Author Topic: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?  (Read 16507 times)

Doubleh

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • Location: London
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #100 on: February 15, 2020, 06:38:52 PM »
There’s some really thought provoking stuff in here, especially Malkynn’s contributions. The idea that the unhealthy majority die younger than you would imagine while the healthy keep going makes a lot of sense. Just anecdotally I saw the difference in outcome between one grandmother who basically gave up and waited to die from mid seventies on, compared to the other who was independent and sprightly until the day she died at 99.

Regarding the financial side of it as others have said there is practically no difference between planning for a 30 year retirement and forever as an early retiree, as any portfolio failure is likely to show up early on due to adverse sequence of returns giving you a chance to take corrective action. I’m surprised nobody has linked yet to the rich / broke / dead thread yet, which I think is a very powerful way to visualise this:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/rich-broke-or-dead-visualizing-probabilities-of-outcomes-in-early-retirement/

There was a really interesting bbc piece a few years ago  that is worth listening to delving into what life expectancy actually means and it’s rather more complex than usually made out to be:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p02x9m2q


maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #101 on: February 15, 2020, 06:46:40 PM »

Beyond the basics? Fucked if I know, that's definitely not my area of expertise. I just know it's really, really, really exceptionally hard to get people to engage in even the most basic of health habits consistently. So getting the basics down is a pretty big win.

Truth. When I was an EMT, I saw a lot of that. Like: “you’re diabetic. Maybe downing most of a bottle of whiskey wasn’t the best idea.”  Or never taking your blood pressure meds, what could go wrong?

A big request when I first started making the [urlhttps://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2555/32137492394_f092c80db8_b.jpg]death or bankruptcy[/url] graphs* was how different the graphs would look for life expectancy of a person who didn't smoke, exercised regularly, ate a healthy diet and maintained a healthy weight.

Unfortunately I've never been able to find fine grained enough information on life expectancy by age for a person who does all the "basic stuff" right but from everything I've heard anecdotally it would indeed make a big difference.

*CCCA made a calculator with a bunch of functionality and options and options for people to make their own graph of the intersecting uncertainties of both market returns and life expectancies, and in that thread the same request came up repeatedly.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #102 on: February 16, 2020, 03:20:49 PM »
I went and did some research on the various online longevity calculators. The most conservative estimate estimate was 82.4 years (social security) and ranged up to 91 years. That's based on what we know now.. Speaking for myself, I think that life extension science is going to come into it's own in coming years, at least for the relatively privileged.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #103 on: February 17, 2020, 04:05:05 AM »
Malkynn- This is the stuff That I like reading from you the most. I’m deeply curious about this chronic inflammation thingy. What is causing it and how are people addressing it? (Other than poorly).


As much any of the various factions agree on anything in the health and fitness space, they agree that today's typical processed western diet and the amount of sugar it contains leads to chronic inflammation in the body.

Most people can materially improve their health if they actively limit sugar and processed carbohydrates to very small amounts (10g/day). I have done it on and off for the last 10 years, and it formed the basis of the years that I spent doing ultra endurance (I was a low carb which has all sorts of advantages in terms of fueling and energy requirements).

This is primarily a financial forum, so we tend to debate dollars rather than diet, but if you delve into the health and fitness space you'll eventually reach the conclusion that diet, health, fitness and lifestyle are all joined at the hip and only by paying close attention to all of them do you maximize your total return and the chances of spending the rest of your natural time left still in good health.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 04:13:53 AM by vand »

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #104 on: February 17, 2020, 06:58:58 AM »
Malkynn- This is the stuff That I like reading from you the most. I’m deeply curious about this chronic inflammation thingy. What is causing it and how are people addressing it? (Other than poorly).


As much any of the various factions agree on anything in the health and fitness space, they agree that today's typical processed western diet and the amount of sugar it contains leads to chronic inflammation in the body.

Most people can materially improve their health if they actively limit sugar and processed carbohydrates to very small amounts (10g/day). I have done it on and off for the last 10 years, and it formed the basis of the years that I spent doing ultra endurance (I was a low carb which has all sorts of advantages in terms of fueling and energy requirements).

This is primarily a financial forum, so we tend to debate dollars rather than diet, but if you delve into the health and fitness space you'll eventually reach the conclusion that diet, health, fitness and lifestyle are all joined at the hip and only by paying close attention to all of them do you maximize your total return and the chances of spending the rest of your natural time left still in good health.

Thanks for that, @vand.  If you're not in good health or even alive, then what's the point of being wealthy and/or retired? 

10g/day. Wow.  I have some work to do.   

Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3193
  • Location: Europe
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #105 on: February 17, 2020, 11:01:57 AM »
@Malkynn 's theory sounds very likely to me (I studied history). It's a total misconception that people's lives a few centuries ago were nasty, brutish and short. Even in the middle ages many people lived until their 70s. Instead, child mortality was a lot higher and that way, only the strongest individuals survived. Of course once people in those days developed a serious issue there were few treatment options, but many people were healthy and active until a fairly high age. (For women childbirth was of course very risky).  These days er keep people alive who would have died young a century ago (like me) there are far fewer risks associated with childbirth, but lifestyle illnesses are killing more people.

Anecdotally, in my family tree (that is documented back to the 1600s) the average age of death is around 70, with lots of people living into very old age, 80s and 90s, in the days before penicillin. Also in my family, the oldest living generation grew up during the Depression and their Boomer kids seem to be aging faster. But the Boomers grew up with plenty of food, alcohol and tobacco while their parents never got into those habits. They were desperately poor from birth until well in their 30s.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #106 on: February 17, 2020, 02:30:53 PM »
@Malkynn 's theory sounds very likely to me (I studied history). It's a total misconception that people's lives a few centuries ago were nasty, brutish and short. Even in the middle ages many people lived until their 70s. Instead, child mortality was a lot higher and that way, only the strongest individuals survived. Of course once people in those days developed a serious issue there were few treatment options, but many people were healthy and active until a fairly high age. (For women childbirth was of course very risky).  These days er keep people alive who would have died young a century ago (like me) there are far fewer risks associated with childbirth, but lifestyle illnesses are killing more people.

Anecdotally, in my family tree (that is documented back to the 1600s) the average age of death is around 70, with lots of people living into very old age, 80s and 90s, in the days before penicillin. Also in my family, the oldest living generation grew up during the Depression and their Boomer kids seem to be aging faster. But the Boomers grew up with plenty of food, alcohol and tobacco while their parents never got into those habits. They were desperately poor from birth until well in their 30s.

The narrative which I subscribe to is that humans mostly evolved on a primal diet; plants, roots, seeds, and animal protein that varied with the season. Real significant sugar hits were limited to a certain period of the year during the fall when ripened fruit could provide the carbohydrate content that would allow us to put on some body fat that would help us through the winter.. It was not until the advent of the agricultural revolution a mere 200 years ago where the carbohydrate content in our diets began climbing significantly, which is the blink of the eye in evolutionary terms.

I would recommend Phil Maffetone, Mark Sissons (marksdailyapple) or Tim Noakes as authorities on the subject, their extensive research and work on all matters health and fitness is free available on the usual channels.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 02:53:45 PM by vand »

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #107 on: February 17, 2020, 02:50:37 PM »
This idea that we are more than meat machines and some optimized amount/kinds of things we put in our bodies and some optimized amount/type of exercise will get all people living to some fantastical number regularly sounds quite pie in the sky to me.

Not only are people n=1 but there is some limit to our meat machines. Barring some gene manipulation breakthrough I doubt that will change very much min my lifetime. I'm not preparing for 100+, I'm not blowing all my money either.

SWMBO often says she'll live to 100 given her grandmother and conveniently forgets the other three dead grandparents, or that genes are a portion of the equation but genes don't stop you from yourself or outside factors if you live a crappy lifestyle. Not that she does but that it can be a factor to consider.

So in short I'm not planning on 100+, I usually use 90 for my guess.

/shrug I'll worry about that in my 60's.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17614
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #108 on: February 17, 2020, 03:16:28 PM »
The only thing I really care about on this front is figuring out how to get dogs to live a lot longer.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #109 on: February 17, 2020, 03:30:48 PM »
MMM himeslf has written about the virtues of a high fat, sugar/carb-restricted diet:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/18/the-amazing-waist-slimming-wallet-fattening-nutrient/

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #110 on: February 17, 2020, 04:15:10 PM »
I am in my 60’s and my mom only knew one grandparent that lived to 70. Looking at the family tree before that many died between 40-55. 

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #111 on: February 18, 2020, 04:08:59 AM »
MMM himeslf has written about the virtues of a high fat, sugar/carb-restricted diet:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/18/the-amazing-waist-slimming-wallet-fattening-nutrient/

Plea to authority, let alone a software engineer turned lifestyle blogger with a financial/environmental bent is rarely going to convince someone a particular dietary stance is valid.

Not knocking the thing but mostly saying so what? It's probably a negligible difference in life expectancy.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #112 on: February 18, 2020, 06:40:08 AM »
MMM himeslf has written about the virtues of a high fat, sugar/carb-restricted diet:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/18/the-amazing-waist-slimming-wallet-fattening-nutrient/

Plea to authority, let alone a software engineer turned lifestyle blogger with a financial/environmental bent is rarely going to convince someone a particular dietary stance is valid.

Not knocking the thing but mostly saying so what? It's probably a negligible difference in life expectancy.

I really couldn't give a crap how anyone else lives and eats tbh. If you are happy with how you do things and your resultant physical and psychological state of being then good for you.

But I will point out that its no surprise to me that those who challenge conventional dietary wisdoms are viewed with skepticism, excuses, special exceptional cases, whose advice is neither realistic or achieveable.... draws parallels with those who challenge accepted financial norms that saving most of your income is achieveable and you don't have to work 50 years if you live your life a certain way. 

