartig wiederholt.
Ein kurzes knackiges Buch zu seiner Forschung wäre m.E. sinnvoller gewesen. Das oberflächliche wildern in anderen Fachbereichen bekommt dem Buch nicht.
September 7, 2024
Though this text has the underpinnings of legitimacy, a visit to the NIH revealed the authors' attempts to commercialize scientific discoveries. Listening to this, one would ascertain an active ad campaign is underway to push "Metformin" on the general public. Many references are made to applying the knowledge gained in animal studies to humans---sans human double blind studies to confirm such claims.
“As a stem cell scientist, I’m insulted by his unsubstantiated claims. At best, he will lead the unaware astray; at worst, he will diminish the credibility of all of us who do serious research with stem cells.”
---Paul Knoepfler
The hype reaches a point of beer froth cascading down the side of a chilled beer stein. To his merit the story is told in a way where most would take Harvard trained geneticist Sinclair words to be the "nothing but the truth." David A. Sinclair is the target of much controversy (scientific community) specifically by Charles Brenner Ph.D. and Peter Attia. Additionally you may want to review concerns voiced by Harvard Distinguished Service Professor Jeffery Flier.
“As a stem cell scientist, I’m insulted by his unsubstantiated claims. At best, he will lead the unaware astray; at worst, he will diminish the credibility of all of us who do serious research with stem cells.”
---Paul Knoepfler
The hype reaches a point of beer froth cascading down the side of a chilled beer stein. To his merit the story is told in a way where most would take Harvard trained geneticist Sinclair words to be the "nothing but the truth." David A. Sinclair is the target of much controversy (scientific community) specifically by Charles Brenner Ph.D. and Peter Attia. Additionally you may want to review concerns voiced by Harvard Distinguished Service Professor Jeffery Flier.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 13, 2023
I have a feeling this will be a long review, so if you're just looking for some cliff-notes then mine are: "This book has the potential to change the way you live your life. You might not enjoy reading it (*1), but the topic it addresses will definitely affect you personally. Whether it's right after reading it (*2), or at a societal level in the years to come, that's up to you."
Now for the long version...
My previous knowledge of David Sinclair was from his visits to JRE podcast, where I found him to be an insightful and smart fella' (*3). This also comes across throughout the book, which was nice to see. I'm not denying that I went into this with a bias towards liking it, but like everything I read, I try to correct for it.
The way I see it, books can serve many purposes. Whether it's as simple as keeping you from having your own thoughts for a few dead minutes (*4), entertaining you with a well-written prose, engaging you in an action-twisted plot or changing your entire world-view by completely removing a deep-rooted assumption you've previously held since you were 4 years old, I'll have to say this book very much does the latter.
I'm not a slob to begin with. Ever since high-school my views were that your body should not be mistreated. That is if you plan on it being there for you in the long run. You either routinely take care of it as a force of habit, or you eventually try to patch it up in a very painful, costly and potentially mentally debilitating way at some point in the future (which personally, I see the loss of mental faculties as the highest price you can pay for neglect). This lead me to always try my best at being up to date on the latest medical discoveries and trying to fine tune my mental model of how my body works in hopes of better maintaining it.
That being said, I always started off by assuming that I have somewhere around 40-ish healthy adult years ahead of me (if I'm lucky), and that I should try and work around that when it came to setting goals and thinking what long-term choices are best for me to take. This book challenges that assumption to it's core.
What if my previous goal of having a decently healthy standard lifespan are me setting a low bar? Of course, I'll be lucky to have that in any case, but what if I could set the bar at actually increasing the limit of those 40 years instead? My previous goal of keeping a good health is already on the table and is pretty much included in the new goal, so what would it cost me to raise my health-span (*5)?
This book did a decent job at answering that question for me and I found the answer shocking. I think the reason I found it shocking is because of a life-long aversion to anything that advertises *rejuvenation* or *making you young again* gained from the bombardment of marketing buzzwords and a tradition of snake-oil salesmen humanity has had for millennia. It might be a case of boy-cry-wolf at a grand scale. We've been burned by bad/fake science & marketing for many years, so now when actual hard science tells us that "hey... you know this crazy idea we've had about stopping aging, well it seems it might actually be doable."(*6), our knee-jerk reaction is to ignore it.
David is not promising that, but what he does is show you just how close we might be to achieving it soon. That to me is mind-blowing out of the box. The book details how different discoveries clicked together in recent years to get us from seeing it as a crazy idea to a technology problem?! And as far as it goes, we're pretty good at solving technology issues when they get enough time and funding.
There's a great deal of things you can do now that are natural and proven to at least postpone some aspects of aging, but the review is long already and I want you to do the work of reading it to actually find out.
*1 - you might not enjoy the style, length, analogies, etc.
*2 - by curving your calorie intake, taking better care of yourself etc.
*3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0...
*4 - that's not something we allow anymore as a society.
*5 - health-span = % of lifespan lived in good health
*6 - scientific shrug ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Now for the long version...
My previous knowledge of David Sinclair was from his visits to JRE podcast, where I found him to be an insightful and smart fella' (*3). This also comes across throughout the book, which was nice to see. I'm not denying that I went into this with a bias towards liking it, but like everything I read, I try to correct for it.
The way I see it, books can serve many purposes. Whether it's as simple as keeping you from having your own thoughts for a few dead minutes (*4), entertaining you with a well-written prose, engaging you in an action-twisted plot or changing your entire world-view by completely removing a deep-rooted assumption you've previously held since you were 4 years old, I'll have to say this book very much does the latter.
