April 6, 2020
  • 3:53 pm Fun Meal Prep Idea: Yellow-Colored Lunch Box
  • 3:53 pm Gilbert’s on Main serves New York Style Deli in Bellevue – KING 5 Evening
  • 3:53 pm Keto diet Meatballs with tomato sauce ASMR cooking No talking
  • 3:53 pm John’s Texas Tenderloin Roulade
  • 2:53 pm Why You Should Try “Cook Once Eat Twice” Meal Prep | What We Ate Over a Weekend (Healthy Recipes)
Dr. Aubrey de Grey and Dr. Rhonda Patrick Talk Aging


[Rhonda]: Dr. Rhonda Patrick here.
In this adventure of the “FoundMyFitness”
podcast, I’m in Mountain View, California
at the SENS Research Foundation.
And I have, sitting here with me, Dr. Aubrey
Grey in the house.
Aubrey is a biomedical gerontologist, and
he is founder of the SENS Research Foundation.
And as far as I know, the SENS Research Foundation
has taken on quite an ambitious goal.
And that goal is to help prevent and cure
aging.
And I think that Aubrey sometimes refers to
aging as a disease.
And so I’d like to talk a little bit about
that.
But thank you for being here, Aubrey.
And can you please tell us a little bit about
the SENS Research Foundation.
[Aubrey]: Certainly.
The SENS Research Foundation is a biomedical
research charity.
So we’re a 501(c)(3), which means taxpayers
can get tax benefits if they give us money.
And we do research into the diseases and disabilities
of old age.
And I’m a little bit cautious in using words
like cure and disease in relation to aging
because we have to remember always that aging
is it’s a side effect of being alive.
It’s the consequence of the accumulation in
the body of various molecular and cellular
changes that are inevitable consequences of
what the body does to keep us alive from one
day to the next.
Those changes are things that I call damage.
And that damage is harmless for a long time
because the body is set up to tolerate a certain
amount of it.
But of course, only a certain amount, which
means that eventually, this damage exceeds
our tolerance, and we start to decline both
mentally and physically, and that’s what the
diseases and disabilities of old aging are.
So when I talk about cures and about disease,
I’m always a little bit careful.
I think that the oversimplification that most
people make with regard to the difference
between diseases on the one hand and aging
on the other hand is an extraordinary damaging
over simplification, because it makes people
unjustifiably over-optimistic about the possibility
of curing age-related phenomena that they
do think of as diseases, let’s say Alzheimer’s
or cancer, most cancers, or osteoporosis,
or whatever, but it makes them also over pessimistic
about medical advances to prevent and preempt
the aspects of age-related ill health that
they don’t think of as diseases, like loss
of muscle or a decline in function of the
immune system, or whatever.
The best way to think about this is that all
of these things are part and parcel of the
same phenomenon.
They are interdependent but nevertheless individual
aspects of the accumulation of molecular and
cellular damage in the body.
And the only way that we’re going to bring
them under control is by developing a panel
of interventions that we can use to periodically
repair those various types of damage, and
thereby leave the overall abundance of damage
in the body below that threshold, such that
it’s harmless.
[Rhonda]: Right.
So let’s dig a little bit more into these
types of damage because I talk quite frequently
about damage myself.
And so typically, when I think of aging, I
also think of the degeneration, the accumulation
of damage, and degeneration of tissues of
cells as a consequence of the accumulation
of this damage, and at the same, the inability
of our capacity to repair damage, to prevent
the damage, also declining.
So it’s what sort of that this balance, imbalance
that begins to have we have more damage accumulating
and less capable of repairing the damage as
you mentioned.
[Aubrey]: Okay.
So I think I actually would like to stop you
there for a moment because a very important
thing that an enormous number of even the
even gerontologists tend to overlook is that
this change in the balance between damage
and repair has to be caused by something,
right?
You do indeed get in old age, a more rapid
creation of damage, and a less rapid removal
of damage, repair of damage, and thus, you
get an accelerated accumulation of the overall
amount of damage.
But why?
The answer is because of the damage that was
accumulating early in life, throughout life,
even starting before we’re born, that we could
never repair at all.
That is the clock of aging, it’s the accumulation
of damage that we simply don’t have any genetic
capability to repair even when we’re young.
When that accumulates, it does two things.
It accelerates the accumulation, the creation
of other damage, and it also impedes everything
about the body, including the damage repair
mechanisms that we have.
So we get less good at repairing the damage
that we used to be good at repairing.
[Rhonda]: Yes, that actually makes perfect
sense.
The accumulation of this damage is that we
do not repair, we simply cannot repair during
our youth, will eventually either damage the
DNA inside of our cells and that will change
the function of certain genes, maybe possibly
repair genes or genes that help us deal with
this damage.
They may change the function of the cell itself
so the cell might become more stiff, and that
changes the way the cell is functioning, or
they may change the way proteins are the function
of proteins because now proteins become aggregated
and all sorts of changes happen.
But in addition to that, it also may lead
to epigenetic changes, which also can change
the expression and function of genes.
And so I think that putting it that way does
make sense.
[Aubrey]: Well, actually, you bring up another
important point, especially with your mention
of epigenetics, because epigenetics is terribly
fashionable within gerontology right now.
[Rhonda]: Can you explain what epigenetics
is for people?
[Aubrey]: Epigenetics basically is the study
of the changes that happen in cells whether
as a result of aging or as a result of anything
else, that cause differences in which genes
are turned on and which genes are turned off.
So typically, these will range from things
at the DNA level itself, methylation of cytosines
for example, up through modifications of histones,
these proteins that DNA is wrapped around,