In my experience challenging conventional wisdoms in one walk of life does not automatically translate ito doing so other walks of life that do not greatly interest them. But people who know their stuff in either of these fields will know that conventional wisdom is flawed, dogmatic and protected by bigger interest, so why should anyone assume that other disciplines are squeeky clean?  History, as they say, is written by the winners.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 06:43:08 AM by vand »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23248
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #113 on: February 18, 2020, 11:28:26 AM »
The only thing I really care about on this front is figuring out how to get dogs to live a lot longer.

Pick smaller breeds.  Small breed dogs tend to have significantly longer lives than the bigger breeds.

tygertygertyger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #114 on: February 18, 2020, 01:00:30 PM »
The only thing I really care about on this front is figuring out how to get dogs to live a lot longer.

Pick smaller breeds.  Small breed dogs tend to have significantly longer lives than the bigger breeds.

Small ones are a bit yappy for my taste. I tell my 90 lb dog he needs to live forever. But I'd hate to see him decrepit, so I am willing to let him move on when he needs to. I hope that doesn't happen for a very long time.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17614
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #115 on: February 18, 2020, 01:37:01 PM »
The only thing I really care about on this front is figuring out how to get dogs to live a lot longer.

Pick smaller breeds.  Small breed dogs tend to have significantly longer lives than the bigger breeds.

Mine is 6lbs! He can fit in some of my pockets. And yes, he'll likely live to 18ish. Still not long enough.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #116 on: February 18, 2020, 05:20:00 PM »
It's sad but it is probably our first taste as humans with love, acceptance and mortality. So in that way it is maybe more meaningful than artificially extending their lives, or buying clones of the animal etc.

“It's inevitable when you buy the pet. You're supposed to know it in the pet shop. It's going to end badly. You are purchasing a small tragedy,” – George Carlin

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #117 on: February 18, 2020, 05:24:44 PM »
As far as diet, I do NOT eat an optimal diet. But I would say my father (except for his whiskey, and for most of his life cigarettes) has a pretty amazing diet. He and my grandmother grew up in Greece on the family farm. Very little processed foods (other than things like cheese, olives, pasta). He shops a fraction of the grocery store, prefers to cook his own meals and his meals while simple are so delicious. Meals are social and joyful. There's no deprivation.
Some things he does.
If you have something like a whole chicken use all of it. So for example a whole chicken the organ meat would be eaten, perhaps fried on the side as a meze. The juices would be saved either for the main meal (such as chicken with orzo) or to make stock for a later meal. 
Lots of produce. Almost always some form of salad with the meal (something seasonal), as well as vegetables as part of the meal. Both the amount of meat, and the size of the meal is smaller than an american meal. But more satisfying because you have the salad, and olives, and bread, and a glass a wine. Not low calorie: however the fats are from (smaller than typical amount of meat or fish), and liberal use of olive oil. Also sometimes from cheese (such as feta on the salad). There is bread and plenty of carbs. Greeks are not afraid of carbs! but you don't eat dessert after every meal. Desserts like baklava is a special occasion food. (They do have these koulourakia, more like biscuits (less sweet), or paximathia that you have daily with coffee.  He eats extremely well, really delicious food. Just none of the crap that Americans eat a ton of (which I am also guilty of eating!) My Dad's cousin's father, is over a hundred. He grew up eating a similar diet. 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 06:13:53 PM by partgypsy »

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8967
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #118 on: February 18, 2020, 05:58:46 PM »

Plans are not concrete things.
Plans are dynamic and change as reality changes.

"Plans are useless but planning is indispensable."   -- Dwight Eisenhower

Missy B

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #119 on: February 18, 2020, 09:52:08 PM »
I'm planning financially for early to mid-90s and will spend these next 50 years trying to make sure I can utilize assisted suicide when needed. 

Many medical advances that have extended life recently have done just that...extended the duration of life.  But the quality of life?  They don't always go hand in hand.  I'm not confident medical advances over the next few decades will change that, and on this topic I really enjoyed Atul Gawande's book Being Mortal

Raises the point of 'disability-free' life expectancy. The article below pegs it around 68, and i thought i'd found research that put it at 72 (but don't feel like looking for it). I rarely see DF life-expectancy mentioned in discussions around aging.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/disability-free-life-expectancy-686-years-statscan-says/article1025005/

Missy B

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #120 on: February 18, 2020, 09:59:23 PM »
I'm probably going to get type II diabetes according to 23andme, due to European heritage, not sure what that means for my longevity.

Right now I'm dealing with intestinal/autoimmune type issues so I'm not really placing bets on my longevity right now.  Hopefully these issues resolve soon but it's possible that they won't.
You know that you can't  get type II diabetes from genetics alone right? And that *everyone* who gets fat enough gets Type II? With good diet and exercise, that won't become an issue. Granted your other issues may make that tough.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17614
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #121 on: February 19, 2020, 04:05:32 AM »
It's sad but it is probably our first taste as humans with love, acceptance and mortality. So in that way it is maybe more meaningful than artificially extending their lives, or buying clones of the animal etc.

“It's inevitable when you buy the pet. You're supposed to know it in the pet shop. It's going to end badly. You are purchasing a small tragedy,” – George Carlin

Yeah, I know. I've had a lot of dogs. I typically rescue senior dogs who have serious medical issues. I've done the whole dog death thing a bunch of times.

I was just being silly because my dog is cool.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #122 on: February 19, 2020, 07:23:58 AM »
It's sad but it is probably our first taste as humans with love, acceptance and mortality. So in that way it is maybe more meaningful than artificially extending their lives, or buying clones of the animal etc.

“It's inevitable when you buy the pet. You're supposed to know it in the pet shop. It's going to end badly. You are purchasing a small tragedy,” – George Carlin

Yeah, I know. I've had a lot of dogs. I typically rescue senior dogs who have serious medical issues. I've done the whole dog death thing a bunch of times.

I was just being silly because my dog is cool.

I know what you mean. I've had 2 dogs who were really special in my life. One died before her time and yeah I would have done anything to make her healthy and live longer if there was something I could have done. Irrational but that's how I felt.


partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #123 on: February 19, 2020, 07:29:13 AM »
Going on another detour but something my yiayia did when she was in Greece, was in spring you would go up the mountains and collect various greens to eat (most popular being dandelion greens but there is a whole host of them), and various herbs and their flowers to make tea from. This is a popular one.
It was done because spring was a relatively lean time as well as during Lent. But who knows maybe we will find out those various herbs and greens are good for you.

https://www.superfoodly.com/greek-mountain-tea-ironwort-sideritis/

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Interesting interview on the implications of technology on longevity, occupations, and investment allocation going forward:

https://mebfaber.com/2017/04/12/episode-47-ric-edelman-47-occupations-america-will-gone-within-15-years/

kanga1622

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
I will plan for the possibility of a long life but it probably isn’t in my cards. I lost my mom when I was 22 and my dad when I was 34. My mom’s side is rampant with cancer and I am considered quite high risk. My dad’s side has heart issues, dementia, and diabetes.

But I’d rather save too much on the chance that I need to retire earlier than planned due to health. And DH is the spender so leaving him extra is not a bad thing. I want to make sure that either one of us would have a comfortable retirement with only one pension check coming in.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20809
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
My family is long lived on both sides so I factored that into my retirement plans. 

dcheesi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
Dad's 93. Still living at home (with help), though that may change soon. Of course he's the oldest on either side of my extended family at this point, so no telling if I'll have the same luck.

What concerns me more than sheer lifespan is the difficulty of planning and saving adequately to cover increasing care needs as one ages. From recent family experience, I've seen that things can go on a long time without much change in independence, etc., only to come crashing down all at once, or in quick succession like a string of dominoes. And then it's difficult or impossible to predict how long one will be in need of continuing care.

BTDretire

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3074

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.


 Up until Covid, I met for breakfast twice a week with a group of guys aged from 70 to 95yrs old. I'm the baby at 65 yrs old. The 95 years old still drives daily, he eats almost every meal out. He's trying to make it to 100 so he gets his letter from the president.
 I'm closer buddies with one that is 80 years young, he is a technical guy and we discuss and build radio related projects. He's still very sharp and I often rely on him for my computer problems, also he does research, I modeled my last computer build after his, he sent me his parts list.
 Still life to go after 80.
 I'm planning for 90+, my mom lived to 84, dad died at 74, but dad had a hard early life and then worked in some industries that were not good for health. He had his first heart attack at 43yrs old and a couple more after that. Both of my parents smoked. At 65 I have no signs of heart disease.
 I'm starting late getting serious about taking care of my health, but I hope it helps.

BTDretire

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3074
I just received an email about lifespan. It was originally a Wall Street Journal article, but it's behind a paywall. So even though a little long, I'll post it here.

Lifespan
We May Not Have to Age So Fast

By David A Sinclair and Matthew LaPlante
Some researchers believe we may be able to slow down—and even turn back—the clock that governs aging in our cells. Here is the latest that Matt and I originally wrote in the WSJ on why that could change pretty much everything.

We all age chronologically with the passage of time, but what about our bodies? Is physiological aging inevitable too? A growing cadre of biologists is starting to say no, thanks to developments in the field of epigenetics, which studies not our DNA itself but the processes that determine how our genes “express” themselves in directing our cells throughout our lives.

If you think of your inherited genetics, your DNA, as a piano keyboard, then epigenetics determines how the keys play music. The primary players in this concert are molecular substances that affix to our genome and leave markers. These markers, in turn, give cells specialized functions and regulate how they function. If too many markers accumulate—if there is too much “epigenetic noise”--the directions become muddled, and the cells become dysfunctional.

Over the past decade, researchers have learned that these markers can offer a remarkably accurate measurement of biological age, to within a few years. That insight has been quickly followed by growing evidence for a more startling idea: That the epigenetic markers don’t just measure aging but help to cause it.

When researchers at the Harvard Medical School’s Sinclair Lab (run by one of this article’s co-authors, Dr. Sinclair) added epigenetic accretions to the genomes of young mice in 2015, the mice experienced an accelerated loss of muscle and bone mass, turned gray, lost sight and became more easily confused. The mice’s birthdays didn’t change compared with their siblings, only their epigenomes did.

We suffer from aging, in short, as a side effect of a primeval program that helps to regulate and repair our cells.
The results of that experiment and others like it are helping solidify an “information theory” of aging, which says that an accumulation of epigenetic noise interferes with genetic data. The chaos eventually causes cells to become senescent and stop reproducing and influences adjacent cells to do the same. That is the experience we have come to know as aging.

The origins of this process can be found in the earliest era of microscopic life on earth. Simple organisms evolved signals to reproduce cells when conditions were favorable and to shut down and attend to any damage when conditions were poor.

We suffer from aging, in short, as a side effect of a primeval program that helps to regulate and repair our cells. In this way, aging is not unlike cancer, which some scientists believe also initially evolved as a survival mechanism, allowing cells to abandon higher functionality in order to proliferate unchecked.

Before we knew why cancer happens, we considered it just a part of life. Now, we correctly call cancer a disease—a bug, not a feature—and fight against it with all our might. We don’t generally regard aging in the same way, but we should. After all, what is a disease but a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally? That’s exactly what aging does.

Indeed, aging might rightfully be called “the mother of all diseases.” Consider: While smoking increases the risk of getting cancer several-fold, simply being 50 years old increases cancer risk more than 100 times over people who are a few decades younger. By the age of 70, it is more than 500 times. Aging is also a major factor in heart disease, dementia, stroke and Type 2 diabetes.

If we were to cure any one of these diseases, we might increase the average human lifespan by only a few years. Why? Because the risk of all of those other diseases would continue to increase, thanks to the driving force of aging. But reduce them all, by addressing conditions at the cellular level, and the potential for extending productive, healthy human lives is much more significant.

The notion of a world in which we could slow, stop or reverse aging is very foreign to us, so a high degree of skepticism is warranted. But there is no law of biology that says we must age at the rate at which we do now. Some other forms of life don’t. The bristlecone pine can survive for 5,000 years and does not appear to experience aging. The jellyfish known as Turritopsis dohrnii is made up of cells that can reverse course to become juvenile cells, and seems to be functionally immortal. Humans don’t have much in common with either of those species, of course. But closer to us on the tree of life is the Greenland shark, which can live to 500 years. Closer still is the bowhead whale, a fellow mammal that outlives us by a century.

If something as complex as a retina can be rebooted to a youthful state, what else can?

We now know that epigenetic markers of deterioration and aging can accumulate from unhealthy inputs: for instance, if our DNA is damaged by overexposure to sun or if we eat poorly or smoke. End those behaviors and cell deterioration slows. Better yet: If we can reboot the cell, we would have the potential to stem or even reverse cellular aging. It would allow an older body to heal and to fight against age-related diseases more like young people do.

At the Salk Institute in San Diego, researchers in the lab of Juan Carlos Belmonte showed in a 2016 study published in the journal Cell that the lifespan of mice suffering from premature aging could be extended by 30% by transiently turning on four genes that are known to wipe away accumulated epigenetic markers and induce “pluripotency,” the ability of a cell to develop into any other form of cell in an adult body. By partially resetting the program, the mice seem to have experienced a taste of what life is like as an immortal jellyfish.

In the Sinclair lab at Harvard, researchers administered a combination of three genes to blind old mice and turned the genes on for three weeks. The treatment rejuvenated their optic nerve cells and restored their vision. If something as complex as a retina can be rebooted to a youthful state, potentially multiple times, what else can?

___
 

Dr. Sinclair, Dr. Belmonte and Steven Horvath at UCLA have started a company to develop medicines for eye diseases based on this science, and Dr. Sinclair has been involved in other such commercial ventures. But to be clear, there is a great distance between what can be done with mice in a lab and what can be done to help humans fight diseases and extend their healthy years. And the “healthy” part is vitally important: You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to lengthen human lives if we cannot substantially improve the part of life that is lived free of debilitating diseases.

Dr. Horvath and his colleagues at UCLA recently published a small study of human subjects in the journal Aging Cell. They reported that nine patients treated with a cocktail of three molecules—growth hormone, DHEA, and metformin—experienced an epigenetic age reversal, shedding two years off their biological ages.

There was no control group, and the results must be considered preliminary unless larger, more rigorous studies replicate the results. But it is no longer completely crazy to talk about having birthdays in reverse.

