What’s the maximum human life potential?

[tankasnowgod]

Dubious.

I did use the word "supposedly."

Though personally, I do tend to think that there have been some small percentage of people that have lived to 150 or more in recent times.

 

[Perry Staltic]

I did use the word "supposedly."

Yeah I saw that. Just throwing in my 2 cents.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Vegetables whole meal bread and chicken broth //if not defatted// are not peating. The starch component of these centenarian’s diets always gets ignored here, or the fact that they eat a lot less than 2.5-3000 cal a day.

They get largely ignored because they are even less reliable than studies like the Nurses Health Study, which use a food recall questionnaire once every 2-4 years to assess diet long term. And that is notoriously unreliable.

Asking someone in their hundreds about their diet once in a lifetime isn't going to tell you much about diet and longevity. Ask any hundred year old today what they had for lunch on June 4th, 1977. Or dinner on January 25th, 1982. Breakfast on September 1st, 1997.

They may give you a few principles to investigate, but that's about it.

 

[PxD]

Cysteine is the rate limiting precursor to the synthesis of glutathione, arguably the most important antioxidant. Doesn't make sense to limit it.

Perry, what do you make of this?

"The amino acids in proteins have been defined as “essential” on the basis of their contribution to growth, ignoring their role in producing long life, good brain development, and good health. The amino acid and protein requirements during aging have hardly been studied, except in rats, whose short life-span makes such studies fairly easy. The few studies that have been done indicate that the requirements for tryptophan and cysteine become very low in adulthood.

Although Clive McKay's studies of life extension through caloric restriction were done in the 1930s, only a few studies have been done to find out which nutrients' restriction contributes most to extending the life span. Restricting toxic heavy metals, without restricting calories, produces about the same life-extending effect as caloric restriction. Restricting only tryptophan, or only cysteine, produces a greater extension of the life span than achieved in most of the studies of caloric restriction. How great would be the life-span extension if both tryptophan and cysteine were restricted at the same time?" - Ray Peat

from http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/gelatin.shtml​

 

[ursidae]

Assuming this story is true: protein from muscle meats seems absent, which would restrict cysteine, methionine and tryptophan. Peat has written about how restricting these aminos should significantly increase lifespan.

using cronometer (CNF database) per 30 g beef protein 0.3 g cystine, 0.7 g methionine, 0.1 g tryptophan
30 g feta cheese protein 0.2g cystine, 0.8 g methionine, 0.4 g tryptophan
I will check other databases though as I've seen great variation in the past. The main good thing about dairy is the low iron in my opinion

 

[ursidae]

They get largely ignored because they are even less reliable than studies like the Nurses Health Study, which use a food recall questionnaire once every 2-4 years to assess diet long term. And that is notoriously unreliable.

Asking someone in their hundreds about their diet once in a lifetime isn't going to tell you much about diet and longevity. Ask any hundred year old today what they had for lunch on June 4th, 1977. Or dinner on January 25th, 1982. Breakfast on September 1st, 1997.

They may give you a few principles to investigate, but that's about it.

What I mean is that people here focus on the fruit/desserts and dairy that centenarians claimed to eat and ignore the fact that they consumed starch

 

[Perry Staltic]

Perry, what do you make of this?

"The amino acids in proteins have been defined as “essential” on the basis of their contribution to growth, ignoring their role in producing long life, good brain development, and good health. The amino acid and protein requirements during aging have hardly been studied, except in rats, whose short life-span makes such studies fairly easy. The few studies that have been done indicate that the requirements for tryptophan and cysteine become very low in adulthood.

Although Clive McKay's studies of life extension through caloric restriction were done in the 1930s, only a few studies have been done to find out which nutrients' restriction contributes most to extending the life span. Restricting toxic heavy metals, without restricting calories, produces about the same life-extending effect as caloric restriction. Restricting only tryptophan, or only cysteine, produces a greater extension of the life span than achieved in most of the studies of caloric restriction. How great would be the life-span extension if both tryptophan and cysteine were restricted at the same time?" - Ray Peat

from http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/gelatin.shtml​

Studies on rats, not humans. Glutathione is an extraordinarily important antioxidant for health and longevity. I would disagree that the requirements for glutathione and its requisite precursor cysteine decrease with age. It's quite the opposite, in fact,

 

[PxD]

using cronometer (CNF database) per 30 g beef protein 0.3 g cystine, 0.7 g methionine, 0.1 g tryptophan
30 g feta cheese protein 0.2g cystine, 0.8 g methionine, 0.4 g tryptophan
I will check other databases through as I've seen great variation

Huh. I didn't realize cheese was that high in those aminos. My impression was that meat was #1 in that department, dairy not so much.