up through higher level changes to the packing
of chromosomes and to chromatin an awful lot
of different things change the behavior with
which a cell actually decides which proteins
to express and which ones not to.
But this…
[Rhonda]: Let me just interrupt real quick.
And for those of you that don’t know what
express or turn on or off, it just essentially
it means, what he’s referring to is that when
a gene is turned on or if it’s expressed,
it’s active, it’s doing the function it’s
supposed to do.
If the gene is turned off or not expressed,
that just means that the gene is there but
it’s not doing its function.
It’s almost as if it’s not there.
[Aubrey]: But here’s the thing.
When you see a change late in life, you always
have to ask yourself if this change happening
as part of aging, or is it happening as an
adaptation to part of aging?
Is it happening, in other words, to minimize
the pathogenic consequences of some other
change?
And epigenetic changes in aging are pretty
much entirely that latter thing, they’re adaptations
that are good for us, to make the best of
a bad job, namely the non-genetic things that
are happening elsewhere.
We know this simply because they are coordinated.
When we look at tissue in bulk, when we look
at lots of cells all at the same time and
we ask, “What’s happening in terms of the
gene expression changes?”
what we’re seeing is a coordinated response.
It’s got to be coordinated because otherwise,
it wouldn’t be happening at all in the bulk
of cells on average.
So it’s bound to be an adaptation, it’s genetically
programmed.
It’s happening because the cells know what
their environment is, whether intracellular
or extracellular, and they’re responding to
that environment in the same way that they
might respond to an infection, or to inflammation,
or whatever.
The only way you can actually ask questions
about epigenetics that are meaningful with
regard to actual aging, rather than adaptations
to aging, is by looking at individual cells.
Look at individual cells, single-cell analysis,
then you can quantify the noise, the amount
of variation that’s happening without any
kind of genetic direction.
And we’re actually doing that.
We have had a project for a few years now
in the Albert Einstein College of Medicine
in New York looking at precisely this.
We’re looking specifically at methylation
rather than the other aspects of epigenetics.
And we’re asking, does the epigenetic noise
in various tissues increase with age (wouldn’t
be much).
And the hypothesis that we are pursuing is
one that I put forward some time ago now,
which is essentially that no, it won’t, or
at least not to a detectable degree.
And the reason it won’t is because the quality
of DNA maintenance and repair, whether genetic
or epigenetic, is driven, in an evolutionary
sense, by the need not to die of cancer before
you’ve reproduced.
Cancer is, by far, in my view, the biggest
problem of DNA repair and maintenance, because
it can kill you with just one cell going seriously
wrong in the wrong way.
Whereas, anything that doesn’t have to do
with the cell cycle has to affect an awful
lot of, a high proportion of the cells in
a given tissue, before it starts to be pathogenic.
And that means a lot of cells.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
So this is all very interesting.
Are you familiar with the work that’s come
out of UCLA from Steve Horvath, I think?
So he’s shown that from multiple tissues from
humans, blood cells, and also different biopsies
from different samples, that there’s a pattern
of methylation that appears to be specific
to age.
And it’s so precise that researchers can look
at this methylation pattern from, for example,
lymphocytes taken from a person and they can
identify the person’s age plus or minus four
years with 96% accuracy.
[Aubrey]: Yeah, okay.
So let me talk about that actually.
Because yes, I know Steve’s work pretty well,
and I’ve discussed it with him.
And actually, a lot of people have oversimplified
what he’s been doing and what he’s seeing
from this.
So you’re right, there’s this extraordinary
correlation R-squared of 96% that he’s got.
He’s found this particular set of CpG islands
of things that change during age in terms
of their methylation that change so uniformly
that you get this amazing R-squared.
Now, what does all that actually mean?
Well, first of all, you’ve got to remember
that actually if you look in the adult part
of life, let’s say 23 to 70 or 80, then the
R-squared is much lower.
It’s like 70%, something like that.
Second thing you gotta remember is that that’s
a good thing, because it means you’ve got
some variation to actually work with.
If you actually really had something totally
linear, right, then first of all, it wouldn’t
tell you who’s aging more quickly and who’s
aging more slowly.
But secondly, it would tell you that your
signature is the list of the least important
things in aging, the things that are just
trundling on in a trajectory that was set
during development because evolution hasn’t
had the faintest motivation to stop them trundling
on.
[Rhonda]: Well, what I found interesting from
the research was more the clusters of genes
that this was involved around.
They were a DNA repair…
[Aubrey]: Kinda.
Kinda.
But that’s always dangerous.
I mean I was actually involved in the very
early days of the gene ontology.
And I always had doubts about whether it would
be misused.
And I feel that it is being misused in some
ways here.
I think that one…Well it’s very hard to
factor out the multiple hypothesis problem
when you’re using that kind of analysis of
GO terms.
Essentially, you’ve got to ask yourself how
many different types of gene, whether it’s
in terms of function, or process, or whatever,
and how many…I mean, what proportion of
those genes are affected.
It’s terribly, terribly easy to run with the
first thing you see when you half close your
eyes when you look at that kind of data.
And I think a lot of people have been doing
that.
But I’ll do what I’m interested in with regard
to Horvath’s work and related work.
What I’m interested in is when they have looked
not at the enormously good R-squared, but
at the variations from the R-squared, that’s
why I said that it’s good that the R-squared
not so high if you look at adults.
The thing there is that, then you can actually
ask questions like, “Does the subset of the
population that are changing that signature
