Old On Purpose

The passing (ok,death) of Andy Rooney offers me the opportunity to share (again) one of my favorite quotes about aging. I am pretty sure that Mr. Rooney said this circa 2007 (it was before I started using the blog site for my "news"). He made the comment in response to something Bill O'Reilly (a Fox news commentator) had said. I do not remember their tiff but I do know that I shared the quote when it happened.  It was...

That wasn't very nice Bill.  I did not get old on purpose.  It just happened.  If you're lucky it will happen to you too.

The truth is - there are different ways of aging.  Social scientists differentiate ways of getting old by the terms "usual aging" and "successful aging."  The distinction should matter to you.  What is usual in your mind, the stereotype of aging, is not considered successful or even normal.  There is no science to support that substantial physical, mental and social decline must occur as one gets older.  Nor do people have to become diseased.  Recall the recent interview with the chair of the NCD group.  He said the phrase "diseases of aging" was a misconception - he called it wrong - a lie.
Successful aging is possible and to be "lucky" enough to experience it, one must begin taking care of themselves NOW.  I say now because that is what I mean.  If you are reading this and you are 20 years old, there are things you need to do and not do at this time.  If you are 80, sorry, same rule applies.  Successful aging, as opposed to "getting old" does NOT just happen, 'bill.'  There is some luck to it, genewise but a helluva a lot more of it involves intention.
 

 

Silly Kids, that Wii is for Grandma

It should not surprise you to hear that the best way to keep the mind sharp as we grow older is to USE IT. It has been ten or more years since Gerontology folks began discussing neurobics, universal design, lifelong learning and exercise for elders. It is likely that studies on aging and how to make aging less debilitating have a lot to do with the massive greying of America and that many of those aging baby boomers are politicians. OK by me, the end result would be the same. Research that leads to less physical and mental decline in those that I love and in myself. (oh silly me, it isn't the research that can protect us from "bad" aging, it is actually following the recommendations made because of that research - ha . ha. ha ..hahahaha ... good luck with that one)

We have known that diet and physical activity matter. We know that staying involved with people and engaged in life promotes well being and can improve cognitive functioning. (cognition is thought, thinking, mental activities)

It looks like a few Universities are being funded to study the effects of video games on the aging brain. Some are using off the shelf games while others are indeed using the Wii. The Wii has the added bonus of including physical activity which increases heart rate and can help to improve cardiovascular and physical function as well as mental status. Ironically, my MOM just got back from a trip where she was playing boxing with her great grand daughter.

So sharpen your pencils and do the crossword, play mind teasers, go for walks, eat fish, play Wii bowling, ride a bike, learn a new sport (pickle ball anyone?), use Rosetta Stone, travel, take a dance class........... live a little and then live long. :)

and by all means, if one of the research studies comes to your town, participate! It isn't like they are asking you to take a drug - nothing to risk here - so play, play, play

I didn't find a specific link to the video game research, but here is a link to the Prevention Research Centers affiliated with the CDC

Disappointed

I am naive to think that a magazine would turn down advertiser dollars out of principal. Still, I wish that Runner's World Magazine would 1) have less ads for automobiles and 2) not have run the ad for a supplement that I have spent the last 30 minutes trying to research.

It is called Lurosil and unfortunately, all my usual trusted sources have no mention of it. That leaves me with the general Internet and even there, the only references to the product are on the products own website. The last place one should go to vet a product is the products website. I already know that the claims are bunk and the product is at the least ineffective and at the most harmful. But I have no proof.

What should keep you from buying this product is how it is advertised, the claims that are made and the lack of research to support its use. The ad is made to look like a health or fitness column where someone has written in to this person named Julie. There is no information provided to attest to what if any education or credentials this Julie has. The writer talks about having a bad knee or ankle or some joint, where the cartilage is damaged or tendons and ligaments strained and such. The writer heard about this product and tried it and it was awesome and they were writing to see where to find more. So Julie says that yes this Lusorsil is available and is awesome! It can lubricate, strengthen and cushion the joints. Lurisol, she says, contains ingredients that can do certain things to improve joint health and longevity. ,Now as I have warned you guys before, just because something contains an ingredient that was found to be helpful in some amount in some formula does not mean that the PRODUCT they are selling will do the same. The most outlandish statement in the ad is that the supplement is completely safe and all natural. Bullshit. That is my scientific, educated response to that statement.