Well, chicken broth would provide a lot of glycine, which would balance out the actions of some of these other aminos. Maybe that's a plausible explanation for a practical mechanism for life extension, again assuming the story of this man isn't just BS.

My grandparents on my mother's side came from a place/culture where soup, essentially a home made chicken broth, was eaten as an appetizer before every lunch and dinner, almost every day. My grandmother lived to 89. My grandfather lived to 99, and he was active around the house and with growing fruit and vegetables, making wine, etc. until about 6 months before his death. Their 3 children, my mother and her brother and sister, are in their 70s now and seem to be chugging along, despite some poor health practices on the part of my aunt and uncle, who are both obese.

 

[tankasnowgod]

What I mean is that people here focus on the fruit/desserts and dairy that centenarians claimed to eat and ignore the fact that they consumed starch

Okay.... again, other than a few principles, it's doesn't say much. How much starch? What kind? What was the ratio of starch to sugar? Did it change from decade to decade, or year to year? Was it based on availability of foods?

I'm sure these answers vary from centenarian to centenarian as well. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Some never smoke and drink. Others smoke, others drink, some more often than others.

I think pretty much everyone on this forum has consumed starch at one time or another. I'd would be very, very rare to find a person that NEVER consumed starch in their lifetime. Or to find someone that never let starch become more than 10% of their weekly calories at any point in their life.

 

[schultz]

rever is a long time to avoid accumulation of damage caused by accidental stressors. The 'optimal' would really have to mean 'unfailingly absolutely perfect'. Which begins to close in on the definition of the afterlife.

Yes that is what I meant by optimal. It would include thousands of variables that would have to be perfect. Our food sources would also have to have perfect optimal health.

It's practically impossible, but the original question was, paraphrased, "what is the longest possible lifespan given optimal environment, food, lifestyle?", which I read as "given an absolutely perfect environment, lifestyle, food, planet, what is the longest a human could live?". I think hundreds of generation living in that perfect environment could theoretically eventually produce an offspring that lives forever.

 

[SatoshiPufamoto]

Yes that is what I meant by optimal. It would include thousands of variables that would have to be perfect. Our food sources would also have to have perfect optimal health.

It's practically impossible, but the original question was, paraphrased, "what is the longest possible lifespan given optimal environment, food, lifestyle?", which I read as "given an absolutely perfect environment, lifestyle, food, planet, what is the longest a human could live?". I think hundreds of generation living in that perfect environment could theoretically eventually produce an offspring that lives forever.

That's a good point, heredity is an important factor when talking about the potential maximum lifespan of a person

 

[andrewlee224]

Forever is a long time to avoid accumulation of damage caused by accidental stressors. The 'optimal' would really have to mean 'unfailingly absolutely perfect'. Which begins to close in on the definition of the afterlife.

Not necessarily, as long as the organism can reverse the damage/regenerate. Which to some degree it does, so it would just need to do more of it.

 

[andrewlee224]

Obsession with extending lifespan and youth is amoral aswell

Why is it amoral? If human lifespan would be naturally 200+ years old you'd rather shorten it to the current ~100 years?
It doesn't have to be an obsession to the point of not enjoying your life, but just attempting to do so is fine. Some people may attempt to do so because of their intellectual curiosity. Some maybe would like to achieve a higher level of mastery in whatever they do. Some may want to meet new/more people. Build more stuff. It doesn't have to be evil.

 

[GelatinGoblin]

Why is it amoral? If human lifespan would be naturally 200+ years old you'd rather shorten it to the current ~100 years?
It doesn't have to be an obsession to the point of not enjoying your life, but just attempting to do so is fine. Some people may attempt to do so because of their intellectual curiosity. Some maybe would like to achieve a higher level of mastery in whatever they do. Some may want to meet new/more people. Build more stuff. It doesn't have to be evil.