I'm not a slob to begin with. Ever since high-school my views were that your body should not be mistreated. That is if you plan on it being there for you in the long run. You either routinely take care of it as a force of habit, or you eventually try to patch it up in a very painful, costly and potentially mentally debilitating way at some point in the future (which personally, I see the loss of mental faculties as the highest price you can pay for neglect). This lead me to always try my best at being up to date on the latest medical discoveries and trying to fine tune my mental model of how my body works in hopes of better maintaining it.
That being said, I always started off by assuming that I have somewhere around 40-ish healthy adult years ahead of me (if I'm lucky), and that I should try and work around that when it came to setting goals and thinking what long-term choices are best for me to take. This book challenges that assumption to it's core.
What if my previous goal of having a decently healthy standard lifespan are me setting a low bar? Of course, I'll be lucky to have that in any case, but what if I could set the bar at actually increasing the limit of those 40 years instead? My previous goal of keeping a good health is already on the table and is pretty much included in the new goal, so what would it cost me to raise my health-span (*5)?
This book did a decent job at answering that question for me and I found the answer shocking. I think the reason I found it shocking is because of a life-long aversion to anything that advertises *rejuvenation* or *making you young again* gained from the bombardment of marketing buzzwords and a tradition of snake-oil salesmen humanity has had for millennia. It might be a case of boy-cry-wolf at a grand scale. We've been burned by bad/fake science & marketing for many years, so now when actual hard science tells us that "hey... you know this crazy idea we've had about stopping aging, well it seems it might actually be doable."(*6), our knee-jerk reaction is to ignore it.
David is not promising that, but what he does is show you just how close we might be to achieving it soon. That to me is mind-blowing out of the box. The book details how different discoveries clicked together in recent years to get us from seeing it as a crazy idea to a technology problem?! And as far as it goes, we're pretty good at solving technology issues when they get enough time and funding.
There's a great deal of things you can do now that are natural and proven to at least postpone some aspects of aging, but the review is long already and I want you to do the work of reading it to actually find out.
*1 - you might not enjoy the style, length, analogies, etc.
*2 - by curving your calorie intake, taking better care of yourself etc.
*3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOTS0...
*4 - that's not something we allow anymore as a society.
*5 - health-span = % of lifespan lived in good health
*6 - scientific shrug ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
March 28, 2020
This is an intriguing book written by the renowned Harvard researcher, David Sinclair.
Sinclair believes that our attitudes about the inevitability of aging may be somewhat flawed. In fact, based on his research, he believes that not only will we be able to slow aging down, we may someday be able to reverse it.
He discusses the shortcomings of aging research that is partly a function of the fact that we don't currently classify aging as a chronic disease, thereby making its research ineligible for government funding. He also argues, and strongly so, that aging is by far the biggest threat we face, pointing out that most other chronic diseases are secondary to the aging process.
The last fourth of the book explores the social, cultural, and ethical implications of extending life significantly. This, for me, was wasted space as it's all supposition and didn't really do the topic justice.
Definitely worth a read for anyone who is interested in cutting edge anti-aging science. According to Sinclair, understanding why we age (something that is becoming more clear) is the first step in stopping and maybe reversing the process. Some things that might slow aging...fasting, short exposure to temperature extremes (hot or cold), the diabetes medication metformin. According to Sinclair, it's an issue of when and not an issue of if we will be able to slow/reverse aging. The cure for aging is on the horizon. And, he's probably right.
Sinclair believes that our attitudes about the inevitability of aging may be somewhat flawed. In fact, based on his research, he believes that not only will we be able to slow aging down, we may someday be able to reverse it.
He discusses the shortcomings of aging research that is partly a function of the fact that we don't currently classify aging as a chronic disease, thereby making its research ineligible for government funding. He also argues, and strongly so, that aging is by far the biggest threat we face, pointing out that most other chronic diseases are secondary to the aging process.
The last fourth of the book explores the social, cultural, and ethical implications of extending life significantly. This, for me, was wasted space as it's all supposition and didn't really do the topic justice.
Definitely worth a read for anyone who is interested in cutting edge anti-aging science. According to Sinclair, understanding why we age (something that is becoming more clear) is the first step in stopping and maybe reversing the process. Some things that might slow aging...fasting, short exposure to temperature extremes (hot or cold), the diabetes medication metformin. According to Sinclair, it's an issue of when and not an issue of if we will be able to slow/reverse aging. The cure for aging is on the horizon. And, he's probably right.
July 21, 2019
I read this for work and while the science/DNA-level detail in the front part is pretty dense, the book really opens up when he writes about the possibility for treating aging as a disease and all the things that currently kill us (heart disease, cancers) as its symptoms. And then the social impacts of society living much, much longer than we currently do. I am now operating as if I will live to 100, and we're talking GOOD years, not wasting away. So this book has really changed the way I think about aging, which I used to just accept as something inevitable.
October 20, 2019
Absolutely fascinating read about the past (what we know), present (what we are learning) and future (where we are going) of the anti-aging science research. Along with “Why we Sleep” of Matthew Walker this is another of those fundamental books one should read. Actually I can’t help but imagine future generations looking back in our times and wondering how were people going about their lives without learning about or caring to understand longevity factors such as nutrition, exercise, sleep, mental health, preventive health checks, body monitoring etc.
Returning to the book, apart from providing a general background of how our bodies work on the molecular (DNA, RNA, proteins) and cellular level, the author proposes the hypothesis that aging is a result of a loss of information. This theory suggests that over time our cells loose the ability to accurately “read” the genetic information which remains always intactly stored into our DNA (this genetic information is what tells the cell what to be and how to behave), resulting in malfunction, loss of cellular identity or death, which manifests as the symptoms and diseases we all associate with aging.
