Why living until you're 200 really isn't a pipe dream
The idea of living for hundreds of years was once thought to be the pipe dream of billionaires and tech moguls. But scientists at the forefront of anti-ageing research believe they are on the cusp of developing a pill that could lead to people living to the age of 200 and beyond. Medical advances in the last century have led to humans in wealthy nations living into their 80s, almost double the average life expectancy at the turn of the 20th century.
Improved nutrition, clean water, better sanitation and huge leaps in medicine have been key in prolonging human life. The oldest known person — the Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment, who sold canvases to Vincent Van Gogh when she was a girl in the late 1800s — lived to the age of 122, dying in 1997. There is some debate about whether humans can naturally live much beyond that age, but it is hoped that science will take human lifespans beyond what is currently thought possible.
Dr Andrew Steele, a British computational biologist and author of a new book on longevity, told MailOnline there is no biological reason humans can't reach the age of 200. He believes the big breakthrough will come in the form of drugs that remove 'zombie cells' in the body, which are thought to be one of the main culprits of tissue and organ decay as we age. Pills that flush these cells out of the body are already in human trials in and could be on the market in as little as 10 years, according to Dr Steele, who believes someone reading this could make it to 150 with the help of the drugs.
Another field in particular that piques the interest of anti-ageing scientists is the study of DNA of reptiles and other cold-blooded animals. Michigan State University experts have begun studying dozens different types of long-living reptiles and amphibians — including crocodiles, salamanders and turtles that can live as long as 120 years. The team hope they will uncover 'traits' that can also be targeted in humans. Some experts think that eradicating the big killers — cancer, dementia and heart disease — could be the true key to longevity. Dr Steele, the author of Ageless: The New Science of Getting Older Without Getting Old, told MailOnline: 'I don't think there is any kind of absolute cap on how long we can live.
'Studies come out every few years that propose some kind of fundamental limit on human lifespan, but they're always missing one crucial piece: we've never tried treating the ageing process before. 'I can't see physical or biological reason why people couldn't live to 200 — the challenge is whether we've can develop the biomedical science to make it possible.' Other experts believe humans could live to 150 naturally, if it wasn't for chronic illnesses, including Dr Peter Fedichev, a Russian molecular physicist who runs a biomedical AI firm Gero. His company has been studying the genetic data of 500,000 Britons in pursuit of the firm's goal of 'hacking ageing', as they call it.
Researchers at Gero made use of an instrument, called DOSI (dynamic organism state indicator), that takes into account age, illness and lifestyle factors, to work out how resilient the body is, including its ability to recover from injury or disease. Using mathematical models, it calculated the maximum age the body — if not altered by drugs or gene therapy — can still recover from is between 120 and 150. The findings were revealed in a study published in the journal Nature Communications last year. But Dr Fedichev warned life extension without improving life quality would be pointless because extremely elderly people would be frail, and prone to illness, meaning new drugs will be vital in the quest for eternal youth. He told MailOnline: 'Such life extension would increase their lifespan past the end of their health span and thus reduce their quality of life.
'Only addressing the root causes of ageing may help bring humans closer to negligibly senescent animals, intercept aging and increase our productive lifespan by a hundred years or more. 'That is why we are calling on a refocusing of our attention from diseases to ageing, from incremental to more radical solutions using those slow-aging animals as inspiration.' Dr Steele says new advances in senolytics could extend life span and quality. Senescent cells — dubbed 'zombie cells' — are cells that eventually stop dividing, then accumulate, releasing compounds in the body that accelerate ageing. Experts believe younger people with healthy immune systems are better able to clear the damaged cells, but as people age, they aren't removed as effectively and they accumulate causing potential problems.
Dr Steele said if you put a human cell in a petri dish, it would divide around 50 times before stopping, whereas a Galapagos tortoise — which can live for up to 120 years — sees its cells divide more than 100 times. Studying these sorts of long-living reptiles can help researchers understand more about the way human cells age. Since the 1960s, scientists have known that, as we age, we accumulate ever-greater numbers of these cells, but it wasn't clear if they were just a product of ageing or whether they caused it. The breakthrough came in 2016 when scientists found removing the cells from mice, typically with a short lifespan and plagued with a range of age-related conditions, by injecting them with a synthetic drug called AP20187 extended their life by up to 35 per cent — suggesting senescence was behind ageing itself.
Since then, there have been a number of studies confirming the importance of such cells in the ageing process. In 2019, research in the journal Aging Cell showed that old mice pre-treated with Navitoclax, an experimental anti-cancer drug that kills senescent cells, recovered at similar rates to younger mice from an induced heart attack, raising the prospect of a new type of treatment for people with heart conditions. Another study, published in the journal EMBO, demonstrated that clearing out senescent cells from the hearts of mice also reduced symptoms of ageing, such as enlargement and thickening of the walls of the heart muscles. Senolytic drugs are now being safety tested in humans and have attracted investment from several billionaires, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel.
