Forever Young Unlocking The Secrets of Longevity

By Brian Gibson

"Forever Young: Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity" is a mesmerizing journey that beckons readers to embark on a transformative quest, guiding them through the enchanting realm of aging gracefully and thriving in the later stages of life. Like a radiant beacon of hope, this book illuminates the path to a vibrant, purposeful life filled with boundless possibilities.

With each page, the book reveals the delicate tapestry of wisdom, science, and profound insights woven together to unlock the secrets of longevity. Its pages hold the keys to a treasure trove of knowledge, inviting readers to unlock the secrets within their hearts and minds. Drawing from positive psychology, emotional intelligence, self-empowerment, and mindful living, "Forever Young" unveils a harmonious symphony of practices leading to a life transcending the mere passage of time.

With every chapter, "Forever Young" offers a delicate balance of inspiration and practical guidance, empowering readers to embrace the present moment with mindfulness and gratitude. It encourages readers to cast aside the limitations of age and societal expectations, embracing a life that is limitless in its possibilities.

• Language: English
• Publisher: vincenzo nappi
• Release date: Jul 23, 2023
• ISBN: 9798223378211

Book preview

Chapter One

INtroduction

When Darwin proposed the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection, two significant problems weakened the grand theory's reliability. The first was the existence of insect species with social organization (bees, ants, termites, etc.). Suppose natural selection favors individuals with greater survivability (fitness) and reproductive success. How could it be explained that the worker individuals of these species nurtured the queens' offspring and did not procreate themselves? What possible selective mechanism could favor genes that result in such strange behavior? Darwin, the father of modern biology, did not know how to answer: as an improvised patch for a new fabulous dress with an ugly tear, he justified this by arguing that such behavior was favored because it was beneficial to the species (Darwin 1871). He was wrong, and a supposedly correct answer was discovered almost a century later, as will be discussed soon after.

The second problem was even more severe. For many species, Homo sapiens included, in the wild, the increase in chronological age is accompanied by a decline in fitness; that is, under natural conditions, mortality rates increase with age. Regarding this decline in fitness, described as old age in its most advanced expression (a terrible and well-known name), how was this explainable if it is true that natural selection favors the fittest to survive? Darwin had two possibilities, both complex and fraught with complications. The first (non-adaptive hypothesis) demanded the admission that natural selection could not favor fit genes to maintain stable fitness as age increased. Yet, how was it possible that natural selection, which is believed to have shaped the eye, the brain, the hand, and countless wonders in an endless array of animals, plants, fungi, and microbes, was unsuccessful in maintaining stable fitness in older ages? Moreover, if this was the explanation, how was it possible that this hypothetical inability of selection was more significant for those species that age more rapidly and less for other species that age more slowly or appear not to age at all?

The other possibility (adaptive hypothesis) was that this decline in fitness had some unknown evolutionary advantage. But this alternative seemed even more complicated: how could an early death be advantageous in evolutionary terms? Who could support such an idea without being confused or even worse? Darwin could not answer the second problem, Darwin's dilemma. A few years later, with extraordinary insight, August Weissmann attempted to formulate an answer. Unfortunately, he did not express a clear exposition, nor did he provide solid scientific evidence in mentioning that the early of individuals with greater age was beneficial since this gave more room for new generations and was therefore helpful for the evolution of the species. In short, Weissmann was a proponent of the adaptive fitness decline hypothesis, but in later years, he repudiated it. Furthermore, regarding the mechanism underlying this decline, he observed that the cells of the various organs and tissues were continuously renewed. When this turnover slowed or stopped, the organs and tissues saw their functionality reduced or lost, adversely affecting fitness.

His adaptive hypothesis was original but not firmly established from a theoretical point of view. What is more, as common experience attests, all inanimate objects deteriorate with time, and, therefore, why not assume that living beings were also subject to the same inexorable law? Indeed, common sense seems to strongly suggest that the non-adaptive hypothesis of fitness decline is correct, even if this requires the admission that natural selection cannot solve this particular problem. In contrast, the decline in the cell turnover mechanism hypothesized by Weissmann to explain the aging mechanism was easier to understand and accept. But even this hypothesis had bad luck for at least 70 years. Indeed, a distinguished Nobel Prize winner, Alexis Carrel, proved that cells explanted and then cultured in vitro multiplied an unlimited number of times, implying that the hypothesis of Weissmann was unfounded and unacceptable. Poor Weissmann, with his insights, seemed to fail every time!

But, in 1961, an obscure researcher, Leonard Hayflick, cultivated fibroblasts in vitro and discovered that they multiplied a limited number of times, a clear contrast to Carrels. He published his results after ruling out any factor as a possible cause of such an arrest in cell duplication. The influential scientific journal to which the article was submitted rejected it with the claim that it was a priori unacceptable because the results conflicted with what had been conclusively demonstrated and accepted as scientifically valid. Fortunately, Hayflick was persistent and published his article in a less authoritative journal that was more open to new ideas. Carrel's observations (indeed due to errors in the methodology of cell cultivation) were defeated, and Weismann's hypothesis regained its value! Hayflick stated in 1977 that the limits in cell duplication (Hayflick's limit) were the likely cause of aging: ... if normal animal cells have indeed only a limited ability to divide in culture, the manifestations of aging could well have an intracellular basis. However, this statement was at odds with other ideas about aging that were imposing themselves, viz:

The Accumulation of Mutations theory: aging is due to the effects of harmful mutations that occur at older ages when, in the wild, there are few or no survivors and, as a result, selective forces are too weak to eliminate them. Such harmful mutations gradually accumulate