of that group of methylation sites more rapidly
than average, do they actually exhibit a greater
pathology at a younger age?”
Or, loss of function in some other way that
you can measure even at a relatively young
age.
Very recently, just a few weeks ago, there
was an extremely interesting paper that came
out of a group in New Zealand where they had
done exactly this question.
They had basically looked at, I can’t remember
how many people they looked at, but they did
a longitudinal study over if I remember rightly
12 years, and there were early adults here.
We’re talking, I think the ages were something
like 26 through 38.
And they looked for this kind of variation.
If we can combine that kind of analysis with
the kind of methylation analysis that Horvath
has developed, then I think we’ll be able
to ask some very intriguing questions about
the predictability of age-related ill health.
But now I want to finish my answer by talking
about what this means for our work.
And this is actually really important because
a lot of people overlook this.
It’s terribly, terribly fascinating that some
people age more quickly than others, and some
species age more quickly than others, and
the whole of gerontology, for more than a
century now, has been essentially founded
on the idea that if we understand that variation
really, really well, we might be able to translate
that variation into some kind of therapeutic
regimen to turn fast agers into slow agers.
And that I wouldn’t object, that would be
great.
But we’ve got to remember a couple of things
about that approach.
Number one, it doesn’t work so well if you
only apply it late in life, because all it
does is slow down the accumulation of damage
rather than repairing damage, which is what
we’re all about.
So that’s bad enough.
We’d like to help people who have the misfortune
to be in middle age already or maybe older.
The other thing is no one’s actually having
success in this.
Why not?
Because metabolism is really complicated.
Messing around with this vast network of undocumented
spaghetti code that keeps going from one day
to the next the idea of stopping it from doing
the thing we don’t want it to do, the creation
of damage, without also stopping it from doing
things that we need it to do it’s crazy, it’s
never going to happen.
So I really don’t think that even if we learn
plenty by these methods, that it’s going to
have all that much impact on the development
of actual therapies.
[Rhonda]: What about some of the more recent
methods, for example the CRISPR where this
technology where now, I’m going to totally
oversimplify this for people.
But the ability to specifically target a gene
and clip it out, and replace it with another
gene or a version of the gene that’s more
active or less active depending on what it
is you want.
I think that this new technology for CRISPR,
for example, dramatically changes a lot of
things because…I mean, even if we look at,
for example, centenarians, semi-centenarians,
which live to be about 105, or semi-supercentenarians
live to be 105, and then the supercentenarians,
which are about 110 plus.
A recent study came out from I think it was
Tokyo, and Newcastle, I think.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with the study.
But essentially what the study did, and it
was the largest cohort of the semi-supercentenarians
and the supercentenarians.
And what they found was that they looked at
a variety of different biomarkers.
So they looked at inflammatory biomarkers,
they looked at lipid profiles, glucose, they
looked at immunosenescence.
So when your immune cells no longer are living
and dividing, they basically sit around, and
they’re not dead, but they’re doing more damage,
because they’re producing more inflammatory
things that are damaging other cells.
So it’s like spreading more nasty stuff around.
They looked at immunosenescence, and then
they also looked at telomere lengths.
And then they also looked at like diseases,
and then they looked at organ, for like liver
function, kidney function.
And so, anyways, they’re correlating all these
factors.
And what they found was that inflammation
was the only thing that drove aging in all
the groups.
So inflammation, the higher the inflammation,
the higher the risk of death of non-accident,
you know?
So age-related diseases, cardiovascular disease,
cancer.
And this was true for all the groups.
But what was really also interesting was that
the centenarians, there was a positive correlation
between inflammation and immunosenescence,
which was essentially lost in the super centenarian
group.
And I don’t know why that is, but the immunosenescence…So
essentially the inflammation went up and then
the supercentenarians as the inflammation
went up, they died.
There was a positive correlation.
But the immunosenescence seemed to stay around
the same for whatever reason.
So in my mind, I think, “You know, well, we
know that these supercentenarians, that’s
possibly around a 25% to 30% increase in human
lifespan.”
So human lifespan in the United States is
average around 79 years old.
If we could live to be 115 and live to be
healthy, that’s fantastic.
So we know that it can be done with these
supercentenarians, and we know that that there’s
a lot of genetic factors that are playing
a role on this, I mean, obviously these people
have lower inflammation compared to non-centenarians,
they also showed that.
And so, and inflammation is upstream of a
lot of damage.
It’s upstream of the damage that’s damaging
DNA, proteins in the cells, lipids etc., etc.
So if we can use CRISPR technology to go in
and replace say, give it more anti-inflammatory
capabilities, and this has been shown also
in mice.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this study, but
NF-kB, which is a gene that produces a protein
that regulates a lot other genes that are
pro-inflammation, so they cause inflammation,
but it also has an anti-inflammatory component
to it.
And when you take away that anti-inflammatory
component and put it in mice, what happens
is every time there’s an immune response,
every time inflammation happens, which leads
to chronic damage, as you talk about, there’s
a low level inflammation and it drives aging
prematurely in mice.
[Aubrey]: All right, so.
Big question there.
[Rhonda]: Yes.
[Aubrey]: Let me just give a fairly big answer.
Let me start with a very simple thing.
Overtly clear that inflammation is a double-edged
sword.
That we need it, the reason we have it, as
with anything that’s genetically carried over
that hasn’t just mutated into oblivion over
evolutionary time, is because it’s good for
us.
Because it’s an essential component of how
we survive infections.
However, there are certain aspects of age-related
damage accumulation, which because they are
only age-related, are not very interesting
to evolution.
And therefore, evolution has not taken the
trouble to improve the precision of the inflammatory
response so as to discriminate between things
that the inflammatory response can actually
help with, namely the elimination of infections,
and things that the inflammatory response
actually exacerbates, namely the accumulation
of damage that is not an infection, like oxidized
cholesterol, or whatever.
So that means that, yes, it’s likely that,
it’s no surprise to us, that when you look
at a very, very elite population, the population
that live to 105, 110, then they will overwhelmingly
have a weak inflammatory response, because
that is the only way that they will have been
able not to succumb at the age of 80 or 90
to atherosclerosis or Alzheimer’s, which are
definitely driven partly by the inflammatory
response.
However, what also needs to be taken into
account is that plenty of people aged 80 and
90 and 100 die of infections.
So, yes, these people got genetically lucky
because they didn’t get an excessive inflammatory
response to those age-related problems, but
they also got environmentally lucky in that
they didn’t die of infections.
Or maybe they just had a really strong adaptive
immune system that compensated for the weak
inflammatory response, and so on.
So there’s a real trade-off here and what
this adds up to is that we cannot conclude
that it would necessarily be a good idea to
take people in their, let’s say, 60s or 70s
and damp down their inflammatory response.
[Rhonda]: What about bump up their anti-inflammatory
response?
[Aubrey]: It amounts to the same thing.
If we’re talking about the strength of the
inflammatory response, as opposed to the strength
of other aspects of the immune system, like
T cells and B cells, then we are engaging
in a change of a trade-off.
We are giving people less…We are reducing
people’s risk of rate of…Well, likely rate
of progression of atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s
and such alike, but we were also increasing
their risk of dying pneumonia.
Simple as that.
And the best way to deal with this is to find
a best of both worlds solution, to let people
have the strong inflammatory response that
they need in order to be protected well against
infections, but to fix the problem of maladaptive
activation of the immune response.
And what we’re kind of doing exactly that,
not by changing the inflammatory response
itself, but rather by changing the targets.
Ultimately, what’s happening in atherosclerosis
is that the inflammatory response is being
activated by the accumulation of indigestible
waste products, specifically oxidized cholesterol,
in macrophages in the artery wall, which turn
to foam cells, and generally make cells around
them angry.
If that didn’t happen, if we could get rid
of that oxidized cholesterol, then it wouldn’t
matter at all how strong your inflammatory
response was.
You would not get atherosclerosis.
Same for Alzheimer’s.
Ultimately, Alzheimer’s has an inflammatory
response because the stuff it’s reacting to,
it’s amyloid and tau and so on.
If we can get rid of those materials, stop
them from accumulating to an inflammation-triggering
level, then we won’t get an inflammatory response
even in people with a strong inflammatory
genetic profile.
[Rhonda]: Has the SENS Foundation considered
using some technologies that are sort of already
present in the body?
For example, you mentioned Alzheimer’s disease,
and recently this glymphatic system has been
discovered where we now, when we sleep, we
know that cerebral spinal fluid squirts up
into our brain and literally washes out the
amyloid plaques and other buildup of these
extracellular aggregates that are in our brain.
Has the SENS Foundation thought of any way
to use that system somehow?
[Aubrey]: We’re looking at it.
We’re very interested in all ways of getting
rid of molecular garbage, whether the garbage
is intracellular or extracellular, and whether
the getting rid of is destroying it on site
or flushing it into a place where it gets
destroyed in other ways we’re into all of
this thing.
We keep our eyes very open and our minds very
open with regard to what’s going to work.
[Rhonda]: That’s good to know.
What about the new…I find this very interesting,
the parabiosis where we can take, we, I mean
scientists, can take blood from a young animal
and transplant it in an old animal, and essentially
reverse some biomarkers of aging in multiple
organs.
[Aubrey]: Yeah, it’s very exciting.
We’re actually funding a postdoc at Berkeley
doing, working in this area, in one of the
top labs in this area.
Of course parabiosis itself is not a therapeutic
regimen.
I mean, presumably, you would not be too keen
to do that.
[Rhonda] Right.
[Aubrey]: But it’s definitely a great way
to make discoveries.
And it, of course, leads to alternative versions
like plasma exchange and phoresis ways of
altering, of taking things out of the old
blood, or putting things into the old blood,
so as to achieve the same effect that parabiosis
would.
Of course, in order to do that, you need to
know what to take out or put in.
And a lot of the problems that parabiosis
research faces at the moment is that that’s
really laborious and tricky to find out in
any kind of systematic way.
The few hits that people have had so far in
terms of factors that seem to actually have
some kind of causal role like GDF11…And
so these things we found more or less serendipitously.
And everyone knows that there’s likely to
be a number of others out there, perhaps very
likely to be ones that are more central to
the effect, but which have not been found
just because they’re a little more counterintuitive.
[Rhonda]: So I envision if these factors can
be identified, GDF11, growth differentiation
factor 11, was thought to be possibly playing
a role in causing muscle stem cells to divide
and proliferate, and possibly in the brain
as well.
But others have not been able to confirm that,
but if…
[Aubrey]: Yeah, watch this space.
That’s going to run and run.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
