MetabolicTrash
Member
I've read a lot of stuff here and I haven't come to any conclusion on the overall idea of how to look at aging. It seems some are open to any ideas/science supporting it, while others reject mainstream work because it doesn't align with the bioenergetic angle/"Peat-ish" view on life, energy, metabolism, and etc.
I mean even Peat has said something along the lines of death not being completely inevitable, but he himself has no specific way of preventing it indefinitely. I mean he's still alive and pretty healthy from what I know of, but he's still clearly an aged/aging person who is presumed to die at some point, even if not anytime soon.
On some level there's scientific suggestions and ideologies that support the addition of healthful regimens and methods of reversing aging and whatnot that are generally taken well here -- on the other hand there are proponents against modern reaches in anti-aging based on faulty approaches (like genomic medicine; gene editing; etc.). I agree with this in that there are clearly flaws, but where would that leave us?
I mean I can't agree fully with it all, but if the alternative is absolutely nothing I think I'd lean toward active/popular approaches more than rejecting them.
If the "big science people" are approaching the measures to creating non-senescence or reversing senescence the "wrong" way, what is the "right" way then? I don't expect anyone to have any perfect answer to this obviously, but I'm just wondering what would be the more proper direction we should be focusing in.
We know the Peat diet/lifestyle cannot prevent death specifically -- therefore it isn't a solution to aging, but more so a method that can affect quality of life. You can live a long and healthy life, but then die (making you just another statistic in this sense). I agree and I'm not rejecting it because it doesn't suit my specific interests in this regard, but it does not fix/solve the bottom line no matter what.
So if modern science is going about fighting aging not necessarily the best way, what could be done differently? I know I've asked other anti-aging before and etc.
I mean even Peat has said something along the lines of death not being completely inevitable, but he himself has no specific way of preventing it indefinitely. I mean he's still alive and pretty healthy from what I know of, but he's still clearly an aged/aging person who is presumed to die at some point, even if not anytime soon.
On some level there's scientific suggestions and ideologies that support the addition of healthful regimens and methods of reversing aging and whatnot that are generally taken well here -- on the other hand there are proponents against modern reaches in anti-aging based on faulty approaches (like genomic medicine; gene editing; etc.). I agree with this in that there are clearly flaws, but where would that leave us?
I mean I can't agree fully with it all, but if the alternative is absolutely nothing I think I'd lean toward active/popular approaches more than rejecting them.
If the "big science people" are approaching the measures to creating non-senescence or reversing senescence the "wrong" way, what is the "right" way then? I don't expect anyone to have any perfect answer to this obviously, but I'm just wondering what would be the more proper direction we should be focusing in.
We know the Peat diet/lifestyle cannot prevent death specifically -- therefore it isn't a solution to aging, but more so a method that can affect quality of life. You can live a long and healthy life, but then die (making you just another statistic in this sense). I agree and I'm not rejecting it because it doesn't suit my specific interests in this regard, but it does not fix/solve the bottom line no matter what.
So if modern science is going about fighting aging not necessarily the best way, what could be done differently? I know I've asked other anti-aging before and etc.
Last edited:
