Regardless, every other study shows only positives of lifting and regular exercise, so just do it!
Bones may release proteins that slow aging and extend life span (science.org)
armcat 5 hours ago
thisisauserid 6 hours ago
lumost 5 hours ago
latexr 3 hours ago
That assumes the techniques compound additively, which is not necessarily the case. Even the best things for you, like water, become detrimental when you have too much. It may also be that some beneficial actions reduce the benefit of different ones.
mgh2 3 hours ago
Logic reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-XAXwIOC3po
paimapi 16 minutes ago
I wish there was some nuanced line for science journalists to not hyperbolize about nothingburger studies in dire need of replication while also making the science exciting, slow of a process as it is. Maybe every article includes a history of the that very specific and narrow sub-branch of the field? That would be really interesting to read, and to have a gauge on how far we've come.
PowerElectronix 6 hours ago
fsckboy 2 hours ago
science like this is very useful like one puzzle piece is very useful: only in the context of many other puzzle pieces, but they're also jumbled together from many different complete puzzles.
Qem 5 hours ago
dotancohen 5 hours ago
lukan 4 hours ago
In general, everything that moves/activates the body in a non damaging way is good for recovery.
With a broken foot I would be rather worried that it stimulates too much. But bodies are not made to lie around.
ses1984 4 hours ago
dustfinger 3 hours ago
dotancohen 2 hours ago
> Placebo doesn’t mean literally a sugar pill. It means something that has a positive effect based on perception.
It literally means "that which satisfies", from the same root as the word pleasure.EDIT: Three downvotes in 54 minutes? Here's a source backing up my claim:
drdrey 13 minutes ago
hobo123 4 hours ago
Edit: I missed that it was prescribed, so maybe it does have a serious effect after all.
7bit 3 hours ago
You're like one of those non-experts that think they know it all, while being very confidently wrong about it
dotancohen 2 hours ago
lukan 2 hours ago
So sure, some injuries require not moving to heal. But at the cost of degradation of everything else. And also there activation of the tissue around to keep the blood and lymph flowing is beneficial or rather crucial.
Also since I like extreme sports, I kind of was made an expert in recovery by life.
hinkley 34 minutes ago
stevenwoo 4 hours ago
regenschutz 2 hours ago
keeda 2 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Metcalfe#Predicted_Inte...
scuppernong 15 minutes ago
latexr 4 hours ago
Those probably add too much variance. For example, someone working with pneumatic hammers likely works in construction and has a likelier chance to also be exposed to harmful dust, or being in the sun a lot, or getting injured on the job. It may also be that too much vibration (too long and/or too strong) would be harmful.
le-mark 7 hours ago
vixen99 6 hours ago
hinkley 29 minutes ago
They studied a family in which early onset Alzheimer’s was strongly prevalent. In the subject’s family tree, 32 cases, but he was older than his deceased relatives at the time they developed symptoms, despite carrying the markers. The only thing they could track down was that he had an elevated level of heat stress proteins in his blood and brain, and they seemed to be slowing down plaque buildup. More study needed.
Frieren 12 hours ago
hansvm 11 hours ago
1. Mammals don't naturally exist in environments where exercise isn't mandatory. _Some_ system had to generate those compounds, and there was never any pressure to keep it from being tied to the other stress-related changes bones undergo (like density changes). Once it evolved once somewhere in some critter once via that machinery, the advantage was large enough that it was locked in.
2. Exercise directly contributes inflammatory factors. Tying the cure to those to a measure of exercise intensity (bone squishing) helps calibrate the dosage. Even if an imperfect measure, the proxy of bone loading might confer some advantage in, e.g., not wasting energy on unnecessary proteins.
3. Exercise indirectly suggests a resource-poor environment, leading to lower chance of offspring succeeding and needing longer lives to produce enough viable offspring. The compounds in question aren't free to produce, so there's an advantage in only providing them to organisms who will meaningfully benefit. Mind you, resource-poor environments often promote shorter lifespans and faster growth cycles as an evolutionary trait, _but_ without a mechanism to force your offspring to mature more quickly the osteocyte-mediated lifespan could allow for resource-dependent lifetime offspring counts.
