Ageing rates vary widely, says study

Shhh....beware pedants about!

Anya That rings a few rusty bells. (Even if bells which are usually bronze don't exactly rust.)

Was this the study you were thinking of Nellie?

Yes , Nellie inside the nucleus of a cell, our genes are arranged along twisted, double-stranded molecules of DNA called chromosomes. At the ends of the chromosomes are stretches of DNA called telomeres, which protect our genetic data, make it possible for cells to divide, and hold some secrets to how we age and get cancer.

Telomeres have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces, because they keep chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other, which would destroy or scramble an organism's genetic information.

But....each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide; it becomes inactive or "senescent" or it dies. This shortening process is associated with aging, cancer, and a higher risk of death. So telomeres also have been compared with a bomb fuse!

There's a lot of research going into how we can slow down the unraveling of the ends, as it were, but there is both a genetic and a lifestyle element to this process.

There is something that can be calculated about life expectancy in looking at part of a body cell called telomeres. I think it's about how many chunks of these bits of chromosomes you have left at a particular age and the average rate of decline of their decline.
Although from what I have read there appear to be ways of extending them these days.

Without going to dig out my OU discovering science books from the loft I don't remember any more. It was 1999 I did it.

Just to cheer up us shorties and depress the tall ones amongst us - recent research seems to indicate that taller people are more inclined to develop cancer.

I think I might be a control freak.

Perhaps the reporting poster should say, "Reported (and it's an old thread")

Wondered how it'd got so many posts without my seeing it

Yes, possibly, but even so the natural variation will be huge because natural variation in all things is huge. Maybe if they started out without ready-made assumptions, they'd learn something new.

This is an oldish thread.

They could probably measure it by putting those little pads with wires coming out, over the person's head. Or even a brain scan maybe.

Seems I've just said what elegran says in the OP.

I do wonder how people get funding for some of the so-called research that goes on nowadays.

Perhaps they mean the number of working neurons left in the brain, physically.

What, exactly, is "the cognitive function of a 61 year old"? I seriously doubt if there is any such thing because there is wide variation in human cognitive function at all ages?

I presume they are using an 'average'. Not impressed.

This sounded like quite an acceptable scenario, janeainsworth. The wisdom brains and experience of a 61 year old and the body of a 30 year old?
I should be so lucky!
(This is the bit I meant)

One of the markers they used was cognitive function and one of the participants in their 30's had the cognitive function of a 61 year-old. Does that indicate the person has actually lost cognitive function, or that they never developed it in the first place?was cognitive function and one of the participants in their 30's had the cognitive function of a 61 year-old. Does that indicate the person has actually lost cognitive function, or that they never developed it in the first place

Oops didn't refresh

Reported

Reported.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I agree Elegran that most would want to extend their active time, provided that they could actually do something about it.

I'm not sure how the researchers differentiate between signs of 'normal' ageing and signs of a chronic degenerative condition.

But to take an obvious example of ageing, some men lose their hair at a much earlier age than others. I don't think that would be regarded as pathological, unless it happened at a very young age, and as far as I know there aren't many effective ways of treating it.

Is osteo-arthritis normal wear and tear due to ageing, or pathological? Does the answer depend on the age at which it develops?

One of the markers they used was cognitive function and one of the participants in their 30's had the cognitive function of a 61 year-old. Does that indicate the person has actually lost cognitive function, or that they never developed it in the first place?

I suppose what I'm saying is that the other edge of the sword that is our ability to influence our health for our own good is the blaming of people for their own ill-health.

Individuals vary in how they would react - some would say "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die", some become morose, but I think most would find out out how best to live so as to extend their active time as much as possible.

The article seemed to be saying that more research into ageing needed to be done on younger people rather than on older people as it is now, because this would help identify changes that were due to ageing rather than specific conditions.

I wonder how helpful this would be for an individual, to be informed their biological age was far in advance of their chronogical age, if there was nothing they could actually do about it.

My DDs British sister in law and family live in Holland. Her children, particularly the boy is way down the Dutch child growth centile charts, but he would not be like that in Britain.

I'm a teeny 5', dh is 5'7" but ds is over 6' and weighed around 17 stone in his rugby playing prime. DDs are 5'6" and 5'8". Don't ask me where they came from.....