Dr Steele said: 'Scientists have given these drugs to mice, and they basically get biologically younger: they live longer, get less cancer and heart disease, are less frail — they can run further and faster on the tiny mouse-sized treadmills used in these experiments — and, honestly, they just look great, with plumper skin and thicker fur. 'What this shows us is that tackling the hallmarks of ageing can affect the whole ageing process, from disease risk to the cosmetic stuff, and can do so preventatively — this is the holy grail of anti-ageing medicine.' Both Bezos and Thiel are investors in Unity Biotechnology, which carried out the first human trial of one such drug, aimed at tackling moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the knee, in 2019.
In the phase one trial, 78 patients were divided into two groups: one was given a dummy drug, while the other was injected in the knee with a drug codenamed UBX0101, which interferes with two proteins in the body, leading to the elimination of senescent cells. The study was a success, with UBX0101 'well-tolerated' by the treated patients, who, after a single injection, had experienced 'improvement in several clinical outcomes, including pain and function'. However, the company faced a setback in 2020 when results from the bigger phase 2 trial found no statistically significant difference between UBX0101 and the placebo groups. Now, the company is trialling a new drug called UBX1325, which has been designed to combat age-related blindness on 46 adults.
Dr Steele said it only took one trial to be a success to make a breakthrough in the field of anti-ageing. He told MailOnline: 'We might get unlucky and none of this works but, if it does, every development gives us longer to make the next one, and the first 150-year-old could be someone who's reading this.' Last week, Michigan State University researchers announced they are studying 77 reptiles and amphibians with the hope of understanding what allows them to be so resilient. But they have yet to pinpoint any potential longevity targets, meaning a true breakthrough could still be years off.
Dr Alex Zhavoronkov, a biotechnology expert and physicist, said studying animals — particularly those as distantly related to humans as reptiles — has rarely resulted in breakthroughs. He believes scientists are better placed focusing their efforts on studying ageing in real people, and, in particular, technology. Implant chips that use electrodes in the brain to ward off illnesses like Parkinson's are currently being trialled on people. Southmead Hospital in Bristol is believed to be the first in the world to implant the tiny deep brain stimulation (DBS) device when it launched its trial in April. The device works by delivering electrical impulses to damaged areas of the brain.
Dr Zhavoronkov said: 'Many years from now humans will be able to control the biology of aging and many other converging technologies will not only return the lost functions but likely augment our capabilities — as you have seen with the glasses, cars, cell phones, the internet, and robotics. 'Advanced technologies starting from dual-purpose pharmaceuticals — drugs that target fundamental aging pathways and age-associated diseases and are trackable with aging biomarkers, which my team is focusing on— to cell and gene therapy and advances in regenerative medicine, implantables, and augmentation of human function with AI and robotics will allow us to dramatically increase life.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Just how psychopathic are surgeons?
These are the people we trust to hold a sharpened knife above our bare bellies and press down until they see blood. We let them tinker with our hearts, brains and bowels while we lie unconscious beneath their gloved hands. Surgeons live in a world of terrifying margins, where the difference of a millimetre can be the difference between life and death. That level of precision demands an extraordinary calm, or what you could also call a cold detachment. But what happens when that same self-possession curdles into something darker? In recent weeks, two surgeons have made headlines for all the wrong reasons. In France, Joël Le Scouarnec was sentenced for abusing hundreds of children – some while they lay anaesthetised in his care. In the UK, plastic surgeon Peter Brooks was convicted of the attempted murder of fellow consultant Graeme Perks, whom he stabbed after breaking into his home in Nottinghamshire. Today, Brooks was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years at Loughborough Courthouse. It would, of course, be absurd to taint an entire profession with the acts of two individuals. But it does resurface a long-standing, uncomfortable question: might the very traits that make a surgeon brilliant also mask something far more troubling? 'When people hear the word psychopath, they tend to think of serial killers and rapists,' says Dr Kevin Dutton, a psychologist and the author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths. 'But the truth is that certain psychopathic traits – focus, emotional dispassion, ruthlessness, self-confidence – can predispose you to success, and in an operating theatre, they really come to the fore.' Dutton has spent much of his career trying to prove that 'bad psychopaths' – people who have these characteristics but who can't regulate them – are the ones who commit crimes. A 'good psychopath', by contrast, is someone who can dial those qualities up and down at whim. He recalls one neurosurgeon who was regularly brought to tears by bits of classical music, but who also said, 'Emotion is entropy. I have hunted it to extinction over the years.' Similarly, a cardiothoracic surgeon told him that once a patient was under, he no longer saw them as a person – just a piece of meat. 'Once you care, you are walking an emotional tightrope,' says Dutton, 'but if you see the human body in front of you as a puzzle to solve, then you are more likely to save their life.' 