I mean, I’m not sure.
I mean, all I know is that I’m excited about
the research in general.
And whatever the factors are, I envision possibly
making recombinant proteins.
I mean, people are using EPO, erythropoietin.
I mean human growth factor.
So some the same sort of deal.
[Aubrey]: The big thing that needs to be taken
into account here is that the factors that
change in their abundance in the blood during
age, whether up or down, and that may have
an effect in terms of if you like transmitting
pathogenic damage from one place in the body
to another, those things are, first of all,
they’re not necessarily just proteins.
We also have to worry about cells, the fact
that you have changes in the relative abundance
of different types of T cells for example.
And there’s also a small molecule, glutathione,
things like that.
You know, things that may simply not be amenable
to rejuvenation by measures like plasma exchange,
but only by, from that parabiosis.
Then we would have to look at a different
model.
But I want to also emphasize something I just
alluded to a moment ago, which is that we
are talking here not about mechanisms whereby
damage is created.
We are talking about mechanisms whereby damage
is transmitted from one part of the body to
another.
After all, that’s what the circulation is,
it just takes stuff from one place to another.
It doesn’t create damage.
The damage comes from somewhere.
So we always need to be looking out for the
possibility that we can find the cells that
are the source of the changes in the blood,
and change those cells back to a rejuvenated
state, and by that means, rejuvenate the blood.
[Rhonda]: Well, I think that the source of
damage, in the sense of the circulation and
the blood cells the immune cells in the blood,
are just that.
You know, when you activate macrophages, they
dump out hydrogen peroxide and all sorts of
reactive nitrogen species.
[Aubrey]: Yeah.
That’s not really what I’m talking about.
I mean, I’m talking about, for example, well,
let’s take the thymus for example.
The thymus itself shrinks, as we were saying
earlier, and that is largely responsible for
the fact that in an older person, there are
fewer naive T cells and more memory T cells.
You know, if we can fix the thymus, then we
fix that problem.
And, yeah, I can make many other example.
[Rhonda]: Yeah, that really makes sense.
Something else talking about this damage and
you and I both agree that…I mean, I think
the accumulation of damage, intracellular,
so inside the cell, outside of cells, on cell
membranes, proteins, DNA, on and on.
I mean, I think that is a driver of aging
and essentially causes aging.
[Aubrey]: I would say is aging.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
And I focus more on an easier solution, which
is the nutritional aspects of preventing,
or of allowing your body to metabolize and
produce energy the best it can.
And even though you’re still going to age,
like even if you’re at the optimal amount,
I mean, even if you have the optimum amount
of micronutrients, you have these minerals
and vitamins that are essential to run your
metabolism, they’re essential to run enzymes
that repair damage so on.
The fact is you will still age.
The question is how much better will you age?
[Aubrey]: So, I should put…
Yeah, exactly.
The question is how much better?
And I’m all for all of that work, you know.
A large part of why Bruce and I became friends
long time ago was because I absolutely endorse
the idea that we need to do the best we can
for the population to get them to an average
level of nutrition.
But I think the critical thing to understand
is average.
If you ask about the difference in terms of
health expectancy and life expectancy between,
let’s say, the middle 10% of the population
and the bottom 10%, it’s a large difference.
And that’s the difference that we’re talking
about here, the difference that Bruce is trying
to do something about by making sure that
if the poor won’t eat fruit, then that we
find a multivitamin and so on.
But if you look at the opposite end of the
spectrum, if you look at the difference between
the middle 10% and the top 10% in terms of
health expectancy and life expectancy, it’s
basically nil.
Of course, I’m factoring out genetics here,
I’m talking about lifestyle.
I’m talking about things that we can modify.
And that’s really important to remember, because
it’s so easy from the popular press and so
on to get the impression that if you just
do what your mother told you to and do it
really well you eat a really good diet, and
you get a lot of exercise, and you never drink
anything, you never smoke, and so on, then
you’re actually going to live 20 years longer
than you otherwise would.
When in fact, the message of all of the data
we have, epidemiological or anything, is that
it’s probably closer to two years, if that.
You know, I mean other example I like to give
is just a very simple one looking at national
life expectancies.
So people laugh at the USA a great deal because
of the fact that it sits at number something
like 45 in the league table of longevity among
the industrialized world, despite the fact
that you guys spend far more per head on medical
care than anybody else.
But if you look at the absolute numbers and
you look at the actual difference in number
of years in life expectancy between the USA
and the number one big country, namely Japan,
it’s only four years, only four years.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
No, I’m familiar with this data.
It’s five years actually.
The average lifespan experienced in the United
States is 79, and Japan, it’s 84.
And, what’s really interesting…So first
of all, I’m not sure that Japan has the optimal
diet in general, they they’re getting all
the micronutrients.
I mean there’s a lot of factors here.
But what I do find interesting is if you look
at the data…So right now, the average difference
is five years.
And in between males, it’s four years, between
females it’s six years.
If you look at the data from 2012, 2013, Japan
has gone down in their life expectancy.
So their average life expectancy has gone
down by a year.
U.S. has gone down by a year.
So there was a bigger difference, it was six
years.
But what’s really interesting is that the
male life expectancy in Japan has gone down
by almost four years, three points or so.
[Aubrey]: Okay.
So those are the kinds of fluctuation in data