This article was first published in the Wall Street Journal here

Cited papers:

    Reversal of ageing- and injury-induced vision loss by Tet-dependent epigenetic reprogramming
    In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks by Partial Reprogramming
    Erosion of the Epigenetic Landscape and Loss of Cellular Identity as a Cause of Aging in Mammals — Also on Cell Sneak Peek here
    DNA Break-Induced Epigenetic Drift as a Cause of Mammalian Aging — Also on Cell Sneak Peek here
    Epigenetic changes during aging and their reprogramming potential

Dancin'Dog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Location: Here & There
Glad I found this thread.  PTF

FarFetchd

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 23
This is a really interesting question to consider for FIRE planning. Although this thread has been more about discussing the question of whether we'll see such medical advances, I thought I'd chime in with a point on the financial side that I haven't seen anyone else mention: the financial impact on FIRE people of a big longevity breakthrough would be the "capital depletion vs preservation" issue on steroids.

The Trinity study assumes a 30 year retirement, and targets capital depletion, meaning ending with $1 is a success, meaning a huge swathe of outcomes it considers "successful" would actually be disastrous for a typical young-ish FIREee. (And the problem isn't just with a strawman case of $1; e.g. if after 30 years you're down to half, you're now looking at a non-starter 8% WR for your next 30 years). So, going with the 4% rule is already pretty risky for the younger crowd here, but if you think there's any non-negligible chance of lifespan breakthroughs, that risk gets extended to pretty much everyone (and amplified for young people).

While it's no fun to have to accept a lower SWR, there's a surprisingly nice silver lining once you have: a 100% capital preservation target only slightly harder than a capital depletion target. ERN analyzed it here: https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/14/the-ultimate-guide-to-safe-withdrawal-rates-part-2-capital-preservation-vs-capital-depletion/. That means you should remain nice and secure if lifespans get extended. If they don't, you can endow some scholarships or parks or whatever, so that's nice too!

Ok, and now for a random other direction: what about the possibility that life extension technology is developed, but remains pretty expensive for a pretty long time? (And is not seen as a mandatory thing that insurance/governments must pay for). It's basically unplannable for, since there's no way to know how likely it is, or how much exactly it would cost. So probably best just to ignore it... or maybe accept that you might not get to partake! Anyways, it's an interesting but ugly possibility.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
The danger is to look at the curve of progression of life expectancy and conclude that its trend of gradual flattening out will continue.

What guys like Mellon & Edelman are saying is that the research into biotech and genetics will deliver a bump to break out of this stagnating trend. 

People born today will typically live to 120-150 because of the advances made within their lifetime.. to deliver quite possibly the biggest leapt in overall life expectancy and quality of living since the formation germ theory and discovery of the micro-organism.

That would indeed be a new paradigm.


vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
I just received an email about lifespan. It was originally a Wall Street Journal article, but it's behind a paywall. So even though a little long, I'll post it here.

Lifespan
We May Not Have to Age So Fast

By David A Sinclair and Matthew LaPlante

Some good presentations/interviews with this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF5yl9OGKzw

Dancin'Dog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Location: Here & There
The danger is to look at the curve of progression of life expectancy and conclude that its trend of gradual flattening out will continue.

What guys like Mellon & Edelman are saying is that the research into biotech and genetics will deliver a bump to break out of this stagnating trend. 

People born today will typically live to 120-150 because of the advances made within their lifetime.. to deliver quite possibly the biggest leapt in overall life expectancy and quality of living since the formation germ theory and discovery of the micro-organism.

That would indeed be a new paradigm.




That's what I think is likely to occur too.  I think we are on the cusp of reaching a point where the question will become "how long can you "afford" to live?".  Of course, there have always been people that can never afford to retire.  There will be ethical challenges of creating some kind of value sociotial value for an increasing elderly population, and/or people will just have to learn to maximize their saving & investing more effectively than in previous generations.   


I hate to say it, but I believe generational wealth will be increasingly important, at least in the short term while society figures out how to allow for, and support an increasing elderly population.  Hopefully, increasing the span of our mental & physical youthfulness will also be part of the medical miracles that develop.  Otherwise too many worthless old folks will become a major problem, which I believe is already an issue for many.  I mean how many years of playing bridge and bingo do we really want to face? 


The "miracle of compound interest" is the best solution that I know of for incorporating along with the medical miracles.  It the basis of the FIRE movement and seems like it will be increasingly important for the "Living too Damn Long" movement too. 

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
Loved this story:

Quote
Up until Covid, I met for breakfast twice a week with a group of guys aged from 70 to 95yrs old. I'm the baby at 65 yrs old. The 95 years old still drives daily, he eats almost every meal out. He's trying to make it to 100 so he gets his letter from the president.
 I'm closer buddies with one that is 80 years young, he is a technical guy and we discuss and build radio related projects. He's still very sharp and I often rely on him for my computer problems, also he does research, I modeled my last computer build after his, he sent me his parts list.
 Still life to go after 80.
 I'm planning for 90+, my mom lived to 84, dad died at 74, but dad had a hard early life and then worked in some industries that were not good for health. He had his first heart attack at 43yrs old and a couple more after that. Both of my parents smoked. At 65 I have no signs of heart disease.
 I'm starting late getting serious about taking care of my health, but I hope it helps.