'There's a ruthless part of me' Gabriel Weston, a London-based surgeon and the author of Direct Red: A Surgeon's Story, describes her profession as one that requires you to 'flick off a switch'. Sent to boarding school at a young age (much of British surgery is the product of elite schools), Weston learnt early how to detach emotionally – a skill she found served her well in the theatre. 'If you asked my family, they'd say I'm very emotional in that I cry in films or at art or literature,' she says. 'But there's a ruthless part of me. I use that in surgery – and in other parts of life where emotion just gets in the way.' Over time, Weston learnt to distinguish between two kinds of surgeons: those who switch their feelings back on once they leave the operating room, and those who never do. 'They don't just have psychopathic traits,' she says. 'They live in that space permanently.' They can also come with a reputation for being not just difficult, but dangerous. Harry Thompson*, a British abdominal surgeon, describes a world of towering egos and simmering aggression. 'If you think about it, all surgeons were in the top five of their class,' he says. 'They are all very competitive, and many play sports: they want to prove they are better than everyone. And if you are at the forefront of major surgery, you think you are invincible. It's a boiling-house environment of jealousy, envy and hatred.' He recalls one consultant who stabbed a plain-clothes policeman with a disposable scalpel after being stopped for speeding en route to the theatre. Another smashed a ward office clock when a nurse arrived five minutes late. Physical assaults were, he says, more common than you would think. 'I was in one operation when a student, John, was an hour and a half late, because he overslept. The surgeon thumped the student's head against the theatre wall until he was unconscious, screamed, 'Nobody move!' then started kicking him. No one ever saw John again.' Nor is the patient always spared. 'When I was training, I saw one surgeon thump a patient for removing a drain from his own bottom after an operation because it had become painful,' says Thompson. 'The patient only admitted this (in tears) after the surgeon had made the nurses and junior doctors line up and interrogated each one in turn about who had done it.' Thompson used to work with Simon Bramhall – the liver surgeon who made headlines and was later struck off for branding his initials onto patients' livers using a laser. 'Simon had always been a bit mad,' says Thompson. 'He was fascinated by the programme Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) and he always wore a white suit [like the character Hopkirk], tie, shoes and socks.' As for tattooing his patients' organs: the initials were discovered by his colleagues only during a second surgery when his once-subtle etching was now grotesquely enlarged by liver damage. While Bramhall's actions sparked public outrage, some in the medical community were nonplussed. Perhaps because this is a far more commonplace occurrence than we realise: an article in Harper's Magazine cited examples of anonymous ophthalmic surgeons who had lasered their initials onto retinas, and orthopaedic surgeons who had etched theirs into bone cement. 'Why would you do that? Ego, of course,' says Dutton, 'and it isn't incidental in surgery. It's selected for. From the moment you start training, you have to fight – quite literally – for your space at the operating table.' 'I find it very freeing not to be pleasant' Dutton researched which of the various disciplines within the profession had the highest rates of psychopathy, and the results are revealing. Number one is neurosurgery (which is bad luck for any fans of Grey's Anatomy), followed by cardiothoracic or heart surgery and then orthopaedic. 'The last one is brutal as you have to smash people's bones,' says Dutton. 'Cardio more than anything is about life and death, but neurosurgery is particularly interesting to me. I think it's because this is the only branch of surgery where, if something goes wrong, you leave the patient permanently crippled or blinded or incapacitated, so only very few people can take such a calculated risk under pressure.' And though these traits are often seen as typically male, women are by no means exempt. Weston says the most difficult surgeon she ever worked under was a woman. 'She was very attractive and well-liked – mostly for being gorgeous and good at her job – but privately she made my life hell. Maybe she didn't like another woman being on the team but she did that horrible thing that women do of presenting this incredibly benign face while being very cruel in private. For months, she blamed me for mistakes that weren't mine, stole credit for my diagnoses, and made me feel like my surgical skills were terrible. She was truly villainous.' And yet, Weston admits, the operating theatre offers her a rare freedom: 'If you are a woman who is quite tough and unsentimental, surgery is a really amazing environment in which you can be yourself. There are many areas of my life – mainly motherhood, but also writing – where there is an expectation that I will be softer than I am. Like Simone de Beauvoir, I find it very freeing not to be pleasant.' Perhaps there is something in all of this (criminal and violent behaviour aside) that we, as patients, secretly find reassuring. We don't want our surgeons to hesitate. We don't want them to be emotional or anxious. We want them to be brilliant: laser-focused, supremely confident, even terrifying if that's what it takes to save us. In life, we dislike arrogance. On the operating table, many of us yearn for it. 'I had one boss,' says Thompson, 'a French surgeon. He used to say: 'There are the porters, the nurses, the managers – and then there are the surgeons. Above them, God. And above God? Me.''