4. The mechanism could have evolved for unrelated reasons, perhaps directly contributing to the bone density calibration osteocytes already mediate. Any impact on lifespan is incidental or otherwise produces less evolutionary pressure for or against the feature than the direct purpose of the compounds.
5. More than having evolved for unrelated reasons, the fact that the compounds have any effect at all might not be evolutionarily selected for. We produce plenty of unimportant metabolic byproducts that we don't particularly care about, and it could be that some more important osteocyte function incidentally produces these "waste" proteins.
pedro_caetano 10 hours ago
It would seem plausible that there may be more than one mechanism via which resource scarcity creates pressure for increased longevity (to increase the odds of offspring).
jvanderbot 7 hours ago
Caloric restriction is probably exactly like exercise in that it was normal, so "scheduling" autophagy for the "famine" times meant it happened regularly and alongside similar systems.
What did it for me was that IF comes with muscle growth hormones increase.
I mean a 3-5 day hunt can look a lot like a marathon and a fast / IF mashed together.
scoring1774 6 hours ago
Also, I think studies of poverty show generally show that resource scarcity is almost always worse for health outcomes. Resource over-abundance is maybe also damaging but the idea that being resource scarce is beneficial for longevity because you need longer to mate seems almost certainly false to me.
bitmasher9 6 hours ago
radford-neal 5 hours ago
Similarly, explanations of aging that amount to "the body just for no reason fails to do something that it easily could even though it's obviously beneficial" are pretty much like explanations of physical processes that violate conservation of mass/energy. There had better be some possible evolutionary explanation, since otherwise it's very likely that the result is due to some experimental error.
hansvm 4 hours ago
If we're trying to piece together how the past actually happened based on the shadow it left on the present, yes, falsifiability is hard, sometimes possible to achieve. Most of the speculations I provided could be reasonably well tested though.
Take (5) as an example. If you find other important byproducts from the associated genes, those strengthen (5)'s argument. If you find significant negative effects from the new "miracle" proteins, those strengthen (5)'s argument. If you find an organism with an energetically intensive mechanism for removing these new "miracle" proteins, those strengthen (5)'s argument. If you apply a medicinal intervention to allow the gene to be enabled but those particular "miracle" proteins to be disabled in a wild population and observe the gene frequency dwindle, that strengthens (5)'s argument.
None of it's perfect, but there are a variety of experiments and observations you can do to strengthen or weaken your belief in specific causal mechanisms.
> used to justify unjustifiable positions
I go back and forth on this one. Should you hide information (in this case, not even very good information, just plausible mechanisms, provided because somebody was a bit curious and I thought scratching that itch might help them on whatever journey they're currently undertaking) just because it's possible to misunderstand it? Because it's prone to misuse?
Like, obviously if people are concluding from a list of guesses appropriately described as such that osteocytes evolved to extend life as a poorly calibrated part of the exercise process, that's not justified. What happens when people extend similar wild speculation to gender or racial differences? You're right, it's a touchy subject.
On the other hand, that's an argument against:
- Data-driven organizations -- a common cognitive bias is the spotlight effect, and applied to "data-driven" organizations it often leads to abandoning intuition and reason when the best proxy measurements you're able to perform incorrectly suggest a different course of action to be optimal.
- Giving correct estimates to your PM -- you know the organization will run more smoothly if you start unraveling the spaghetti sitting in fromt of you, but (in many orgs) it'll take longer to argue that point than it will to just do your job correctly, so you fudge ticket descriptions and estimates to make sure critical maintenance happens.
I try to evaluate that sort of thing on a case-by-case basis. I think it's fine here. I don't have a good justification for why I think that.
233mhz 11 hours ago
Running, exercising, etc.
colordrops 11 hours ago
JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago
Given two tribes, one where their elderly are contained at home, and another where they're wandering and learning and teaching, I guess I could see a hypothetical fitness function.
