November 23, 2008
Centenarian Children Get Less Heart Disease
Children of people who live to 100 suffer less from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. So choose your parents wisely.
Boston, Mass. – November 20, 2008 - A recent study appearing in the November issue of Journal of American Geriatrics Society revealed that centenarian offspring (children of parents who lived to be at least 97 years old) retain important cardiovascular advantages from their parents compared to a similarly-aged cohort. The study is the first to assess the health of centenarian offspring over time and could be important for future research, as the subjects may be used as a model of healthy aging.
The findings show that centenarian offspring have a 78 percent lower risk for heart attacks, 83 percent lower likelihood of stroke and an 86 percent lower risk of developing diabetes mellitus.
Additionally, the study found that centenarian offspring who were followed in the study were 81 percent less likely to die than the reference group of similarly-aged patients during the follow-up period. The survival rate is evidence that longevity runs in families, and the results reinforce the notion that there may be physiological and genetic reasons that longevity runs in families.
The identification of genes that influence longevity will lead to drugs that alter genetic regulation in order to produce the same life-extending effects as the right genetic variations provide. Life extending drugs made to act like resveratrol will probably hit the market ahead of drugs made to mimic life-extending genes. I expect drugs that slow aging to have a fairly short-lived run before stem cell therapies and gene therapies eclipse such drugs by repairing and reversing the aging process.
The first aging decelerator drug is already on the horizon. It will get approved for diabetes but many will ask their doctor for it to slow down aging.
Harvard gerontologist David Sinclair, who co-founded Sirtris Pharmaceuticals and first showed resveratrol's effect on mice, says the drug will be inexpensive. Since the company is testing its own formulation as a diabetes drug, it will need to be priced at just a few dollars per
competitive with other diabetes treatments. People who use it off-label for other diseases would pay the
I'm tempted to start taking resveratrol now. Anyone want to comment on their experiences using it?
There's some debate over which commercially available formulations are effective. Longevinex claims that competitors have been shown to be ineffective.
I'd like to try it, but it would be hard to tell for a long time whether it was working, so I'd like some assurance that the form I took was effective.
I want to know what Sinclair is taking...
"Children of people who live to 100 suffer less from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. So choose your parents wisely."
Or just go on calorie restriction wich results almost zero risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.
Calorie restriction reduces risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes
I don't see a control for shared environment in this study. While I would certainly love to believe in a genetic lever for aging in humans, this study does not preclude an effect which is purely environmental, such as a shared set of habits passed down through the generations.
At least, so far as I can see.
There is a forum at www.imminst.org dedicated to resveratrol. Some very educated people are having conversations about the science and their personal experimentation with it. At this point there have been some alarming tendon or joint troubles in a small group of people. In most the problem was transitory, ceasing when resveratrol use ended. In others, the effect appears to be debilitating and permanent. It *may* be related to emodin, a sizable component of the 50% formulations, but it's impossible to tell without extensive human trials.
In most others in the forum, strong gains in stamina have resulted from their use. A few people with diabetes or metabolic syndrome have had dramatic benefits.
"I want to know what Sinclair is taking..."
===Feb 2007 article
Last November, Loew said in an online forum that Sinclair had emailed him: “I take 4 pills of longevinex with bfast and 4 at dinner, but I don’t recommend anyone else take any resveratrol pills until we know more.” (Note: late last month, the manufacturer raised the amount of resveratrol per capsule, so Sinclair’s reported eight pills would be equivalent to 3.2 now. Either way, his reported regimen amounts to about 320 mg daily. Three pills daily would cost about $3.50 a day currently.)
Bill Sardi, president of Resveratrol Partners LLC, maker of Longevinex, confirmed Loew’s account. Sinclair told The New York Times in early November that he has used resveratrol for three years—about the same length of time Longevinex has existed. He added that his wife, parents, and ‘‘half my lab’’ of two dozen members pop resveratrol too.
Now I think that he is taking the pill he helped develop and sold. It isn't clear that Longevinex is the only brand that works.
Resveratrol simply does not make it into the blood stream, as it is quickly metabolized shortly after arriving in the stomach. These secondary resveratrol metabolites that actually enter the bloodstream have not been studied much.
The science is somewhat suspect given that a large portion of it is wine and grape industry funded and conducted at universities in grape growing regions. Also by the makers of these pills.
I took it for a while and then stopped for these reasons. Likely a complete waste of money unless you want to start shooting it up, or have a family history of stomach cancer.
I just eat grapes. That way I'm getting (a tiny amount of) resveratrol, but also other phytonutrients that are good for me.
"Likely a complete waste of money unless you want to start shooting it up, or have a family history of stomach cancer."
If a waste, then why would Dr. Sinclair take Longevinex for a few years? Why would he take about 300mg/day and not 50mg, 100mg or 500mg?