If this hypothesis proves correct (and there are many experiments that support it), if we could eventually prevent, slow or even reverse this information loss, it follows that could directly target the origins and cure all symptoms and diseases of aging at once, instead of trying to find treatments for each individual disease (ie. cardiovascular, dementia etc) as scientists have been trying to do until now. It is plausible that in the future we could regenerate and reverse the age in tissue (this works already in mice), or restore our overall health and vitality to the levels of a 20 or 30 year old on demand.
How could that happen? Without giving out more fascinating research and experiments referenced in the book, this is one of the best talks of the author I found online summarizing his theory: https://youtu.be/9nXop2lLDa4
Then, what could you do today to help your body slow the aging process?
The author takes 1g of NMN every morning + 0,5-1 g of resveratrol powder with yoghurt to raise his NAD levels. These can be found over the counter.
He also takes 1 g of metformin in the night (needs prescription).
He checks his blood regularly and supplements with vitamin D, K2 and 83mg of aspirin.
Eats as few carbohydrates (sugar, pasta, breads) as possible.
Usually skips one meal per day or makes a meal smaller.
Tries to walk, go to gym, sauna, ice cold pool and keep a low BMI.
Doesn’t smoke, avoids toxins, excessive radiation and other common sense damaging factors.
And what should you do?
If you are under 30 or even maybe 40, I would probably avoid the supplements. There are no long term studies of the effects of the NMN and no human studies. On the other hand, in short term or animal studies no toxicity or side effects have been demonstrated and many anti-aging researchers allegedly take it. If I was older I would probably give it a shot and I actually intend to experiment with my parents with NR (similar to NMN and tested in human trials).
Of course science has the annoying habit of regularly disproving theories and crashing dreams, but until that happens I look forward to a future of scientific revolutions and increased lifespan and healthspan.
Returning to the book, apart from providing a general background of how our bodies work on the molecular (DNA, RNA, proteins) and cellular level, the author proposes the hypothesis that aging is a result of a loss of information. This theory suggests that over time our cells loose the ability to accurately “read” the genetic information which remains always intactly stored into our DNA (this genetic information is what tells the cell what to be and how to behave), resulting in malfunction, loss of cellular identity or death, which manifests as the symptoms and diseases we all associate with aging.
If this hypothesis proves correct (and there are many experiments that support it), if we could eventually prevent, slow or even reverse this information loss, it follows that could directly target the origins and cure all symptoms and diseases of aging at once, instead of trying to find treatments for each individual disease (ie. cardiovascular, dementia etc) as scientists have been trying to do until now. It is plausible that in the future we could regenerate and reverse the age in tissue (this works already in mice), or restore our overall health and vitality to the levels of a 20 or 30 year old on demand.
How could that happen? Without giving out more fascinating research and experiments referenced in the book, this is one of the best talks of the author I found online summarizing his theory: https://youtu.be/9nXop2lLDa4
Then, what could you do today to help your body slow the aging process?
The author takes 1g of NMN every morning + 0,5-1 g of resveratrol powder with yoghurt to raise his NAD levels. These can be found over the counter.
He also takes 1 g of metformin in the night (needs prescription).
He checks his blood regularly and supplements with vitamin D, K2 and 83mg of aspirin.
Eats as few carbohydrates (sugar, pasta, breads) as possible.
Usually skips one meal per day or makes a meal smaller.
Tries to walk, go to gym, sauna, ice cold pool and keep a low BMI.
Doesn’t smoke, avoids toxins, excessive radiation and other common sense damaging factors.
And what should you do?
If you are under 30 or even maybe 40, I would probably avoid the supplements. There are no long term studies of the effects of the NMN and no human studies. On the other hand, in short term or animal studies no toxicity or side effects have been demonstrated and many anti-aging researchers allegedly take it. If I was older I would probably give it a shot and I actually intend to experiment with my parents with NR (similar to NMN and tested in human trials).
Of course science has the annoying habit of regularly disproving theories and crashing dreams, but until that happens I look forward to a future of scientific revolutions and increased lifespan and healthspan.
June 30, 2022
This might be one of the most remarkable non-fiction book I’ll read this year. The ground-breaking science on aging provides hope for the future. The research was interesting and I found myself hoping that governments all over the world will start prioritizing research on how to prevent aging. I for one want to live as long as I possible can, with my health intact. I enjoyed the optimism and the chapters on possible solutions for our world in other areas than just aging.
February 4, 2022
5 % science
20 % self-promoting talk
25 % anecdotal evidence
50 % speculation (at best)
20 % self-promoting talk
25 % anecdotal evidence
50 % speculation (at best)
September 18, 2019
I've been following David Sinclair's research into aging for many years, and this book is a great summary of his work and that of others, where the field of aging research is headed, and what we can expect. Dr. Sinclair is and has always been an optimist. I'm an optimist too, so that's fine by me. While he isn't a medical doctor and can't give medical advice, he discusses supplements he takes and lifestyle choices he makes that he feels are helping him and his own family too, including his 80-year-old father who has returned to work and is enjoying vibrant good health. My own disclaimer, I have been taking an NAD booster for almost five years. I do believe it makes a difference. At 56, I have far more energy than same-aged friends, and I haven't been sick since I started taking it, something Dr. Sinclair mentions too. Because I have inherited a copy of the APOE4 gene for Alzheimer's, I'm always interested in learning about anything I can do (exercise) or take (supplements) that will help prevent that gene from turning on. Toward the final quarter of the book, Dr. Sinclair turns to the ethics of slowing or even preventing aging. What would a world look like in which people might start a new career in their seventies, or enjoy spending time with their great-great-grandchildren, still vital and engaged? How would it impact global overpopulation and use of resources? These are all important questions, and he presents various scenarios in a balanced way. Overall, a fabulous read. I'm going to get the PDF as well so I can look at the charts and images references (recommended by the author as well). I do truly feel that we're on the brink of longevity escape velocity, and I couldn't be more excited!