I can't imagine it's too strong, though. A simpler, more-mechanical explanation may make more sense: when you stress bones, you set off all kinds of repair processes, many of which have systemic effects.
ShinyLeftPad 8 hours ago
jareklupinski 8 hours ago
sfink an hour ago
JumpCrisscross 22 minutes ago
marcyb5st 9 hours ago
What evolutionary pressure led to that? If I have to guess animals that were still able to hunt/move/... for longer were also able to mate for longer.
tyrabound 9 hours ago
Melatonic 2 hours ago
personalityson 8 hours ago
Repair pays off only when the skeleton is used -- we can invest in repair because we know the animal is active/foraging and we will get paid back on the investment.
Low loading is a sign that we should cut back on maintenance -- the animal is sick, injured, starving etc and it's better to conserve energy.
The optimal amount of exercise is what tells your body to invest in repair, without acquiring repair debt. Sedentary life is the misleading signal, because it tells the body you're declining when you aren't.
cloudbonsai 5 hours ago
Maybe there is some evolutionary trade-off behind it?
737max 5 hours ago
radford-neal 5 hours ago
There's a common theory that for mice, they're unlikely to survive for many years because of predation, so there's not much benefit to preventing aging in later years. Small benefit means any counterbalancing disadvantages (lower vigour?) could outweigh the anti-aging benefit, or that the force of selection is insufficient to overcome random mutations that degrade the anti-aging mechanism, but "that's good enough, no need for more" is not how evolution works.
sfink an hour ago
But that argument doesn't prevent limited mechanisms, and conditional mechanisms in particular would still be rewarded. Conditional mechanisms provide much more short term adaptability to changing conditions, without damaging the long term species-wide adaptation.
There are intriguing parallels with centrally planned vs market economies.
chamomeal 10 hours ago
_joel 9 hours ago
leoh 6 hours ago
blauditore 8 hours ago
gherkinnn 8 hours ago
for good bones and calcium
kiliantics 6 hours ago
FemTech_AI 8 hours ago
card_zero 7 hours ago
Fluid_Mechanics 7 hours ago
FemTech_AI 6 hours ago
hinkley 26 minutes ago
saidnooneever 6 hours ago
GLGirty 6 hours ago
thejazzman 6 hours ago
amosj an hour ago
AlfredBarnes an hour ago
totetsu 8 hours ago
soiax 3 hours ago
baud9600 6 hours ago
leoh 6 hours ago
bluGill 6 hours ago
deadbabe 8 hours ago
dude250711 10 hours ago
Assistant, your assignment for the next year is to give massages to these mice.
But also, no need to exercise - just have something push on your bones gently all the time, right?
danparsonson 9 hours ago
Qem 8 hours ago
lesam 8 hours ago
iammjm 5 hours ago
Qem 5 hours ago
penneyd 3 hours ago
kilian_a 6 hours ago
1up8192 10 hours ago
hobo123 3 hours ago
adamgordonbell 6 hours ago
Windchaser 5 hours ago
readthenotes1 14 hours ago
How would that translate to lifting weights or other exercises?
advael 13 hours ago
waterheater 12 hours ago
Note, however, that their experimental model section says they applied axial force (think columns, not joists) to the tibia using an ElectroForce 3300 (https://www.tainstruments.com/3330-system/) while the mice were under anesthesia. From this, it seems like they knocked out the mice and placed their legs underneath a mechanical ram to apply axial compressive forces.
Because people are typically awake when exercising, given that muscles are designed to carry forces around the skeleton, I imagine, even after scaling from a mice to a human purely by sizing, the human force equivalent will be many times higher.
If you're looking to try this out for yourself, the seated leg press will most closely simulate the study's method. Figure out what "moderate" loading is for you, and shoot for 3 sets x 10 reps at least twice a week. Overall, choose skeletally-compressive exercises where you're "pushing," such as weighted squats (e.g. barbell squats) and any type of "press" exercise like the leg press, chest press, military press, and even cycling (you push your pedals). For the purposes of this study, avoid exercises with any pulling motion, including pull-ups, pull-downs, rows, and swimming.
