New mathematical model illustrates link between energy use and aging

[Guest Gee]

Hou's research shows that oxidative metabolism affects cellular damage and longevity in different ways in animals with different life histories and under varying experimental conditions. For example, he compares the birth mass of a greater Swiss mountain dog to that of a silky terrier as an example. A greater Swiss is born at only one percent of its final weight, whereas the terrier already weighs in at eight percent of its final weight at birth. That percentage difference means that the greater Swiss must use more energy to grow to full adulthood, relatively less energy for health maintenance and therefore have a shorter lifespan than the terrier.

"If you were able to suppress or manipulate growth to maintain a smaller stature, the animal would live longer and have more energy for health maintenance – the way the body repairs itself," says Hou. "On the other hand, 'catch-up' growth, referring to individuals with low birth weight reaching or exceeding normal weight later in life, often has negative impacts on adult health outcome and lifespan."

 

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-02-mathematical-link-energy-aging.html#jCp

 

More potatoe quality.

 

If this theory were extended to human sex developmental differences, by which I mean the relative time to maturity in men and women (men > women) then would it explain the decreased lifespan on men relative to women? Or at least some part of it.

[AccuTron]

Curious proposition.  Yet, I note that elephant and human lifespans are similar.  Are elephants less active in general compared to humans?  I think of elephants just standing around, and humans are often whacking on something..

[Thomasio]

I would believe, even though the factors mentioned in this research may have some kind of influence, compared to the bigger factors it would be so tiny, it wouldn't make any statistical difference.

 

The biggest factor that influences the lifespan is access to clean water.

Compared to that nearly all other factors are minimal.

 

Next in the list would be either living in a nice climate or have access to shelter and energy to heat that shelter in winter.

Next would be access to medical care and the quality of that medical care.

 

And so on, and so on, there are 100s of way more important factors.

Before you get to the speed of natural aging due to the size of the body, you have things like air pollution, the frequency of infectious deseases appearing in the area, the questions whether your income allows you to buy healthy food and how much time your job leaves you to not only afford but in fact eat healthy food, your mental stability, especially the question, how much the advertising for fast food can distract you from the influence it has on your health and many other factors.

 

The decreased lifespan of men relative to women comes from the fact, men on average put themselves into more danger.

Whether it's jobs or hobbies, on average far more men than women die from accidents in their jobs in mining or steel production, the vast majority of soldiers are men and there are many other dangerous activities mostly men engage in.

If I look into my parents generation (born in the 30s) I have a pretty clear idea, of why that generation today has FAR more momen left and it's quite obvious that statistics about their lifespan will always show women to live longer.

 

As far as I know, even our evolution is already adjusting to the fact that throughout all of history there has always been a shortage of men, because at all times so many men were killed in wars.

Can't name the source, so don't take it for a fact, but if I remember right, there are statistics saying humans have slightly more male children than female ones, which leads to a shortage of women in civilized countries that do not engage in wars anymore.