The British Broadcasting Corporation reports that you too could be a supermodel! Sounds too good to be true for me. If I were a model, I would be one several years out of date, without many of the most up-to-date features, and likely missing the owner's manual. A model perhaps, but more of a "T" than a "super." Well, read on.
The news is about a drug that extends life. Juan Ponce de Leon would be heartened by that. There is no telling how many years that intrepid explorer shaved from his short stay on the planet by trudging about in the wilderness in search of a fountain. Some believe he did so wearing armor, but perhaps it was well-ventilated?
The results in recent lab tests are amazing. Scientists at Duke University have been successful in extending the lives of mice by as much as 25% (keep in mind that for mice this means additional weeks, not years, of life. 25% not sound like much. They are calling it the "Supermodel Granny" drug. Well, I guess that lets me out in several ways (not "super," not a "model," and not a "granny").
Consider that the Centers for Disease Control says the average American life expectancy is 77.5 years. 25% would change that to 97. And the math is just the attention-getter. The news of this study is deeper.
Think of Richard Simmons at 76 passing this last week. Or, think of Shannen Doherty passing at 53. In the midst of serious, even threatening news, it is amazing that major news services recently maintained those headlines and stacked other developing news stories under them on their internet feeds. War, pestilence, passing celebrity, which gets top billing?
Nonetheless, what would 25% have meant to them? My AI says that Maria Branyas of Spain is 117 and is currently the planet's oldest living person (I was sure it was Richard Sicking, but I digress). 25% would get her up into the 146-year range. Someone 146 today would be able to tell us much about growing up in the 1880s! ("No phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury; like Robinson Crusoe, it's primitive as can be." Theme to Gilligan's Island). Such a life expectancy would be extraordinary.
That 146-year-old potential made me think of Mickey Mantle's thought: "If I had known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself!"
The Duke University study is focused on extending life. But it is also noteworthy that the mice that got the drug were "healthier, stronger and developed fewer cancers than their unmedicated peers." Fewer cancers. There is a tagline worth repeating. So, here goes, "fewer cancers." Each of these effects seems to be great news. Well, except for the one caveat. they are still determining if it will work on people. Who wants a mouse that lives 146 years (or even mice-years)?
The villain they have identified is "a protein called interleukin-11." It turns out this is produced in our bodies and it can impact our health, particularly "higher levels of inflammation." This is big as we get older, and that happens daily. But this drug "flips several biological switches that control the pace of aging."
The challenges are broad. The scientists caution that this "interleukin" is very important to us in our youth and development. Turning it off completely sounds like a bad idea. The key is that it becomes a threat to us as we grow older. So, we do not want to eradicate the chemical until an opportune moment.
Thus, it turns out generations have all been engrossed with the fountain of youth for many years. The article mentions other common medications are being tested "for their anti-aging qualities." These show some promise, perhaps because of their interaction with "interleukin" and perhaps for other reasons.
And, there is suggestion that you might achieve similar results if you just quit eating so much. The author cites a scientist who says eating less is a key to longer life. The New York Times noted some contention like that earlier this year. Essentially, some believe that "eating fewer calories slows down metabolism." Thus, your body works less and therefore lasts longer. Think of the vintage vehicle that was only driven by a little old lady to church on Sundays.
Therefore, they hypothesize that if we fasted more, were miserable more, we would live longer. Yeah, you read that right. Avoid this, that, and the other, and eat less. That is a path to greater longevity. But, seriously, a life without double-pepperoni pizza would be bleak at best. That led the scientist quoted by the BBC to conclude a drug is likely to be easier for people than calorie restriction.
Isn't a drug always an easier path? But, time and again, we have found that various miracle drugs often come with side effects, unexpected outcomes, and even dangers. Many have come and gone over the years, discarded on the trash heap of history after initial excitement or acclaim.
Time will tell if they can pharmaceutically stretch life. Will healthy people be interested in such potentials? Some will. Nonetheless, if such "interleukin" reduction means fewer cancers, anyone suffering from that would be more likely to embrace any therapy available. It is an intriguing breakthrough and will be watched carefully by us elder folks who can see the end from where we stand today.