May 25, 2025
Дейвид Синклер е изследовател на "старостта" - занимава се да открива защо и как точно хората стареят, какви са молекулярните и генетични механизми, които ни карат да стареем. И как могат да бъдат те забавени или в идеалния случай - спрени, разбира се.
Lifespan изобилства с научни подробности относно стареенето на споменатото молекулярно и генетично ниво, но бързо става очевидно, че съвременната наука има съвсем бегла представа за случващото се в тоя контекст в телата ни и е на нивото на звездобройците през средновековието, които са описвали какво виждат в небето, без да имат и бегла идея за истинската природа на звездите и планетите.
Ясно е, че изследванията в тази област ще продължат - смятам ги за важни и очаквам с интерес резултатите от тях. Но не смятам за нужно да правя всеобхватни изводи на базата на малкото налична информация.
За съжаление, авторът на настоящата книга не мисли като мен - напротив, той смята за нужно да прави тия изводи. Въпреки етикета си на човек на науката, фактите и разума, не се свени, в стремежа си да обясни старостта и да намери ключа към вечната (или поне по-дългата) младост, напълно да изостави научния метод за поглед върху света - нещо, което за още по-голямо съжаление, е характерно за много изследователи.
"За мишките и хората" може да е книга със съвсем различна тема, но приравнияването на резултатите от експерименти с мишки с очакваните резултати при хората е изключително често явление в научния свят. А когато става дума за неща като хранене и физиологични реакции, истината е, че растителноядни животни като мишките, адаптирани главно към зърнена диета, съвсем не са най-добрия паралел с хората. Въпреки това, по-голяма част от "изводите" в книгата за това какво трябва да ядем и колко, се базират на резултати от експерименти с мишки.
Няма да крия, че впечатленията ми от тази книга са изцяло оцветени от двучасовото интервю с автора, което направи Джо Роган в подкаста си. Авторът е дребен, слабичък човечец с миша физиономия и хитри очички, който никак не ме изненада, като описа начина си на живот в преследване на дълголетието - избягване на животинските продукти и вземане на всякакви измислени "добавки", вкл. на статини.
Не ми се занимава да навлизам в подробности относно възгледите му относно това какво е полезно и какво ��е, но те се базират на общоприетото в диетологията и медицината, спазването на което сами виждате какви резултати има сред населението. Разбира се, даже счупеният часовник е верен два пъти на ден, поради което в книгата има точно две неща, които вероятно наистина са полезни за хората - периодичното гладуване и излагането на студ. Останалото са умствени еквилибристики в опит да не се види факта, че зърнените храни и основно въглехидратната диета е това, което убива съвременното общество.
Lifespan изобилства с научни подробности относно стареенето на споменатото молекулярно и генетично ниво, но бързо става очевидно, че съвременната наука има съвсем бегла представа за случващото се в тоя контекст в телата ни и е на нивото на звездобройците през средновековието, които са описвали какво виждат в небето, без да имат и бегла идея за истинската природа на звездите и планетите.
Ясно е, че изследванията в тази област ще продължат - смятам ги за важни и очаквам с интерес резултатите от тях. Но не смятам за нужно да правя всеобхватни изводи на базата на малкото налична информация.
За съжаление, авторът на настоящата книга не мисли като мен - напротив, той смята за нужно да прави тия изводи. Въпреки етикета си на човек на науката, фактите и разума, не се свени, в стремежа си да обясни старостта и да намери ключа към вечната (или поне по-дългата) младост, напълно да изостави научния метод за поглед върху света - нещо, което за още по-голямо съжаление, е характерно за много изследователи.
"За мишките и хората" може да е книга със съвсем различна тема, но приравнияването на резултатите от експерименти с мишки с очакваните резултати при хората е изключително често явление в научния свят. А когато става дума за неща като хранене и физиологични реакции, истината е, че растителноядни животни като мишките, адаптирани главно към зърнена диета, съвсем не са най-добрия паралел с хората. Въпреки това, по-голяма част от "изводите" в книгата за това какво трябва да ядем и колко, се базират на резултати от експерименти с мишки.
Няма да крия, че впечатленията ми от тази книга са изцяло оцветени от двучасовото интервю с автора, което направи Джо Роган в подкаста си. Авторът е дребен, слабичък човечец с миша физиономия и хитри очички, който никак не ме изненада, като описа начина си на живот в преследване на дълголетието - избягване на животинските продукти и вземане на всякакви измислени "добавки", вкл. на статини.
Не ми се занимава да навлизам в подробности относно възгледите му относно това какво е полезно и какво ��е, но те се базират на общоприетото в диетологията и медицината, спазването на което сами виждате какви резултати има сред населението. Разбира се, даже счупеният часовник е верен два пъти на ден, поради което в книгата има точно две неща, които вероятно наистина са полезни за хората - периодичното гладуване и излагането на студ. Останалото са умствени еквилибристики в опит да не се види факта, че зърнените храни и основно въглехидратната диета е това, което убива съвременното общество.
January 17, 2022
Kaip dabar jau žinoma, kai kuria David Sinclair teiginiai vertinami dviprasmiškai, bet, manau, šita knyga yra rimtas lūžio taškas kaip ateityje bus žiūrima ir galvojama apie senėjimo procesus. Ši knyga atidarė daug temų, kurias mokslas dabar analizuoja ir norisi perskaičius ieškoti naujausios informacijos.