I'm planning to live to 110-120. I have a few lifelong skills I'm working on and the mastery I could achieve with that amount of time excites me.

I often think my posts don't resonate here on MMM. I see a lot of conventional thinking around aging (and everything else) and when I push back on that people just go ahead and list all their bad beliefs and anecdotal evidence.

Personally I consider aging to be my secret weapon, my super power. I fucking love it! My mind is so much stronger than it used to be.

Sinclair has been talking about life extension for a while. I don't know that I agree with his supplementation ideas (they reassure me that the diabetics in my family may find some additional life extension benefit from taking metformin -- but I'm not gonna start taking it myself).

Shawn Achor in his book The Happiness Advantage describes a study where they "reversed time" for a bunch of 80-something guys by having them live in a fake environment meant to evoke their 50s. They measured a bunch of physical markers (eye sight, heart rate, strength, etc) and saw improvements in all after the experiment was over. Now, did they reverse time? What I take away from that is that mental state may represent some fraction of your aging experience. So if you improve that, you not only "reverse" the limitations, you create the conditions/motivation to improve them (eyesight, posture, strength, flexibility, acuity).

Another study I *loved* was about pain. It turns out pain is a message to DO something. The message is correlated to the urgency. So if your arm is ripped off in battle, shock and the situation may not send a pain message. Getting out alive is the priority. But this PT tells a story of a guy writhing in pain due to shooting a nail in his boot -- they X-ray the boot and it turns out the nail went between his toes. The point of this video? He says try to never find out if you have an "issue" in your joints/bones. You will fixate on it and now your mind has a focal point that it may decide is a weakness. The truth is, all our spines are degenerating from age 20 -- but back pain often does not correlate to injury. You may see one person in agony from an "injury" where 1000s of asymptomatics walk around fine with that same compression. (I have experienced debilitating back pain many times in my life, so done research on this. Also, I had a dog who got back pain a few times, so I don't doubt that acute injuries can cause it.)

Having said all this, I am not certain "life extension" exists. One reason is animal life spans. Now, if someone could point to pets or captive animal lifespans lengthening beyond the simple advantage of captivity, I'd find that convincing. E.g., why aren't dogs living to 20 now? I think senescence is inevitable and programmed around 100 for humans. But living in captivity is allowing many more of us to achieve that. It also could be human population density that is allowing it -- I do not know if the *rate* of centenarians is higher, or just the number.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2020, 10:40:15 AM by Fru-Gal »

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
People aren’t going to start living past 100 on a regular basis. Bodies wear out. 2 of my grandparents died from old age at 90.  I am 65 and I have lost 5 friends from cancer in their 60’s. All lived active, healthy lifestyles.

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
  • Location: UK
Loved this story:

Quote
Up until Covid, I met for breakfast twice a week with a group of guys aged from 70 to 95yrs old. I'm the baby at 65 yrs old. The 95 years old still drives daily, he eats almost every meal out. He's trying to make it to 100 so he gets his letter from the president.
 I'm closer buddies with one that is 80 years young, he is a technical guy and we discuss and build radio related projects. He's still very sharp and I often rely on him for my computer problems, also he does research, I modeled my last computer build after his, he sent me his parts list.
 Still life to go after 80.
 I'm planning for 90+, my mom lived to 84, dad died at 74, but dad had a hard early life and then worked in some industries that were not good for health. He had his first heart attack at 43yrs old and a couple more after that. Both of my parents smoked. At 65 I have no signs of heart disease.
 I'm starting late getting serious about taking care of my health, but I hope it helps.

I'm planning to live to 110-120. I have a few lifelong skills I'm working on and the mastery I could achieve with that amount of time excites me.

I often think my posts don't resonate here on MMM. I see a lot of conventional thinking around aging (and everything else) and when I push back on that people just go ahead and list all their bad beliefs and anecdotal evidence.

Personally I consider aging to be my secret weapon, my super power. I fucking love it! My mind is so much stronger than it used to be.


that's a great attitude to have. I agree that with age and the benefits of practical experience we become better versions of ourselves. We learn from our mistakes, learn what's important and what doesn't matter. I am much better today with many aspects of living a balanced life because I've learnt the virtues of patience, perseverance, and continual discipline. In my youth I had no patience, thought I knew everything and although I had a lot of knowledge and technical ability, I did not yet have the element of wisdom that tied it all together.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
I have a couple of centenarians in my recent family tree - pretty much everyone who didn't smoke or die in combat made it into their late nineties, early hundreds.

