2 ms·

There is a big difference between the mechanisms of aging (how exactly it unfolds) and the state of aging (a measure of the damage). The research community know

There is a big difference between the mechanisms of aging (how exactly it unfolds) and the state of aging (a measure of the damage). The research community knows exactly what the fundamental differences between old tissue and young tissue are, because they have listed them all in the process of investigating the molecular pathology of age-related disease. What they argue over is how the differences happen, which differences are more important than others, and how metabolism reacts or contributes to the differences. That's all massively complex and poorly understood, but the damage isn't and is well understood. (For a layperson's list, see: http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research ) The actual differences can be repaired or removed without resolving any of the outstanding questions as to what they do, what their mechanisms are, how they cause further pathology, where they came from. If you've removed all differences in tissue and not produced rejuvenation, then congratulations, you've proved that aging is a genetic/epigenetic program - and at a tiny cost compared to present investigations. But I think it's much more plausible that we'd see rejuvenation.

joe_the_user 13y ago
There is a big difference between the mechanisms of aging (how exactly it unfolds) and the state of aging (a measure of the damage). The research community knows exactly what the fundamental differences between old tissue and young tissue are, because they have listed them all in the process of investigating the molecular pathology of age-related disease. I'm not sure exactly what you're point here is but if your point is we can get somewhere simply by directly manipulating the observed symptoms of age, I should point that while, of course, there are observable differences between old and new tissue, old and young organisms and so-forth, these differences aren't simply "symptoms of aging". Rather, observed differences are differences in the stable state reached between the continuous process of damage to parts and the continuous process of healing to parts. Changing X physiological state while changing nothing else is more or less as ridiculous moving hands around on a Swiss watch (not researcher don't try this - boo cholesterol drugs). Physiology of virtually any animal is very dynamic and still, still little understood.

joe_the_user 13y ago

There is a big difference between the mechanisms of aging (how exactly it unfolds) and the state of aging (a measure of the damage). The research community knows exactly what the fundamental differences between old tissue and young tissue are, because they have listed them all in the process of investigating the molecular pathology of age-related disease. I'm not sure exactly what you're point here is but if your point is we can get somewhere simply by directly manipulating the observed symptoms of age, I should point that while, of course, there are observable differences between old and new tissue, old and young organisms and so-forth, these differences aren't simply "symptoms of aging". Rather, observed differences are differences in the stable state reached between the continuous process of damage to parts and the continuous process of healing to parts. Changing X physiological state while changing nothing else is more or less as ridiculous moving hands around on a Swiss watch (not researcher don't try this - boo cholesterol drugs). Physiology of virtually any animal is very dynamic and still, still little understood.