September 23, 2019
This book could have been excellent... I am a true fan of life extension and the author Dr. Sinclair as an obvious insight in the current state of art in the biochemistry of life extension. He gave an excellent introduction to many detailed topics in this biochemistry: sirtuins, NMN, mTOR, and DNA mods to test repair effect on ageing... mention of Metformin, Resveratrol and the search for other potential triggers of sirtuins repair... potential for a genetic reset button and adding this to our DNA with a one time CRISPR change (and tiny flu)... All this and many more stories of the biology of life extension.
Then, starting near the middle of the book, a constant drone of libidiotic SJC PC that came to pervade the entire story, building to an almost overwhelming crescendo in part 3 of the book... where he launches into an almost inexplicable exercise in Why we shouldn't extend human longevity. OK, it's a rational part of any life extension story to answer the Malthusian, limits of growth, constraints of Earthly resources... in the end, like myself, the author Believes technology will achieve the necessary changes to sustain humanity (as I do)... but along way, preaches at US about how Australia and the EU's socialism is the answer And how humanity Will Have to Be Taught how to live within our Earthly resources.... yes, folks another affluent Communist in the making. Along with the usual references to "well-known" anthropocene extinction, man-made climate alarmism, and negativity to animal based foods was a wide-assortment of liberal+progressive agenda including identity politics.
In all, this author Had an Opportunity to do some Solid informing about Longevity Research. It could have been a 300 page tome on the intricacies of these longevity mechanism of our human bodies (something he's an expert on)... instead, we were treated to half a book full of #MSM platitude from our current overlords on how will need to Sacrifice to Save our Planet... Clearly, this will become another popular possibly Best Seller for hitting all of the Politically Correct buttons all good little unthinking members of humanity have been told to believe!
I hope this review at least amuses someone! I would buy and read the book Only for its good description of human longevity biochemistry.
Then, starting near the middle of the book, a constant drone of libidiotic SJC PC that came to pervade the entire story, building to an almost overwhelming crescendo in part 3 of the book... where he launches into an almost inexplicable exercise in Why we shouldn't extend human longevity. OK, it's a rational part of any life extension story to answer the Malthusian, limits of growth, constraints of Earthly resources... in the end, like myself, the author Believes technology will achieve the necessary changes to sustain humanity (as I do)... but along way, preaches at US about how Australia and the EU's socialism is the answer And how humanity Will Have to Be Taught how to live within our Earthly resources.... yes, folks another affluent Communist in the making. Along with the usual references to "well-known" anthropocene extinction, man-made climate alarmism, and negativity to animal based foods was a wide-assortment of liberal+progressive agenda including identity politics.
In all, this author Had an Opportunity to do some Solid informing about Longevity Research. It could have been a 300 page tome on the intricacies of these longevity mechanism of our human bodies (something he's an expert on)... instead, we were treated to half a book full of #MSM platitude from our current overlords on how will need to Sacrifice to Save our Planet... Clearly, this will become another popular possibly Best Seller for hitting all of the Politically Correct buttons all good little unthinking members of humanity have been told to believe!
I hope this review at least amuses someone! I would buy and read the book Only for its good description of human longevity biochemistry.
July 9, 2022
“I believe that aging is a disease. I believe it is treatable. I believe we can treat it within our lifetimes. And in doing so, I believe, everything we know about human health will be fundamentally changed.”
Wild book. I felt like we are living in a sci-fi movie the entire time I read it. I also kept wanting to dismiss his claims as made-up, but then I would remember that this man is the co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School.
Either he’s lying, he’s wrong, or things are about to drastically change for humans.
Wild book. I felt like we are living in a sci-fi movie the entire time I read it. I also kept wanting to dismiss his claims as made-up, but then I would remember that this man is the co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School.
Either he’s lying, he’s wrong, or things are about to drastically change for humans.
Read
January 27, 2020دکتر سینکلر طی ۲۰ سال گذشته به همراه تیم فوقالعاده اش تحقیقاتی روی ژن ها و ساختار دی إن ای انجام داده و تونستن دو موش را پیر و بعد دوباره جوان کنند. درمان خیلی از بیماری ها من جمله آلزایمر احتمالا در آینده نه چندان دور با همین روش درمان پذیره. مفصل هست و اینجا مجال نیست
February 20, 2021
I found the writing very american and quite self absorbed, but I really liked the message and ideas that sinclair puts forward. It's a very optimistic look at the future of healthcare and one I'd like to see happen!
January 14, 2020
Summary: He's dedicated his life to studying this. A lot of good info. One-star off b/c I think his direction of inquiry is a little disjointed in spots. I think that's the fault of the way research is set up and not the author though. The other star has to do with fact presentation.
I saw Sinclair on a show on Netflix and thought, hey! Let me read this guy's book. He seems to know a lot. And that is true! The writing style of this book is very approachable for a science book.
The early part of the book is about his inspiration. It's a bit irrelevant to the thesis, but it does humanize a topic that may seem inhuman. Not to be petty, but for instance, he says, I am 50, but I feel much younger. Seriously... everyone says that at 50... even at 40 people start to say, I am 40, but I feel 30. plus, I saw you on TV. you look in your late 40s to me and you still age faster than Asian, black, and Mediterranean people do. If going that route, I would have preferred you to simply show the biometrics that shows internal aging. This is pretty popular these days in the field of fitness and used quite a lot to show progress via healthy living, diet, and exercise.
That, however, does not take away from the next chapters that describe clearly the science of aging.