that I find very untrustworthy.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
I mean, I think that it’s possible that Japan’s
becoming more westernized, males also smoke
like chimneys over there.
So I mean, there’s a lot of other factors
that come into play.
[Aubrey]: Okay, that could be quality of data,
you know…
[Rhonda]: Could be quality of data, exactly.
I think that if…Like you mentioned earlier
if you really want to look at the effect of
diet on lifestyle, then looking at obesity.
Obesity is associated with a seven-year reduction
in lifespan.
Morbid obesity is associated with a 14-year
reduction.
[Aubrey]: Oh, don’t get me wrong, of course.
But that’s the low end versus middle that
I was talking about.
[Rhonda]: But it’s growing problem in the
United States.
You know, obesity is…
[Aubrey]: Well aware of that.
Jay Olshansky of course has been very prominent
in publicizing this problem and predicting
that unless we do something very serious about
basically epidemic, then we are in danger
of seeing a fall in the life expectancy in
the USA.
But of course, we haven’t seen that yet because
the problem is too new.
[Rhonda]: It’s what?
[Aubrey]: The problem is too new.
[Rhonda]: Too new, yeah.
So I do think that I talk a lot about what
role micronutrients have in diet, and metabolism,
I mean, B vitamins are running your mitochondria,
magnesium’s needed for gene repair enzymes,
vitamin K is needed to coagulate, blood coagulation,
on and on.
So it also plays a very important role.
And I do think it absolutely affects the way
you age, especially if you’re talking about
living in an unhealthy eating refined carbohydrate
sort of diet versus eating your greens, and
exercise, and things like that.
But even with that said, and doing all those
things, you’re still going to age, because
you can’t stop the breathing in oxygen and
eating food, this process that is coupled
together to make energy.
Well, it’s, inherently makes damage, yeah.
And there’s no stopping it.
I mean, no matter what amount of nutrients
you get.
[Aubrey]: Which of course is exactly where
I came in, back in 2000, with the realization
that even though we couldn’t stop this damage
from being created, we could go in and comprehensively,
not necessarily 100%, but very, very comprehensively,
repair that damage, and thereby, keep its
overall level of abundance to a level that
the body is set up to tolerate with full function.
[Rhonda]: So with these discoveries, CRISPR
technology pluripotent stem cells…
[Aubrey]: These are huge things.
[Rhonda]: Is this advancing your research?
[Aubrey]: Absolutely, absolutely.
It’s advancing our research just as it’s advancing
everybody else’s.
These are techniques, technological innovations
that, just like the fact that we can now have
the sequence of a human genome, they just
make things easier and faster.
CRISPR I would single out as a particularly
important advance, because there are definitely
quite a few things we’re going to have to
do in getting this damage repair to be comprehensive
that involve genetic modifications.
And some of those genetic modifications are
going to be possible to do ex vivo, in stem
cells that we then reinject into the same
person.
Some of them are not.
Some of them are just going to have to be
done by bona fide somatic gene therapy.
And as we know, somatic gene therapy has had
a rocky ride over the past 20 odd years, because
it’s really difficult to make it safe.
And the fundamental reason it’s so difficult
to make it safe is because the viruses, the
vectors that are used to get engineered DNA
into places are not easy to control in terms
of where they insert themselves into the DNA.
And thereby, they are not easy to control
in terms of what damage they may do, making
a cell cancerous, etc.
CRISPR on the other hand, started out being
pretty good at its site specificity.
And better than that, as time’s gone on, very
rapid advances have been made such that now,
it’s just out of site site-specific.
It’s incredibly high fidelity.
That means that one can increase the titer,
the amount of engineered DNA that you stick
into their body that’s supposed to go and
modify cells.
And by increasing the titer, you can increase
the penetrance, the proportion of cells that
are actually modified in the way you want,
without increasing the off-target effects,
because the off-target effects are being eliminated
by the nature of CRISPR.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
I think that using CRISPR, I think there’s
obviously a lot of things that need to be
overcome, like getting it to the right tissues.
I mean, you still have to have some sort of
targeting sequence to say, “Okay, we want
CRISPR.”
It’s easier to do ex vivo when you take your
blood cells.
I think…
[Aubrey]: Ex vivo is always going to be easier.
[Rhonda]: Right.
But saying we want to get this to the liver,
or we want to get this to the heart.
[Aubrey]: On muscle, yeah.
That’s right.
[Rhonda]: Or muscle.
Yeah, much more difficult.
And some of these technologies that you were
describing, about engineering cells to have
certain viruses that make them go somewhere
or change a gene, also we don’t know what
their effects are in terms of putting them
in our body.
Are they gonna cause cancer.
I see sort of the same challenges with the
induced pluripotent stem cells.
So being able to make tissue…for example,
take a skin cell from your body and give it
the right genetic combination to trick it
and reprogram it into becoming a stem cell,
a pluripotent stem cell, so that it can form
any cell in the body, that also is takes some
viruses at this point, I think…
[Aubrey]: Well, first of all, no, there are
plenty of ways now that have been perfected
that induce pluripotency without actually
using viruses at all.
The most recent one that got a lot of attention
a month or two ago was when Helen Blau’s group
at Stanford showed that they could do it with
messenger RNA.
But it’s also been done just by electroporating
proteins in.
Of course, the problem here is that the actual
efficiency is rather low in many cases.
But that’s improving.
The other thing is the quality of the reprogramming.
So the original Yamanaka factors, they work
pretty well.
But Jean-Marc Lemaitre in France a few years
ago showed that if you use six factors, then
you can get a much more high fidelity reprogramming,
you can even reprogram senescent cells, which
you couldn’t do with the regular Yamanaka
factors, and so on.
