There is a problem with most anti-aging interventions: long expected duration of human trials, as results and lack of side effects will be obvious only decades after the start oа such trials. Without trials, FDA will never approve such therapies.
However, there is a way to increase the speed of trials using biomarkers of aging—or testing of already known to be safe interventions, like vitamin D. But biomarkers need to be calibrated and safe interventions provide only small effects on aging. Thus, it looks like some way to accelerate trials is needed if we want radical solution to aging to 2030. What could it be?
Yes, we need improved biomarkers of aging. Once we have biomarkers that are accurate enough to detect changes in aging or anti-aging over the course of months, it will be much easier to obtain high-quality data for prospective anti-aging compounds.
Another solution that aging researchers have discussed is developing frameworks for decentralized clinical trials that could bypass institutional approval but still produce credible results.
There also needs to be a paradigm shift in society, biomedical research, and regulatory bodies like the FDA to recognise and classify aging as a disease.
Open science which aims to make all science accessible to everyone, whether amateur or professional, is would also help to accelerate the rate of research.
already known to be safe interventions, like vitamin D
Any pointers on what to search to find more info on this from actual research? I wasn’t aware that vitamin D was considered to have anti-aging properties, or that there was much consensus on its safety.
It is safe enough to be sold OTC, and there are some research which connects with life extension effects. The real problem is that we don’t have human tests of its effects on longevity, despite its widespread use. The first study like this will be TAME, which will explore life extension properties of metformin. There are several reasons why such studies are difficult to perform. Firstly, they are costly, but known safe things are non-patentable. Secondly, they need to be very long., and long human studies are especially costly.
This is not true. Aging doesn’t develop, rather, it is an ongoing process of damage accumulation (i.e. hallmarks of aging) that occurs as a by-product of metabolism, explained in the original post. Aging occurs in both young and old people, although the rate of aging accelerates as diseases of aging develop.
Reversing the damage associated with the hallmarks of aging at any chronological/biological age is likely to improve their phenotype and expected longevity. The more advanced the anti-aging technologies become, the better equipped we will be to reverse large amounts of damage associated with advanced age. That said, there is no reason to think that there is a cliff after which aging cannot be reversed.
That is true for therapies which work on damage (SENS). But if we see aging as a process which creates the damages, than it is reasonable to stop it on early age.
Also, I’ve seen a recent article “Longevity‐related molecular pathways are subject to midlife “switch” in humans” which implies that many interventions should happen early in life.
Evidence in mice studies does indicate that earlier therapies (for example of senolytics) do facilitate greater life extension. However, with better anti-aging technologies the ‘switch’ (from the paper you refer to) could theoretically be reversed, as there’s no biological law that would prevent restoring a phenotypically older individual back to a more youthful state.
I see. in that case perhaps we would need emergency authorization for anyone who needs it to stay within escape velocity timeline. though that definition is too complex for me to see a scenario where FDA approves it (at least not without massive pressure).
There is a problem with most anti-aging interventions: long expected duration of human trials, as results and lack of side effects will be obvious only decades after the start oа such trials. Without trials, FDA will never approve such therapies.
However, there is a way to increase the speed of trials using biomarkers of aging—or testing of already known to be safe interventions, like vitamin D. But biomarkers need to be calibrated and safe interventions provide only small effects on aging. Thus, it looks like some way to accelerate trials is needed if we want radical solution to aging to 2030. What could it be?
Yes, we need improved biomarkers of aging. Once we have biomarkers that are accurate enough to detect changes in aging or anti-aging over the course of months, it will be much easier to obtain high-quality data for prospective anti-aging compounds.
Another solution that aging researchers have discussed is developing frameworks for decentralized clinical trials that could bypass institutional approval but still produce credible results.
There also needs to be a paradigm shift in society, biomedical research, and regulatory bodies like the FDA to recognise and classify aging as a disease.
Open science which aims to make all science accessible to everyone, whether amateur or professional, is would also help to accelerate the rate of research.
Any pointers on what to search to find more info on this from actual research? I wasn’t aware that vitamin D was considered to have anti-aging properties, or that there was much consensus on its safety.
For a good summary video on vitamin D and aging, I recommend this. For academic papers and other articles, I recommend this, this and this.
For information on personal longevity strategies, I recommend the following:
- Watching videos by Dr Rhonda Patrick, Dr Peter Attia and Dave Asprey
- Joining Facebook biohacking groups such as this, and this.
- Joining the Lifespan discord server and reading comments on the ‘personal longevity strategies’ channel.
It is safe enough to be sold OTC, and there are some research which connects with life extension effects. The real problem is that we don’t have human tests of its effects on longevity, despite its widespread use. The first study like this will be TAME, which will explore life extension properties of metformin. There are several reasons why such studies are difficult to perform. Firstly, they are costly, but known safe things are non-patentable. Secondly, they need to be very long., and long human studies are especially costly.
Another option is to advocate for emergency authorization for old people.
Unfortunately, it seems that most intervention works before aging actually developed, so we need to give them to younger people, at least before 50.
This is not true. Aging doesn’t develop, rather, it is an ongoing process of damage accumulation (i.e. hallmarks of aging) that occurs as a by-product of metabolism, explained in the original post. Aging occurs in both young and old people, although the rate of aging accelerates as diseases of aging develop.
Reversing the damage associated with the hallmarks of aging at any chronological/biological age is likely to improve their phenotype and expected longevity. The more advanced the anti-aging technologies become, the better equipped we will be to reverse large amounts of damage associated with advanced age. That said, there is no reason to think that there is a cliff after which aging cannot be reversed.
That is true for therapies which work on damage (SENS). But if we see aging as a process which creates the damages, than it is reasonable to stop it on early age.
Also, I’ve seen a recent article “Longevity‐related molecular pathways are subject to midlife “switch” in humans” which implies that many interventions should happen early in life.
Thanks for great post!
Evidence in mice studies does indicate that earlier therapies (for example of senolytics) do facilitate greater life extension. However, with better anti-aging technologies the ‘switch’ (from the paper you refer to) could theoretically be reversed, as there’s no biological law that would prevent restoring a phenotypically older individual back to a more youthful state.
I see. in that case perhaps we would need emergency authorization for anyone who needs it to stay within escape velocity timeline. though that definition is too complex for me to see a scenario where FDA approves it (at least not without massive pressure).
Yes, I hope regulators will give older individuals who are soon to die of aging the option to have access to more radical life-extension therapies.