P. 42 gets to the heart of it there is no gene that causes aging. There are only failures in genes that result in the symptoms of aging. This has started to be socialized as a concept, but it's still - at this point in history - new. Even in saying it a lot of people will not appreciate what it means that gene research related to pure identification will not stop people from aging. It is only gene research into function and disfunction causes that will truly help. Because genetic material is so small, this is going to be very tough stuff.
p. 50, He introduces the epigenome. For many, this is new stuff. I wish he would have taken a half a beat more and just displayed what an epigenome is in chemical format vs. DNA and scientifically rather than allegorically it does. I had to look it up and I think, from googling it is a word that describes the changes (not an actual substance) that result in DNA as a result of its use. But how and what the heck that means, I'm remiss, so I spend a lot of this book a bit confused. Hence, menos una estrella!!
That said, this epigenome is the key (hence you can see why it is kinda bad I don't understand it what it is after reading this book.)
p.60, there is a bit more that helps you infer. They talk about this gene called Cas9, the CRISPR gene-editing took in bacteria that cuts DNA at precisely the right places, but again, I can't tell, is that an epigenome, a gene, or something else. Please, Sinclair. You're brilliant. give the little people a diagram with an arrow that says "epigenome here..."
p.96 - This whole calorie restriction thing is as relates to noted improvements to genetic markers is very cool. I also like the example of the guy who's 70, but his heart rate, ldl, and visual acuity were those of a much younger person. I wish he'd just say how much younger, so I don't have to look up the footnote. When I looked it up and read that article, it said his health was similar to a school-age child, with 20/10 vision and BMI in the 20s. It also says that in his 40s his bio age was worse. I think the prob with this author is he's so sensitive to making certain claims that he ought to just go into this whole bio age vs. time age thing and be done with it. Instead, despite good research, it's just ambigious "you don't have to age."
p. 98 - the studies on intermittent fasting and increase lifespan were interesting. specifically, he talks about greater IGF-1 hormone.
pp. 99 - He talks about Ikaria Greece where people live very long lives and do intermittent fasting as a part of their eating style.
p. 107 - Cold exposure is also really good. it creates UCP-2 activation that results from this is correlated with lifespan
So my big thing is that you have this lovely intro where you say, hey.... there is no death marker in the gene, b/c we aren't meant to age or decay. It's all the misfunction that causes it. Then the studies that are presented aren't longitudinal studies that sequentially demonstrate the temporal aspects of this. It's like the wrong research design to prove what you're trying to say. At best, you have this collection of stuff that might be true.
So for example, if it's intermittent fasting, then we see the IGF-1 hormone levels decline over time and have some specific action that happens in the control and with the treated group we see a dip, but then it comes back up or we see no dip over time. Something like that. Instead, we just have tests at a given point of time or at death. Too many variables to really say anything.
Even the way that the bio-age stuff is presented/not presented, we can't really tell because there is no control vs non-control AND, he physically doesn't look younger.
Finally, I really like the tables in the back "The Scale of Things." Very helpful to have various measurements put in the context of things like a grain of sand, a skin cell, etc. I did not know that blood cells were smaller than skin cells. I feel a bit ignorant of biology... in a good way.
In short, this book is great if you're just learning the subject, but it sadly holds back just when it gets interesting. Perhaps that's the audience he's writing for......
I saw Sinclair on a show on Netflix and thought, hey! Let me read this guy's book. He seems to know a lot. And that is true! The writing style of this book is very approachable for a science book.
The early part of the book is about his inspiration. It's a bit irrelevant to the thesis, but it does humanize a topic that may seem inhuman. Not to be petty, but for instance, he says, I am 50, but I feel much younger. Seriously... everyone says that at 50... even at 40 people start to say, I am 40, but I feel 30. plus, I saw you on TV. you look in your late 40s to me and you still age faster than Asian, black, and Mediterranean people do. If going that route, I would have preferred you to simply show the biometrics that shows internal aging. This is pretty popular these days in the field of fitness and used quite a lot to show progress via healthy living, diet, and exercise.
That, however, does not take away from the next chapters that describe clearly the science of aging.
P. 42 gets to the heart of it there is no gene that causes aging. There are only failures in genes that result in the symptoms of aging. This has started to be socialized as a concept, but it's still - at this point in history - new. Even in saying it a lot of people will not appreciate what it means that gene research related to pure identification will not stop people from aging. It is only gene research into function and disfunction causes that will truly help. Because genetic material is so small, this is going to be very tough stuff.
p. 50, He introduces the epigenome. For many, this is new stuff. I wish he would have taken a half a beat more and just displayed what an epigenome is in chemical format vs. DNA and scientifically rather than allegorically it does. I had to look it up and I think, from googling it is a word that describes the changes (not an actual substance) that result in DNA as a result of its use. But how and what the heck that means, I'm remiss, so I spend a lot of this book a bit confused. Hence, menos una estrella!!
That said, this epigenome is the key (hence you can see why it is kinda bad I don't understand it what it is after reading this book.)
p.60, there is a bit more that helps you infer. They talk about this gene called Cas9, the CRISPR gene-editing took in bacteria that cuts DNA at precisely the right places, but again, I can't tell, is that an epigenome, a gene, or something else. Please, Sinclair. You're brilliant. give the little people a diagram with an arrow that says "epigenome here..."
p.96 - This whole calorie restriction thing is as relates to noted improvements to genetic markers is very cool. I also like the example of the guy who's 70, but his heart rate, ldl, and visual acuity were those of a much younger person. I wish he'd just say how much younger, so I don't have to look up the footnote. When I looked it up and read that article, it said his health was similar to a school-age child, with 20/10 vision and BMI in the 20s. It also says that in his 40s his bio age was worse. I think the prob with this author is he's so sensitive to making certain claims that he ought to just go into this whole bio age vs. time age thing and be done with it. Instead, despite good research, it's just ambigious "you don't have to age."
p. 98 - the studies on intermittent fasting and increase lifespan were interesting. specifically, he talks about greater IGF-1 hormone.
pp. 99 - He talks about Ikaria Greece where people live very long lives and do intermittent fasting as a part of their eating style.
p. 107 - Cold exposure is also really good. it creates UCP-2 activation that results from this is correlated with lifespan
So my big thing is that you have this lovely intro where you say, hey.... there is no death marker in the gene, b/c we aren't meant to age or decay. It's all the misfunction that causes it. Then the studies that are presented aren't longitudinal studies that sequentially demonstrate the temporal aspects of this. It's like the wrong research design to prove what you're trying to say. At best, you have this collection of stuff that might be true.
