The grapes of youth

If science subscribed to the way politics or entertainment fed the media about its breakthroughs, the press conference on the latest on the human quest for the fountain of youth will probably look like this. Lights ablaze, paparazzi all over the place, news teams with their camera lenses agape, the anticipative drum roll and the lead scientist holding the microphone announcing "Ladies and Gentlemen of the press, cast your eyes on the fountain of youth!" Curtains open, and no one sees anything until they notice three mice scurrying on stage.

First mouse is one I will name "Happy Hicky." Happy Hicky seems to be a pretty level-headed fellow, notwithstanding that you think he utters the occasional "hic!" which makes his rounded tummy bob up. In the real world of science, he would belong to the group of mice that David Sinclair and Joseph Baur of Harvard Medical School and Rafael de Cabo at the National Institute on Aging, have subjected to their experiment. In their study, recently published in the journal Nature, they fed these mice with resveratrol, a substance found in red wine and this seems to have foiled the affects of calorie-rich diets and even significantly extended the life span of the mice compared to the control group of mice who were not fed the grapes of youth. The mechanism of what resveratrol actually does to the cells that normally experience wear and tear as years pass, especially on calorie-rich diets, is still unclear and is still the subject of scientific debate that the scientists have enough trouble among themselves sorting for now. You in the audience might now be wondering if you should start having that drink or two with every meal. But the scientists warn that the human equivalent dose of resveratrol that they gave to the mice would mean not a glass or two a day, not even a bottle or two but somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 bottles of red wine a day! There is yet no pill that contains synthesized resveratrol that humans can take in the dosage that was found effective on mice. So you are forced to rethink your strategy of staying young forever, remembering Uncle Frank who, at 50, drank himself to oblivion with only 24 bottles a day.

Next mouse is one I will call "Calorie Anorexy." She was forced to go on a diet by the scientists who have proven in their study that restricting the calorie intake to 30 percent less than the normal (but retaining all the needed vitamins) extends life span by about 50 percent. Calorie Anorexy represents all the mice in numerous experiments starting 1935, that have demonstrated that indeed starving mice this much, tricks specified genes to make the metabolic activity they code for, favor the extension of life. Explanations point to the natural reaction of the body to slow down in reaction to what it perceives as a season of famine, choosing a mode to ride it out, till things are aplenty again. This "riding out" period is the length of time that accounts for extended life. Again, if you in the audience think that this is a proven way for humans, think again. No human experiment has yet demonstrated that starving yourself will make you forever young. In strict scientific terms, if you follow the footsteps of ramp goddess Calorie Anorexy, you may have a self-esteem problem since you perceive yourself to be a mouse, specifically a caged mouse in the many sterile labs of scientists who study the aging process.

Third mouse is Yoda (really named such). He is the oldest mouse in a lab who ever lived. He was the star in the lab of Dr. Richard Miller of the University of Michigan. Yoda died on April 23, 2004 having lived for four years and 12 days. This is highly impressive as a one-year-old mouse is already considered to be in mid-life. It is, to date, the longest living mouse on record that has been the subject of an experiment to slow the aging process. Yoda was never put on a diet nor made to take to the bottle, but rather was a product of Dr. Miller’s careful selection of genes that made Yoda stay small and live longer. Miller wanted to prove the role of genes in the aging process- that some are just born to age more slowly. Yoda lived to his ripe old age, dispensing the most profound wisdom, in the way that rodents do, sniffing his partner, who else, but Princess Leia.

So far, I have not come across studies that have subjected mice to a cocktail of all three – red wine, calorie reduction, and genetic selection. But if this is done and successful, the resulting mighty mice group will be the supermodels gracing the cover of many glossy rodent magazines. These mice would probably even expand their careers by inventing new formats to dull our senses like what humans do now to entertain other humans – host reality mouse shows.

Nothing could probably send young or young-looking beautiful human models on the ramp screaming their heads off than the presence of three scurrying mice. But metaphorically, that is what science is to this deeply human as well as industry-fed obsession to stay young for the longest possible time. Science is the mouse that drives away the feel-good but nebulous haze that cosmetic industries spray on our consciousness.

No scientist objects vehemently to the claims of anti-aging potions and methods than 78-year-old Dr. Leonard Hayflick, a professor of anatomy at the University of California in San Francisco and has done in-depth studies on aging for over three decades, even founding the council of the National Institute of Aging. In 1965, he discovered what we now call the Hayflick limit – the limit in the number of divisions that cells undergo before dying. The limit is around 50 and the human limit stands at 52. This seems to be related to the shortening of the "tails" (telomeres) in the cells as they divide. Dr. Hayflick is not merely against the prospect of stopping, reversing or delaying the aging process in humans. He is against the current claims that we now have in our midst, the mechanisms to do so. In Christopher Waniek’s Livescience.com’s column last July 11, he got this statement from Hayflick: "There is no intervention that has been proven to slow, stop or reverse aging. Period." So if your know of any endeavor – big business or cottage industry – that would not be shy to stand the scrutiny of the Professor who has been studying "aging" or the examination by the rest of the scientists who crave for evidence that applies to humans, go offer the claimed ways and products of those industries and probably get a lifetime’s worth of those products for free, if they work!

In the same Livescience column, Waniek cites Walter Bortz, of Stanford University Medical School and past president of the American Geriatric Society, on the matter of physical decline associated with aging. At the very least, Bortz said that starting at age 30, we lose .5 percent vitality per year. That dictum was based on the performance of professional athletes at their prime. For the rest of us lesser mortals, we are looking at over .5 percent decline per year.

I have already written a few columns on what I think about the reality and the desirability of staying young forever. I personally despise being stuck anywhere, not even in youth. In my twenties, I discovered the many freedoms in being alive. Now at 40, I have moved beyond merely enjoying those freedoms – I know now what they mean. I do not think twice before putting my age in print because my very own cells do not consider it a big guarded secret. The real secret, I think, is not in the delay of age but how to hold it in a graceful embrace. Not that I am a picture of grace but I pick my battles and based on what we know so far, I will not wage a futile battle for eternal youth with my very own cells.

* * *

For comments, e-mail [email protected]