You know, these are things are…you know,
it’s an enormous field, and it’s progressing
really fast, simply because they can.
And I’m overjoyed it’s going to make a lot
of things easier.
[Rhonda]: That’s really exciting.
Are you familiar with the fact that placenta
is a good source of pluripotent stem cells?
[Aubrey]: Doesn’t surprise me the slightest.
[Rhonda]: Yeah.
And that it’s just being trashed every day.
[Aubrey]: But the point is, of course we want
to treat people who are already in middle
age, right?
So they don’t have their placentas any more
than they have their umbilical cord or whatever.
And if we can do the reprogramming well, then
that’s fine.
[Rhonda]: Well, if you have enough placentas
being banked, sort of like blood, then you
can potentially find a match.
[Aubrey]: Oh, well, of course.
Now, we’re talking about falling short of
true autologous administration.
As far as I’m concerned yes, it’s good to
have matches that cut out some of the immune,
the reaction response because of MHC compatibility.
But the fact is, the real McCoy is taking
cells from the prospective recipient, reprogramming
them, doing whatever you want, and putting
them back into the same person.
And the only reason that that at the moment
is not what everyone’s looking at is because
it costs a lot of money to do that on a personalized
basis.
But as time goes on, and we get better and
better at these things, that cost is going
to reduce, and all this banking stuff is going
to be obsolete.
[Rhonda]: Do you know if the reprogramming
of a skin cell into, say a pluripotent stem
cell, do you know if it’s been shown that
everything gets reprogrammed, the epigenetics,
I mean, because you’re essentially talking
about if you take it from an adult who’s 50
years old, it’s a 50-year-old skin cell, I
mean…
[Aubrey]: So this is what I was saying…Well,
this relates to what I was saying a moment
ago about using the original Yamanaka technique
versus refinements of it.
So for sure, it’s been shown by a number of
groups that the standard methods of creating
induced pluripotent stem cells do not 100%
erase the epigenetic state that the cell came
from.
There is a retention of some “epigenetic memory,”
as people are calling it.
That epigenetic memory is considerably less
in this system where you use six factors,
that I mentioned.
And of course, other people are looking at
other ways to eliminate it even further.
Then again, of course, you’ve got to ask how
much elimination is needed for a particular
person.
Is it in fact fine for cells that started
out being skin, but you’re going to use them
for blood to actually have a little bit of
skin behavior in them?
You know, does it actually matter?
You know, these are the questions that people
are asking all the time all over the world
right now.
[Rhonda] Yeah.
Well, I’m less worried about that and more
worried about the fact that you may now have
certain genes that should be more highly expressed
at a younger age, to make it younger, not…So
for example the cell cycle regulator, ARF
p16(INK4a).
During early youth, early development, as
we’re younger, it’s silenced, epigenetically
silenced.
The reason for that is because if it’s not
silenced, stem cells stop dividing, it essentially
says, “stop.”
And so you want the stem cell to divide.
[Aubrey]: So there’s two answers to that.
The first answer is that this is reprogramming,
right?
So if you’re erasing the whole of the epigenetic
state of a cell, and taking it back to how
it was in the embryo, then you’re going to
re-differentiate it in the direction you want
to the extent that you want.
And that’s going to make it into let’s say,
an oligopotent skin stem cell, with its p16
suppressed, the way a regular oligopotent
stem cell would be, and the way that you make
sure that’s true is just by knowing what to
do in the re-differentiation process.
So my friend and colleague, Mike West, at
BioTime, has been working on this for a while.
And that’s the main thing that BioTime is
really good at, this method that controls
and systematizes the redifferentiation process.
The other thing to mention though, is that,
yes, if you take a bunch of skin cells from
an older person, then there’s going to be
a spectrum of level of expression of, let’s
say, P16.
Now, it may be that the process of dedifferentiation,
getting it back to the iPS state in the first
place, is actually going to be affected by
that, such that the cells that actually give
rise to your iPS cells will be preferentially
the ones that happen to have low P16 in the
sample that you took from the original person.
So what, really.
[Rhonda] Yeah.
So you had brought up this idea a little earlier
of kind of at least I think it’s somewhat
of an antagonistic pleiotropy, when you’re
talking about for example the immune system.
You know, it’s sort of, you want an active
immune system because you want to survive
through reproduction, you want to not die
from some bad nasty infection, but also, this
inflammatory process as you get older can
accelerate aging.
[Aubrey]: Yup.
So you got to be very careful with antagonistic
pleiotropy.
It’s a overused term.
I’m not even sure that one should call the
inflammatory response an example of antagonistic
pleiotropy.
Because remember, the situation in an older
individual includes the fact that the rest
of the immune system has declined, so that
you kinda need a high inflammatory response
just to fight off infections.
And maybe it’s a good tradeoff even in the
elderly, irrespective of the fact that it
was a different tradeoff earlier in life.
[Rhonda] Yeah, I think that’s less of an example.
More of a better example would be something
like growth hormone, or IGF-1, which is very
important for development, for growth, it
causes muscles to repair damage, it actually
grows new neurons.
I mean, it’s a great growth factor.
But, as you get older and you have more cells
that have accumulated damage, that have more
damaged DNA having too much IGF-1 around allows
these cells instead of to die to grow.
So basically…
[Aubrey]: Well, so actually, I would say that
that’s an example rather similar to the inflammatory
one, in the sense that, rather being strictly
speaking antagonistic pleiotropy, good in
the young, bad in the old, this is a case
where it’s good in the old and bad in the
old in different ways.
So you want more growth hormone in order to
have better muscle, you want less growth hormone
in order to have less cancer.