So for example, if it's intermittent fasting, then we see the IGF-1 hormone levels decline over time and have some specific action that happens in the control and with the treated group we see a dip, but then it comes back up or we see no dip over time. Something like that. Instead, we just have tests at a given point of time or at death. Too many variables to really say anything.
Even the way that the bio-age stuff is presented/not presented, we can't really tell because there is no control vs non-control AND, he physically doesn't look younger.
Finally, I really like the tables in the back "The Scale of Things." Very helpful to have various measurements put in the context of things like a grain of sand, a skin cell, etc. I did not know that blood cells were smaller than skin cells. I feel a bit ignorant of biology... in a good way.
In short, this book is great if you're just learning the subject, but it sadly holds back just when it gets interesting. Perhaps that's the audience he's writing for......
September 22, 2019
Within our lifetimes many will be able to live longer than 120 years, while enjoying at age 80-90 the health of 30-40 year olds.
Gene therapies that can reverse organ damage, like macular degeneration, and get rid of senescent cells, which increase with age and cause the various illnesses of old age, are already proving to be successful in the lab.
We will be able to program genes in a way that makes humans immune to most fatal diseases. A Chinese doctor has already gene edited a girl who is immune to AIDS.
One of Sinclair's students has been able to grow nerves connecting the eyes to the brain in mice, and there is confidence among researchers that the same could be done for humans.
Aging has been reversed in 12month old mice, the equivalent of 60 year old humans; treated 12month old mice (who've practically reached ripe old age) were able to run more than 3kilometers, which greatly exceeds the running capacity of even young mice over their lifetime. Similar effects can be induced in humans using similar enzymes and gene editing technologies in the near term future which Sinclair places at a maximum of 30 years from now.
Also, pointers on how to live longer:
Fasting so you are sort of hungry as frequently as possible, and generally consuming 25% fewer calories than currently recommended for your Body Mass Index is ideal.
Exposing yourself to lower temperatures than you're most comfortable at, where your body needs to do some work to keep you warm, triggers the survival circuit and slows down cellular aging and so the process of aging itself.
Regular exercise, at an intensity where you can't complete sentences and are short of breath, also slows down aging.
Read this interview where Sinclair touches on most of the topics in the book: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2...
Gene therapies that can reverse organ damage, like macular degeneration, and get rid of senescent cells, which increase with age and cause the various illnesses of old age, are already proving to be successful in the lab.
We will be able to program genes in a way that makes humans immune to most fatal diseases. A Chinese doctor has already gene edited a girl who is immune to AIDS.
One of Sinclair's students has been able to grow nerves connecting the eyes to the brain in mice, and there is confidence among researchers that the same could be done for humans.
Aging has been reversed in 12month old mice, the equivalent of 60 year old humans; treated 12month old mice (who've practically reached ripe old age) were able to run more than 3kilometers, which greatly exceeds the running capacity of even young mice over their lifetime. Similar effects can be induced in humans using similar enzymes and gene editing technologies in the near term future which Sinclair places at a maximum of 30 years from now.
Also, pointers on how to live longer:
Fasting so you are sort of hungry as frequently as possible, and generally consuming 25% fewer calories than currently recommended for your Body Mass Index is ideal.
Exposing yourself to lower temperatures than you're most comfortable at, where your body needs to do some work to keep you warm, triggers the survival circuit and slows down cellular aging and so the process of aging itself.
Regular exercise, at an intensity where you can't complete sentences and are short of breath, also slows down aging.
Read this interview where Sinclair touches on most of the topics in the book: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2...
March 26, 2022
Dr. David Sinclair is a scientist, researching aging in humans. He says “I believe that aging is a disease. I believe it is treatable." This is something my mother has always said and she was happy to know that the scientific community is finally taking aging seriously.
This book covers the latest advances in the field of ageing research. The reason we age is due to the loss or damage of genetic information in our cells. “Aging, quite simply, is a loss of information.” To put it simply, when we age, our DNA gets unraveled and our cells lose their uniqueness and get in the way of other normal functioning cells. This results in inflammation and diseases.
We have added years to our lives but not healthy years. He says, “As a species, we are living much longer than ever. But not much better. Not at all. Over the past century we have gained additional years, but not additional life—not life worth living anyway.”
He works on longevity genes called “sirtuins" and a complex protein that regulates growth and metabolism called "mTOR" in mammals. "Like the sirtuins, mTOR can signal cells in stress to hunker down and improve survival by boosting such activities as DNA repair, reducing inflammation caused by senescent cells, and, perhaps its most important function, digesting old proteins.”
"There are plenty of stressors that will activate longevity genes without damaging the cell, including certain types of exercise, intermittent fasting, low-protein diets, and exposure to hot and cold temperatures."
His prescription for fighting aging is: skipping a meal a day, a mostly plant based with least amount of sugar, exercise, stress management, keeping your weight in check, cold therapy and vitamins. The supplements he suggests for slowing down and even reversing aging are NMN, resveratrol and metformin - one of them is a prescription drug and the other two are not very well-known.