To die is a natural part of life. Everyone who artificially want to to extend it (directly want to extend it) are cowards and Egocentric. I much rather die "healthy" when my Endocrine system is still somewhat active at 60 from Pneumonia etc. Then live until 80 eating medicine everyday.
You would naturally reach 80 if you are still active via working the ground, taking care of your grandchildren, reading everyday, have purpose in your life like training athletes... Fairly moral things.

 

[GelatinGoblin]

The question is not whether one can but whether one should

 

[GelatinGoblin]

The thing about people who want ot extend it being cowards goes back to the immorality thing, they fear judgement for their actions. This is for the ones who are the elites, Bill Gates... Etc.
Such is life, the most vile fear what is most Holy

 

[SatoshiPufamoto]

Why is it amoral? If human lifespan would be naturally 200+ years old you'd rather shorten it to the current ~100 years?
It doesn't have to be an obsession to the point of not enjoying your life, but just attempting to do so is fine. Some people may attempt to do so because of their intellectual curiosity. Some maybe would like to achieve a higher level of mastery in whatever they do. Some may want to meet new/more people. Build more stuff. It doesn't have to be

The thing about people who want ot extend it being cowards goes back to the immorality thing, they fear judgement for their actions. This is for the ones who are the elites, Bill Gates... Etc.
Such is life, the most vile fear what is most Holy

That’s why my original post said “biological life”, I’m not talking about plugging your brain into a flash drive and living forever in the cloud. I do agree with you that a obsession with immorality isn’t healthy, but that’s not what this thread is about

 

[Ben.]

To die is a natural part of life. Everyone who artificially want to to extend it (directly want to extend it) are cowards and Egocentric. I much rather die "healthy" when my Endocrine system is still somewhat active at 60 from Pneumonia etc. Then live until 80 eating medicine everyday.
You would naturally reach 80 if you are still active via working the ground, taking care of your grandchildren, reading everyday, have purpose in your life like training athletes... Fairly moral things.

Dying is natural, and the limited time we have creates meaning in the things we do, i agree.

I dont see anything amoral in wanting to live as long as possible tho. For me it implys my physical breakdown is not happening as fast which would mean that i am younger with 80 than some are with 60. More energy, better metabolism and better regeneration.

It also would allow us as andrew said to experience more, have more time to master a craft, learn more and live properly. Do not mistake immortality with extended lifespan.

Some people managed to do all they wanted/needed in 40-60 years, some others might could've needed more time. Also noone knows what is beyond death. Wether it is religion's take on heaven/hell, rebirth or atheism, we just simply don't know.

Many people do fear death because of it. Dying at 200 instead of 100 for example ... i dont see any problem with that.

---

In terms of what the op asked, i guess under optimal conditions we can life 140-200 years probably? I wonder if in that sense maybe the potential changes trough adaptations? Meaning there are complex mechanisms over time that determine what an organism is or will be capable off? you know, like a trait?

From what we understand in cell biology, we could pull up the theory, since it has been established that a cell can divide infinite amounts of time, thus the human organism could potentially life forever too if there is a way to ensure it is regenerating/healing faster than it is falling apart or if there is a way to stop damage during the cell division.

Reminds me of a movie where someone said something along the lines of (just quoting from the top of my head):

"If the living being is under the optimal condition which allows it to life indefinitely, it won"t create offsprings, if it can't live forever, it will reproduce, so that life is never ending"

 

[Dr. B]

Cysteine is the rate limiting precursor to the synthesis of glutathione, arguably the most important antioxidant. Doesn't make sense to limit it.

isnt taurine also made from cysteine, so limiting cysteine would reduce taurine synthesis? i do agree with ray that it may be beneficial to restrict it but im wondering is it possible for cysteine to be bad but taurine to be good? because restricting cysteine would automatically restrict taurine. apparently b6 is also needed for the conversion, and thats tough to get from foods. liver doesnt have much, milk barely has any, OJ has a somewhat decent amount but is 0.2mg per 8oz cup.