Longevity

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares11 Views

    A Longevity Expert’s 5 Tips for Aging Well

    by

    In his new book, “Super Agers,” the cardiologist Dr. Eric Topol argues that we now have the tools to age better than our predecessors.About two decades ago, a California research team observed a striking phenomenon: While a majority of older adults have at least two chronic diseases, some people reach their 80s without major illness.The researchers suspected the key to healthier aging was genetic. But after sequencing the genomes of 1,400 of these aging outliers — a cohort they called the “Wellderly” — they found almost no difference between their biological makeup and that of their peers. They were, however, more physically active, more social and typically better educated than the general public.That genes don’t necessarily determine healthy aging is “liberating,” and suggests that “we can pretty much all do better” to delay disease, said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and the founder of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, which ran the Wellderly study.Dr. Topol is a prominent molecular scientist who has published 1,300 research articles, has written multiple books and has several hundred thousand followers across social media and his newsletter. His newest book, “Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity,” out on Tuesday, delves into the rapidly evolving science of aging.In the book, Dr. Topol writes that tools like biological age tests and increasingly sophisticated health risk prediction could eventually paint a clearer picture of how we’re aging.With these tools and new scientific insight into how lifestyle drives the biological breakdown that comes with age, he writes, we can now do more than ever to delay that process. While we’re all more likely to get diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes as we get older, these illnesses can develop over the course of decades — which gives us a “long runway” to try to counter them, Dr. Topol said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      In Retirement: Blessings and Challenges

      by

      Readers respond to an article about staying mentally sharp in retirement.To the Editor:Re “Staying Sharp After Retiring Is Its Own Job” (front page, March 28):It’s not surprising to me that research has found that retirement can lead to an increase in depression and cognitive decline. When I retired from teaching, emptying my office and sorting through 50 years of class notes felt more like grieving than celebrating, even as people backslapped me with “Congratulations on your retirement!”This newspaper’s daily obituaries of accomplished people convinces me how much work matters in our lives; so many profile the extraordinarily long lives of people who worked with passion well into old age.While retirement has its blessings, like not worrying about trivial work-related problems that keep you up at night, something tells me that if you love what you do, it’s not a bad idea to stick with it.Cathy BernardNew YorkTo the Editor:Entering my eighth year of retirement, having left work at the relatively young age of 60, I can state that it’s challenging to stay sharp mentally, but easily done if so desired.First off, a number of my fellow retiree travelers, exhausted mentally from challenging work roles, often seek purposely to retreat. For them, constant golf, tennis and the like are just fine.But the bulk of retired folks I know pretty much follow advice that I received before retirement, which was to set one’s retirement life into three phases — the “go go,” “go slow” and “no go” years — and act accordingly.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Have We Reached Peak Human Life Span?

      by

      After decades of rising life expectancy, the increases appear to be slowing. A new study calls into question how long even the healthiest of populations can live.The oldest human on record, Jeanne Calment of France, lived to the age of 122. What are the odds that the rest of us get there, too?Not high, barring a transformative medical breakthrough, according to research published Monday in the journal Nature Aging.The study looked at data on life expectancy at birth collected between 1990 and 2019 from some of the places where people typically live the longest: Australia, France, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Data from the United States was also included, though the country’s life expectancy is lower.The researchers found that while average life expectancies increased during that time in all of the locations, the rates at which they rose slowed down. The one exception was Hong Kong, where life expectancy did not decelerate.The data suggests that after decades of life expectancy marching upward thanks to medical and technological advancements, humans could be closing in on the limits of what’s possible for average life span.“We’re basically suggesting that as long as we live now is about as long as we’re going to live,” said S. Jay Olshansky, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Chicago at Illinois, who led the study. He predicted maximum life expectancy will end up around 87 years — approximately 84 for men, and 90 for women — an average age that several countries are already close to achieving.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Mr. Greedy, an African Penguin With 230 Descendants, Dies at 33

      by

      An African penguin who left many offspring in his long life, he belonged to the largest colony of the aquatic bird species in North America, according to the zoo.The popular African penguin known as Mr. Greedy, a fixture of the Maryland Zoo who had sired many offspring and left “an astounding 230 descendants” over five generations, has died after an age-related decline in his health, the zoo said in a statement.He was 33 — yes, in human years. (The zoo said it had no accurate way to determine the equivalent in penguin years.) He was the oldest penguin in his colony, which the zoo said is the largest in North America.When he was not busy reproducing or bringing joy to zoo visitors, Mr. Greedy swam hard, took care of his mate — nicknamed Ms. Greedy — and was constantly looking for things to steal.His mischievous ability to steal nesting materials and food from others had earned him the affectionate nickname by which he was known, Jen Kottyan, the bird curator at the zoo, said in a phone interview on Saturday.Mr. Greedy, born in 1991, had a more official, though less personable name: African penguin No. 821. The cause of death was euthanasia on Aug. 27, the zoo said.In his long life, Mr. Greedy “made a tremendous contribution to his endangered species,” said the statement from the Maryland Zoo, which is in Baltimore.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Young Americans Can’t Keep Funding Boomers and Beyond