The book is interspersed with personal history and anecdotes, which is okay. The weak part of the book is when he tries to go into economics, policy-making, ethics, global-warming, etc. He is writing about these topics quite casually. The idea that I liked was suggested by environmental writer and activist, George Monbiot - "The problem isn’t population; it is consumption."
The science in this book is quite fascinating. The research into aging shows us a glimpse into the future. Some of this experimentation will pan out in a beneficial way and some will not and only some of it will be approved. Some part of it will be accepted by society and become commonplace in the next decade or so. Till then, “Eat fewer calories,” “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” and “Exercise.”
This book covers the latest advances in the field of ageing research. The reason we age is due to the loss or damage of genetic information in our cells. “Aging, quite simply, is a loss of information.” To put it simply, when we age, our DNA gets unraveled and our cells lose their uniqueness and get in the way of other normal functioning cells. This results in inflammation and diseases.
We have added years to our lives but not healthy years. He says, “As a species, we are living much longer than ever. But not much better. Not at all. Over the past century we have gained additional years, but not additional life—not life worth living anyway.”
He works on longevity genes called “sirtuins" and a complex protein that regulates growth and metabolism called "mTOR" in mammals. "Like the sirtuins, mTOR can signal cells in stress to hunker down and improve survival by boosting such activities as DNA repair, reducing inflammation caused by senescent cells, and, perhaps its most important function, digesting old proteins.”
"There are plenty of stressors that will activate longevity genes without damaging the cell, including certain types of exercise, intermittent fasting, low-protein diets, and exposure to hot and cold temperatures."
His prescription for fighting aging is: skipping a meal a day, a mostly plant based with least amount of sugar, exercise, stress management, keeping your weight in check, cold therapy and vitamins. The supplements he suggests for slowing down and even reversing aging are NMN, resveratrol and metformin - one of them is a prescription drug and the other two are not very well-known.
The book is interspersed with personal history and anecdotes, which is okay. The weak part of the book is when he tries to go into economics, policy-making, ethics, global-warming, etc. He is writing about these topics quite casually. The idea that I liked was suggested by environmental writer and activist, George Monbiot - "The problem isn’t population; it is consumption."
The science in this book is quite fascinating. The research into aging shows us a glimpse into the future. Some of this experimentation will pan out in a beneficial way and some will not and only some of it will be approved. Some part of it will be accepted by society and become commonplace in the next decade or so. Till then, “Eat fewer calories,” “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” and “Exercise.”
February 21, 2022
"Lifespan" va rămâne cu siguranță ca și sursă empirică de referiță pentru studierea unuia dintre cele mai controversate subiecte care vizează întreaga omenire, și anume, îmbătrânirea. Deși poate părea o lectură tehnică, autorul reușește să condenseze cu o eleganță inedită un subiect atât de important, alternând părțile teoretice cu exemplele din viața sa reală, din munca de laborator, dar și cu teme profunde de reflecție.
Mi-a plăcut ideea conform căreia toate progresele efectuate conduc la un singur rezultat, și anume, acela că îmbătrânirea și senescența celulară nu sunt o parte inevitabilă a vieții, ci sunt, mai degrabă, un proces de imbătrânire cu consecințe mai ample. Privind astfel lucrurile, afecțiuni precum cancerul, Alzheimerul, bolile cardiace și restul patologiilor pe care le asociem în mod normal cu îmbătrânirea nu sunt doar niște boli în sine, ci simptome ale unui proces mai amplu. Sau, simplu spus, îmbătrânirea este ea însăși o boală pe care ar merita să ne propunem să o abordăm ca atare.
Dacă ai ști că poți încetini pierderea de informații la nivel epigenetic, ai face acest lucru? Cum crezi că ar arata planeta cu resursele pe care le mai are la dispoziție dacă am avea posibilitatea să ne creștem durata medie de viață? Cum ar arăta viața unor oameni care ar trăi, în medie, 150 de ani și care ar fi activitățile lor? Cum ar arăta o lume în care s-ar aloca resurse pentru combaterea îmbătrânirii, în același fel în care statele aloca resurse pentru bolile pe care le asociem în mod normal cu îmbătrânirea? Acestea sunt doar câteva dintre întrebările care reies și sunt abordate într-o lectură cu totul revelatoare.
Mi-a plăcut ideea conform căreia toate progresele efectuate conduc la un singur rezultat, și anume, acela că îmbătrânirea și senescența celulară nu sunt o parte inevitabilă a vieții, ci sunt, mai degrabă, un proces de imbătrânire cu consecințe mai ample. Privind astfel lucrurile, afecțiuni precum cancerul, Alzheimerul, bolile cardiace și restul patologiilor pe care le asociem în mod normal cu îmbătrânirea nu sunt doar niște boli în sine, ci simptome ale unui proces mai amplu. Sau, simplu spus, îmbătrânirea este ea însăși o boală pe care ar merita să ne propunem să o abordăm ca atare.
Dacă ai ști că poți încetini pierderea de informații la nivel epigenetic, ai face acest lucru? Cum crezi că ar arata planeta cu resursele pe care le mai are la dispoziție dacă am avea posibilitatea să ne creștem durata medie de viață? Cum ar arăta viața unor oameni care ar trăi, în medie, 150 de ani și care ar fi activitățile lor? Cum ar arăta o lume în care s-ar aloca resurse pentru combaterea îmbătrânirii, în același fel în care statele aloca resurse pentru bolile pe care le asociem în mod normal cu îmbătrânirea? Acestea sunt doar câteva dintre întrebările care reies și sunt abordate într-o lectură cu totul revelatoare.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,584 reviews