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on fitness: evidence of the benefits of exercise keeps growing, but who is listening?
The role of exercise in promoting good general health, and helping to prevent heart disease, strokes and diabetes is well established. No wonder, then, that long‑distance running keeps growing in popularity. Popular tracks and parks have never been busier, with groups in stretchy Lycra and fitness trackers on their wrists. The internet is awash with exercise videos, while figures earlier this year showed that gym memberships have climbed to a record 11.5m. The 16.9% of people aged 16 or over in Britain who belong to a gym is one of the highest proportions in Europe. The older teenagers and young adults of generation Z are a key demographic behind this social trend. And recent news from the world's biggest cancer conference, in Chicago, shows how right they are to take the health benefits of fitness seriously. A landmark trial compared the outcomes of patients in several countries who were placed on a programme of structured exercise – assisted by a personal trainer – with those offered standard health advice. The results showing that exercise could be as effective as drugs, without the side-effects, in preventing the recurrence of colon cancer, were described by Prof Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director of NHS England, as 'really exciting'. The expectation is that the study will influence treatment guidelines worldwide – including in the increasingly fitness-conscious UK. But there is another narrative about exercise in Britain that is hard to reconcile with the one above. This is that we are a chronically unwell, overweight and sedentary population, whose health problems are only partly linked to the Europe-wide demographic challenge of ageing. These difficulties are widely recognised to be psychological as well as physical, with particular concerns around the worsening mental health of children and young people, which is widely linked to the rise in smartphone use. Which of these accounts of British fitness habits is more accurate depends which segment of the population is being scrutinised. Government figures show that the age gap – with 16- to 24-year-olds the most physically active age group – is not the only one. There is also a significant socioeconomic disparity. Students and adults in managerial and professional jobs are much more likely to keep active than manual workers or people who are long-term unemployed. As with other indicators of health, such as weight or smoking, there is a clear correlation with income. Richer people with more education and higher social status are more likely to be well. Could gen Z buck this trend with its more general embrace of fitness, which some point out is far cheaper than pub-going? It is too soon to be sure. Some young people believe their gym-going habits are as much about economic insecurity and status anxiety as they are about commitment to health. But as ministers finalise their 10-year plan for the NHS, which is expected to place a strong emphasis on prevention, they have an opportunity to build on, and shape, the way that exercise is offered and experienced. That being physically active is good for you is reinforced by the latest cancer study. But a preoccupation with personal appearance can be debilitating. A public health approach to exercise should seek to maximise the gains and minimise the harms associated with fitness culture.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Cost of living roadshows to tour West Northamptonshire
A series of cost-of-living roadshows are taking place in a county's libraries, schools and events are being organised by West Northamptonshire Council, which says they are "a vital way to connect with residents".The authority says the roadshows will offer advice on everything from family finances to mental health start on 10 June and finish a month later. While a 2024 report found that West Northamptonshire had lower levels of deprivation than the England average, there are some areas where poverty is still a major Heath in Northampton was identified by MPs as one of 225 "left behind" areas in the country in 2022. The Northampton districts of Talavera and Queensway were also on the in rural areas, which are often seen as more affluent, there are pockets of than 14,000 people in rural Northamptonshire are seen as income deprived, while the town of Towcester shows high levels of food insecurity. The roadshow will visit four less affluent areas of Northampton as well as two Couse, the council's cabinet member for public health, said: "We understand that the rising cost of living continues to affect many households, and no one should feel they have to face these difficulties alone. That's why we're bringing together a wide range of local organisations and services under one roof—to make it easier for people to access the help they need."These events are a vital way for us to connect with residents and ensure they know what support is available during these challenging times."The advice available includes energy-saving tips, debt management advice and mental health council said its cost of living support hub was also available for people who could not attend a roadshow. The sessions are:KIngsthorpe Grove Primary School - 10 June, 14:00 to 16:00 BSTCentral Northampton Library - 12 June, 11:00 to 13:00 BSTWeston Favell Library - 19 June, 11:00 - 13:00 BSTBroadmead Community Church - 25 June, 12:00 -14:00 BSTWest Haddon Sports Pavilion - 26 June, 14:00 - 16:00 BSTBugbrooke Community Living Room - 3 July, 14:00 - 16:00Bellinge School, Northampton - 10 July, 11:00 - 13:00 BST Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