      by

      You know the expression “OK, Boomer”? Better said as “Boomer OK.” That’s because the social safety net in the United States is increasingly favoring the old over the young. And this affects our political views and the security of future generations.Younger Americans have valid reason for disgruntlement: Big shifts in income and wealth are dramatically favoring their elders. Under almost every president since 1980, 80 percent of the real growth in domestic spending has gone to Social Security and health care, with Medicare the most expensive health program, according to calculations based on federal data. As a share of GDP, all other domestic outlays combined have declined.Our current tax system also largely does not help Americans, most of whom are younger, pay for their higher education. That wasn’t as big a deal in the 1960s or 1970s, when the average college graduate most likely had little or no student debt. Today, the average taken out each year is about seven times that in 1971, in part because state governments have stripped colleges and universities of funding. This is happening at a time when owning a house is increasingly out of reach. The median price has risen from about 3.5 times median annual income in 1984 to 5.8 times in 2022.So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that today, younger generations are more likely to fall into lower-income classes than their parents or grandparents. Nearly a half century ago, it was the reverse. And in 1989, the median net worth of Americans aged 35 to 44 was nearly 75 percent of those aged 65 to 74. By 2022, that ratio had fallen to one-third.The why is simple. Unlike most other spending, Congress effectively designed Medicare in 1965 and Social Security in the 1970s in such a way that outlays would increase forever faster than our national income. That’s partly because Medicare costs keep rising along with medical prices and new treatments and because Social Security benefits are designed to increase for each new generation along with inflation and wages. And we’re living longer, which means more years of benefits.Today, tax revenues are so committed to mandatory spending, largely for older Americans, and to interest on the national debt (which has quadrupled as a share of G.D.P. since 1980) that few revenues are left for everything else. So, unless we borrow to pay for it, there’s little for education, infrastructure, environment, affordable housing, reducing poverty, or the military.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Leonard Hayflick, Who Discovered Why No One Lives Forever, Dies at 96

      by

      A biomedical researcher, he found that normal cells can divide only a certain number of times before they age — which, he said, explained aging on a cellular level.Leonard Hayflick, a biomedical researcher who discovered that normal cells can divide only a certain number of times — setting a limit on the human life span and frustrating would-be-immortalists everywhere — died on Aug. 1 at his home in Sea Ranch, Calif. He was 96.His son, Joel Hayflick, said the cause was pancreatic cancer.Like many great scientific findings, Dr. Hayflick’s came somewhat by accident. As a young scientist in the early 1960s at the Wistar Institute, a research organization at the University of Pennsylvania, he was trying to develop healthy embryonic cell lines in order to study whether viruses can cause certain types of cancer.He and a colleague, Paul Moorhead, soon noticed that somatic — that is, nonreproductive — cells went through a phase of division, splitting between 40 and 60 times, before lapsing into what he called senescence.As senescent cells accumulate, he posited, the body itself begins to age and decline. The only cells that do not go into senescence, he added, are cancer cells.As a result of this cellular clock, he said, no amount of diet or exercise or genetic tweaking will push the human species past a life span of about 125 years.This finding, which the Nobel-winning virologist Macfarlane Burnet later called the Hayflick limit, ran counter to everything scientists believed about cells and aging — especially the thesis that cells themselves are immortal, and that aging is a result of external causes, like disease, diet and solar radiation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      America’s Gerontocracy Problem Goes Beyond the President