From a force perspective, running has some compressive elements, but the load comes from gravity alone, and good runners minimize compressive forces. Since running therefore is primarily a pulling exercise, I can sort of see what they're getting at.
negura 8 hours ago
> Importantly, DTAL was safe as the internal loads on the human tibia were predicted to be as high as 4.7× body weight, which is within physiological limits67 (∼3,000 N for a 65 kg individual), as instantaneous contact forces to the tibia can reach 6× body weight during running.68
I wonder if skipping rope/hopping might be the best way.
hansvm 11 hours ago
riffraff 11 hours ago
m0llusk 3 hours ago
LoganDark 11 hours ago
There are actually multiple forms of cancer that don't reactivate telomerase, and as a result age rapidly and die out on their own. Sometimes these are called pre-cancers, because they could still end up reactivating telomerase before they fully die, and then becoming a full cancer. A lot of them don't however, and a naïve solution to aging would remove this pre-cancer grace period entirely.
233mhz 11 hours ago
LoganDark 10 hours ago
Aging we don't fully know about yet. Naïvely you would definitely run into cancer problems without it, so that's why I wonder. We'll have to see.
233mhz 6 hours ago
LoganDark 6 hours ago
This doesn't stop viruses from existing in the first place, though, only from reaching you. If you wanted to stop them from existing in the first place, well, you would indeed have a bit of a hard time. Controlling mutation could theoretically stop cancer from emerging in the first place, if we solve the somewhat less hard problem of altering the whole body (rather than altering the whole planet, as with viruses).
eptcyka 5 hours ago
JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago
This one seems pretty obvious. Even the *The Emperor of Maladies manages to bookend it.
rfgplk 10 hours ago
svnt 10 hours ago
Consider the accumulation of mutation that would occur in a cell not subject to aging.
You could just as easily find support for the counterposition: aging, in a sense, prevents cancer. [0]
0: Judith Campisi, "Senescent cells, tumor suppression, and organismal aging: good citizens, bad neighbors," Cell 120:513–522 (2005). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15734683/
Edit: you edited your comment to talk about mitochondria transplants, but the science I am aware of actually points in the opposite direction: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25565207/
Do you have supporting evidence?
ungovernableCat 6 hours ago
Elephants and whales get cancer much less than humans and humans get it much less than rats. If cancer mutations are a dice roll than the more cells an organism has the more “will I become cancerous” rolls happen, so larger organism had to evolve better mechanisms to kill cancerous cells before they get out of control.
LoganDark 5 hours ago
snvzz 13 hours ago
bitwize 12 hours ago
BrenBarn 11 hours ago
pezgordo 8 hours ago
steve1977 8 hours ago
imdsm 7 hours ago
layer8 7 hours ago
card_zero 7 hours ago
layer8 7 hours ago
card_zero 6 hours ago
Windchaser 5 hours ago
Probably not effective, our gut is very good at splicing up proteins into constituent amino acids.
If you want specific proteins/peptides in your bloodstream*, for now the most reliable way is generally to inject them.
But yeah, it is very much not necessarily the case that our own bodies will produce the same proteins under similar exercise, or that the mouse proteins released would have the same effects in us as in them, or that proteins released under similar exercise would actually de-age us.
It's interesting to track down the mechanisms in mice (exercise induces protein release - how? - which then de-ages the mice - also, how?) but you have to reproduce the work entirely separately in humans. Not just because it might not work, but because it is very important (and neat!) to understand the biochemical mechanisms of human ageing and de-ageing, and that understanding of How Things Work is a big part of the long-term reward.
[*] I'm not advocating for injecting untested/unregulated proteins or peptides, only speaking of ROA, route of administration
sfink an hour ago
So what you really need to do is clone yourself, then hook your clones up to a machine that torments them by constantly warping their bones, and give yourself regular blood infusions from them. You'd have to create a facility to do all this in. Let's call it a torment nexus, just to pick a random name.
Say, has anyone tracked down what Larry Ellison is doing at the various real estate he owns?
rsynnott 6 hours ago
amelius 6 hours ago