Of course, the ad also has a little asterisk which might have you seek the fine print at the bottom. That is the print that tells you that the statements and the product have NOT been evaluated by the FDA and the product isn't meant to treat or cure anything. Well, if it isn't going to cure or treat your problem why in the heck would you take it. And if it were effective, then it WOULD be a medicine and would have FDA approval. (remember that FDA approval requires research studies of large numbers of persons who take a substance compared to a similar large number of persons who do not and a statistically significant difference between the two must be seen and must not be explained by chance. Supplements do not have to prove ANYTHING because they are not FDA approved or regulated. They can legally say it worked if one person benefited and that one person might have benefited from the placebo effect)

ah... sigh... I wear myself out.

Telomeres

I am getting back to this issue but it will be brief. Sorry, I got home late and I also cannot find one of my bank cards so I think I need to check my car and then call the bank - dang.

Okay. I wanted to write about telmores after that article last week that mentioned telomere length accompanied with younger looks might for tell longevity. I learned two or three things, but the main thing is that the study of aging is still very new and full of hypothesis. We have known for about a decade that a lot of our theories are out of date and incorrect. In fact, we know that the more we do even as we age, the more we will be able to do and that we don't really just wear out.

But telomeres are the tips or ends of our chromosomes. Chromosomes as you must remember from biology class are a part of the cell that contain blueprints or instructions on what cells are supposed to do. Telomeres are technically part of the chromosome but an expendable part. They are protecting the more valuable DNA. Cells divide. It is their job. Each time they do, the telomeres shortens. The hypothesis has been that this happens in all cells until the cell can no longer divide because the message can no longer be copied. The cell then dies. Many of our cells can divide about 50 times. Cancer cells divide uncontrollably because an enzyme that protects the telomeres is released, but that is another story.

In studies of whole populations, there is a link between shorter telomeres and aging, but NOW scientists are learning that individual differences are pronounced. Some persons have longer "tails" then others and sometimes the tails get longer and not shorter.

So I have learned that telomeres do have a place in senescence, but what they mean to each of us as we strive to spread out our active aging for as many years as we can is unknown.

Senescence is a word I had forgotten all about - and in the words of my Dad - I say, "go look it up."

Measuring Frailty - Does Testosterone Matter?

The results from a study titled Osteoporotic Fractures in Men, or a particular analysis of some of the measures (and men) in that study, was reported in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. I read an abbreviated report in Medscape this week.

Here is the bottom line as I understand it. [Men in the study were at least 65 years old with an average age of 75. They lived in communities, not nursing homes. The participants lived in several states across the country. The men were tested at baseline and four years later]

The scientists took certain biometric measures of the participants. This included their height, weight, BMI and fat percentage. Blood work was also completed. Specifically the men were tested for sex hormone levels and the sex hormone binding compound known as SHBG, the G stands for globulin.

The men were also put into categories based on five criteria. The categories were robust, intermediate and frail. The criteria for categorization were:
1) weakness - based on grip strength
2) slowness - based on walking speed
3) activity level- activity level was assessed for all men and the men in the lowest 20% met the criteria (you can see the criteria is for frailty not robustness!)
4) sarcopenia or shrinkage - meaning having a low lean body mass for their height and weight
5) and exhaustion - as measured by loss of breath or having to stop while walking short distances

If a man met three or more of the five he was said to be frail, if he met one or two then he was intermediate and the absence of any of the above meant he was robust.

The scientists expected to see some correlation between hormone levels and frailty. What they did find was that the men who met the frailty criteria at the start of the study, or at base line, WERE low in bioavailable testosterone.

No other hormone was related to frailty. Bioavailable testosterone is free or available for the body to use. Perhaps a lack of this BAT leads to muscle atrophy and weakness, but that was a hypothesis not a conclusion.

Four years later however, it wasn't testosterone levels that predicted frailty but having been frail OR older at the initial screening. If one is frail, he tends to stay frail and if he is older he is more likely to become frail. [this was not a study to see if frailty could be reversed, but I think it is possible that it could be]

From time one to time two, which was ONLY four years, about 11 % less men were robust, 5% less were intermediate and an additional 3% were frail. The most startling number of all, however, was that 12% had died.

I do not know what the prevention message can be except to say that some testosterone levels can be affected, i.e. lowered, by obesity, medications, injury and other conditions. If muscle strength and cardiovascular conditioning are the markers of frailty, then certainly, staying active and doing weight resistance exercises is paramount.