      by

      Whether or not Joe Biden persists in his run for president, America’s gerontocratic crisis will keep on worsening. But high-profile symptoms like Mr. Biden’s difficulties provide an opportunity to confront the issue — a social form of sclerosis that will persist unless and until more power is transferred from the wrinkled to the rest.Gerontocracy transcends government as a full-scale social phenomenon, in which older people accumulate power of different kinds, and then retain it.This form of power is both old and new. The term “gerontocracy” was popularized a century ago by the Scottish anthropologist J.G. Frazer to refer to a very early form of government, in which power reposed in councils of elders. Since premodern societies valued the past over the future, and the ancestral over the innovative, it was only natural to allocate authority to those with cumulative experience and nearer the realm of the honored dead.When the Constitution imposed an age minimum of 30 (and no maximum) on the Senate, that restriction alone excluded roughly three-quarters of the white population from serving. This set up the distant possibility of our present, in which Mr. Biden could become one of the youngest senators ever when he took his seat at age 30, while Dianne Feinstein (age 90), Robert Byrd (92) and Strom Thurmond (100) all either died in office or just months after retirement.The Supreme Court is also an outpost of elder rule. The Constitution gives federal judges life tenure, so it is entirely up to them when they finally depart, alive or dead. And it is not surprising when they die in the midst of opining on the law: Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 87, William Rehnquist at 80 and Antonin Scalia at 79. At least five federal judges have passed 100 years of age while on the bench.The Supreme Court was quasi-gerontocratic from the start, like the Senate, only more so. The popular and professional ideology of the judicial role emphasizes even more the association of age with wisdom. And the Supreme Court’s oracular purposes, priestly trappings and mystical rituals make it resemble, more than any other American political institution, gerontocratic clubs like the Roman Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Spotify’s Daniel Ek Wants to Democratize Full-Body Scans

      by

      In conversations with colleagues, fellow entrepreneurs and even musicians over the past decade, Daniel Ek would often abruptly shift the subject to something that really bugged him: health care. “I was like adamant to fix it,” Mr. Ek, the Spotify chief, told DealBook. He saw the industry as a bloated and inefficient colossus in need of disrupting.The problem: Mr. Ek had neither a plan, nor the time or money to do much about it. He was busy taking on Apple, YouTube and Amazon Music in the streaming wars. In his spare time, Mr. Ek pored over medical journals. And he routinely measured his vital statistics with a Fitbit, an Apple Watch or Wii Fit tracker — the more data, the better to see how his body held up against the rigors of running a business. He thought that such tracking might hold some clue to living longer and healthier. “I was just toying around with ideas in health care,” he added.That all changed in 2018. Spotify went public, making Mr. Ek a billionaire. It was time to turn his side focus into his next venture, he decided. He knew whom to contact: Hjalmar Nilsonne, a Swedish tech entrepreneur who Mr. Ek had met the year prior at the Brilliant Minds event, an annual gathering Mr. Ek started. Mr. Nilsonne was passionate about upending the status quo, too. At the time, he was focused on climate change and his start-up, Watty, which aimed to strip waste out of the energy grid.At first, Mr. Nilsonne rebuffed Mr. Ek’s proposition. But Mr. Ek eventually won him over. (It helped that Watty was running out of money, and it was eventually sold to a German company.) Mr. Ek, a former computer coder, and Mr. Nilsonne, an engineer, zeroed in on building a better diagnostic tool. Their aim: disease prevention, and prolonging life. The company they founded, Neko Health, opened its doors in Stockholm last year, and it is set to open in London, its second market, this summer.Longevity has become a kind of obsession with tech moguls. Sam Altman, Peter Thiel and Mr. Ek are among those who believe bright ideas, the right tech and bundles of capital can help humans live longer. Mr. Ek, 41, has invested millions personally and through his investment firm, Prima Materia, in such start-ups around Europe. Neko Health is the only one for which he’s taken the title of founder.An exam room at a Neko Health clinic in central Stockholm showing a full-body scan chamber.David B. Torch for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What Is VO2 Max?

      by

      VO2 max has become ubiquitous in fitness circles. But what does it measure and how important is it to know yours?Fitness is full of numbers meant to help you become faster and stronger. There’s your mile run time, your resting heart rate and measures of strength and flexibility. But perhaps the gold standard is VO2 max.A handful of years ago, the test — which tracks how much oxygen your body absorbs — was an obscure tool mainly used by elite athletes. Today, it’s touted by fitness professionals and wellness experts like Peter Attia as being a useful measure for all exercisers.But getting an accurate number requires an expensive and exhausting lab evaluation. And estimates provided by wearable devices might not tell you much. So how useful is it to invest time and money in the full work-up, and how important is knowing your VO2 max?For everyday people who want to be healthy and live a long time, the measurement is “the best piece of empirical information we have on health and longevity,” said Kate Baird, a clinical exercise physiologist and the coordinator of running and metabolic services at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.The key, she said, is acting on what the data tells you.What is VO2 Max?“VO2 max” is a two-digit number that expresses how effectively your body metabolizes oxygen. The measurement itself is the milliliters of oxygen consumed in a minute per kilogram of body weight.As you exercise, your body needs ever more oxygen. The more you can efficiently consume, the more energy your muscles will have, increasing the time and intensity you can exercise. Generally speaking, someone with a higher VO2 max will be able to sustain a run or an aerobic activity at a given pace longer than someone with a lower VO2 max.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More