As for planning, I just make the optimistic assumption that FI means FI in perpetuity - follow the 4% rule, don't live in a country that defines health care as a profit centre for fleecing the rubes on their way out the door, and you will be fine.

4tify

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
I'm 53 and for my entire life I've seen claims that we're all going to live to 150. But when I look around me, it's not happening.

My family is a mixed bag. Dad died at 70, Mom is still kicking at 80. One grandma lived to 99, and an uncle is 89. All the rest went in their 70-80's.

I figure if I make it to 99 I got the genetic jackpot. But mostly it looks like I'll be lucky to make it to 90. And if--in 10 years--I feel better than ever, well then maybe I'll try to earn some more dough :)

Dancin'Dog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Location: Here & There
There are miracles that they're working on.  The quantum computers will crack some magic codes to things like turning off the aging gene, and cures for cancer, and everything else that goes wrong. 


All that will be left is suicide, murder, or getting run over by a bus. 


 

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
There are miracles that they're working on.  The quantum computers will crack some magic codes to things like turning off the aging gene, and cures for cancer, and everything else that goes wrong. 


All that will be left is suicide, murder, or getting run over by a bus.

So we'll live forever because quantum computers...

That sounds a little pie in the sky even compared to the large number of people in this thread who view 100+ as reasonable.

The technology that would be implemented on a practical level would need to be developed and commercialized prior to your death in order for any of this to be possible. We all are probably going to live a typical human lifespan relative to a current developed country. Sure toss in 95 for being an outlier or 110 if you feel that way. But to start planning now for life expectancy vastly greater than what is currently happening is silly without any technologies actually developed that do anything to extend it.

Sure researchers are doing great work. But that's the research phase. People have been talking life extension for a looooong time. And what has come of it? Nothing.

I will comfortably plan around a slightly greater than average life expectancy and not worry about it. If a magical quantum computer developed pill arrives I'm sure I won't be able to afford it.

ChickenStash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Location: Midwest US
Being a fan of XKCD...


Title text: A technology that is '20 years away' will be 20 years away indefinitely.

I don't put a lot of faith in finding a miracle cure for aging or cancer in my lifetime. We do have ways to lower the incidence of the other major killers if people choose to use them. So, as long as I live a fairly healthy lifestyle then my family tends to live to the late 70s so I'm planning on making it to the mid-80s.

Dancin'Dog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Location: Here & There
You guys need to watch more SyFy channel.  Once they've figured out the transporter they will be able to beam you up younger.  Elon Musk said that's on his project list.  ;)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17592
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
As a biologist, I reject the notion that advances in biotechnology will allow most people to live well past 100 years old, particularly for those of us that have already passed our 30th birthday, given that these advances are still decades away from market (if they ever materialize).

Regardless, our retirement plan is (IME) so conservative that the most likely scenario is we hit our 80th birthday with far more money than we retired with, adjusted for inflation.  From there (having far more money at age 80) it's almost a foregone conclusion that we could continue our existence well into the early 100s.  Kitces has some great info about how spending actually decreases in retirement, offsetting the substantial increase in healthcare costs.

IN other words, if you are already planning for a 40+ year retirement, your 'stache is well protected from being depleted, and the most likely outcome is that you could draw from it for as long as you are alive, regardless of how long that is.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Spending in retirement initially goes up when people are younger and healthier. It declines often in the 70’s due to less travel, etc but HC costs go up.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17592
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
One of three posts on the subject, if you are interested:
https://www.kitces.com/blog/age-banding-by-basu-to-model-retirement-spending-needs-by-category/

Of note: ...while health care expenses do ramp up in the later years, health care expenditures overall are still only a relatively moderate percentage of the retiree’s total spending, falling roughly in the 15% – 20% range, and not even fully replacing the decreases in spending in the other categories (such that total spending in a retiree’s 80s is still more than 20% below where it was at the beginning of retirement). In other words, health care expenses really do rise in the later years of retirement, but not enough to raise total spending in the later years of retirement!

Of course this may differ for individuals living into their 100s with biogenic treatments.  Regardless, the broader point is that planning for a 40+ year retirement and a 60+ year retirement are likely not appreciably different - whatever 'FI number' you start with will likely grow if your relevant time-frame is >30 years and you are planning on drawing primarily or exclusively from your 'stache.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4583
  • Age: 51
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
If it becomes the norm to live beyond 100 within the next 50 years, my stash is probably going to be amongst the least of my concerns.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17592
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
If it becomes the norm to live beyond 100 within the next 50 years, my stash is probably going to be amongst the least of my concerns.
What will be among your top concerns if others start living longer?

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20809
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
If it becomes the norm to live beyond 100 within the next 50 years, my stash is probably going to be amongst the least of my concerns.
What will be among your top concerns if others start living longer?
Over crowding. Rising cost and competition for housing, food, space, health care, water and other resources. Destruction of the environment and habitat. Pool boy scarcity.

Won't be scarce, just older.     ;-)