Regarding my previous post: Entropy aging - Medical Q/A with Drs. Feigenbaum & Baraki - Barbell Medicine Forum, yes I am aware that we are all going to age and die eventually, it wasn’t meant to be an “anti-aging” post if that’s what you guys thought, and closed it because of that. I may have not been clear enough about what I was asking, sorry about that.
My question was basically that, there seems to be two camps when it comes to theories on aging. The first camp and it’s theories basically suggest that aging or death are biologically innate to an animal, and once they reach around the maximum possible lifespan for their species and manage to avoid any premature death with relatively good health, they will die around here anyways.
The second camp was what I was alluding to with my previous post, and it’s in contrast to the previous camp. Theories in the second camp suggest that aging or death aren’t biologically innate or caused by biology at all, but more so caused by damage from our environment and surroundings to our body, molecules and cells that eventually build up too much “wear and tear” which causes our bodies to deteriorate over time and eventually die (the free radical theory is probably an example of this). You could say these are essentially the “wear and tear” theories of aging, which I’m sure you guys have heard of.
From reading you guys’s material and what I understand of it with my limited knowledge, it would seem like you guys would be more likely to subscribe to the first camp, since to me it seems like that would be more in line with the ethos of thriving and being healthy for the vast majority of your lifespan and then dying in the end anyways, essentially a decently long lifespan with a long healthspan to match it, whereas the second camp seems to be painting deterioration as inevitable, which suggests lower healthspan. But I didn’t want to assume what you guys might think of this and instead just wanted to ask directly to see if that is exactly what you guys think or if there is more nuance to it.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough in the first post or I made some sort of mistake that caused you guys to close it.
I think that having vague conversations alluding to popular viewpoints in longevity marketing isn’t very productive. If this topic is interesting to you then G-chem, O-chem, B-chem. FYI, the quality of youtube chem lectures is much better than the trash I paid for at the U of N. Ga.
No problem. Unfortunately I cannot claim much expertise in the field of “aging” science, and so don’t have a super confident / informed position one way or the other here. It seems highly unlikely to be “just” one or the other; as with most things, this is very complex and multi-factorial … with a lot of individual variability sprinkled on top. If I had to come down someplace, then yes, I would be more inclined to the former position than the latter, although of course there are many environmental influences on lifespan and healthspan.