Randall Smitham

RELATED ARTICLES

100 COMMENTS

  1. krilza Posted on July 23, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    How old is Dr. Rhonda Patrick?

    Reply
  2. Niels Posted on July 31, 2016 at 3:14 am

    cant read his shirt's website cuz of his beard lmaoooo

    Reply
  3. profd65 Posted on August 21, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    This guy is kind of an annoying fuck. He comes across as being a utopian dreamer who is short on actual accomplishments but long on criticisms of what other people in science think and do. He's like an anarchist who tells you how fucked up the system is while at the same time lacking a workable alternative to that system.

    Reply
  4. fleiteh Posted on September 16, 2016 at 4:19 am

    you can really see a difference in perspective between the two of them

    Reply
  5. Simon Grizon Posted on September 17, 2016 at 9:39 am

    Very good information, as always, Thanks

    Reply
  6. Brandon Shelkett Posted on September 22, 2016 at 2:28 am

    Thank You Rhonda Patrick for all your contributions to the science of health. I finally realized why no one listens to me about vitamin d or sunlight or sauna, it's because compared to her artistically informative expression and verbiage, I sound like an ape. How would I contact her for research I'm doing related to the field?

    Reply
  7. SciSci Toys Posted on September 27, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    How does one learn all the cool stuff that Aubrey knows, Im not sure if he got a PHD in Geronotology but in computer studies then switched and grew a beard, cool bloke, I want to grow that beard as well.
    What are his ideas on reversing aging or extending life using supplements, foods, exercise etc?
    Don't tell me he just eats fish and chips and drinks lager.

    Reply
  8. Carroll Hoagland Posted on October 6, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Tx, fan of Dr. Patrick and the researchers she talks to … also I follow Dr. Ames "Triage Theory" and diet implications …. which means ketogenic diet with the current tools to track quality of nutrient content. There is No known carbohydrate deficiency disease, hence a non-essential macronutrient.  Not giving the immune response any excuse to favor one pathway over another, by shortages of micronutrients available to the immune/inflammation mechanisms, is critical to longevity … couple this with current research on circadian rhythm – Dr. Panda and Dr. Longo … gives some good tools to insure that the "Body Can do its Thing".70 Going On 100 … the Centenarian Diet

    Reply
  9. Franc18 Posted on October 16, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    what I wonder is since eating, digesting, etc is pro-aging would eating things like soylent slow down aging considerably?

    Reply
  10. Entengummitiger Posted on November 6, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    What does he say at 10:52?

    Reply
  11. Entengummitiger Posted on November 6, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    One day Aubrey will have to accept the fact that aging is an evolutionary adaption in itself, and that epigenetic changes are a cause and not entirely a reaction

    Reply
  12. Stewart Rap Posted on December 16, 2016 at 4:04 am

    Great interview! WAY more informative than the dumbed-down talks Aubrey normally gives. I'd like to see more interviews like this about ending aging.

    Reply
  13. Marie Kirby Posted on December 25, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    Two words summarise this interview – Keith Richards.

    Reply
  14. Greg DE Posted on January 27, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    If he keeps drinking like that, he'll age faster than most of us lmao

    Reply
  15. vanhalenps4 Posted on February 6, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    I think the beard is a good representation of the accumulation of aging

    Reply
  16. vanhalenps4 Posted on February 6, 2017 at 8:00 pm

    Aging simplified: You are a copy of your younger self. The body is constantly regenerating one cell at a time. These copies are never as good as the original. there are mistakes made in the copy(or damage) or you did not give the right materials to rebuild(which is Rhonda's approach). This healing of damage and rebuilding is done while you sleep. This is why the comparison between Japan and US is flawed. Japan is notoriously overworked and underslept. They work up to 80 hours a week.. No amount of nutrition will replace sleep.

    Reply
  17. aovint63 Posted on February 14, 2017 at 8:13 am

    Ageing is walking in a mine field. Anti-ageing is avoiding stepping on mines.

    Reply
  18. Farve4ever589 Posted on February 16, 2017 at 3:03 am

    Is it possible to have him on again in the future?

    Reply
  19. Tiago Carvalho Posted on March 6, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    Expel stored heat and fire from the cells of the body, and rejuvenate. I did.

    Reply
  20. Rogue Planet Posted on March 14, 2017 at 7:47 am

    I swear he's trying to play footsie with knees here.

    Reply
  21. Danny Alford Posted on March 22, 2017 at 10:09 am

    This is like Anakin Skywalker(Rhonda) vs Count Dooku(Aubrey) in Star Wars Episode II. She lost her arm in this duel but she is still very young and got a lot to learn. Over time she will become Darth Vader.

    Reply
  22. Al Altan Posted on May 3, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    Marbles….in ….. my ……mouth

    Reply
  23. Dani Posted on June 7, 2017 at 5:52 pm

    How old is this dude? His hair and beard makes him look so old. Not very wise if you want to project and promote the idea of longevity.

    Reply
  24. TheGrasspond Posted on July 4, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Rhonda you are a gift

    Reply
  25. Scott Reid Posted on July 4, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    Google scholar search on de Grey shows few publications, nothing much recent, and nothing empirical with high citations. Good luck to him, but so far I see little science and a lot of talk.

    As for nutrition and aging the evidence is clear that the longest lived groups are the ones that eat the most plant based diets. In the most extreme case, the Loma Linda vegans (note, average; i.e. 50% will be above the average) are close to 10 years greater life expectancy for males, and close to 14 for females.

    Health expectancy is also greater in these people. They are unlikely to die of heart disease, and risk of cancers and dementia are also greatly reduced.

    While biomedical science will very likely crack aging at some point, in the mean time the science says diet and life style factors are the only options. Optimizing that is the smart thing to do just from a health perspective, let alone environmental and ethical.

    Reply
  26. Carol Cullen Posted on July 5, 2017 at 7:28 pm

    I think hes intiidated by her depth of knowledge and ability to rattle of facts about the metabolic system.. Hes red and figetting. Ive met 96 year olds working in vegetable and rice feilds in japan. Japan is one of the countries with the highest percentage of centanarians. The centenarians werent fat Aubrey and they do have above average exercise and nutrition. But anyway i do wish Aubry and his foundation and all scientists the silver bullet breakthroughs he dreams of.

    Reply
  27. 1 Minute in Posted on July 31, 2017 at 10:48 am

    aging is necessary

    Reply
  28. franciscus ladislaus Posted on August 2, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    meanwhile grabovoj teaches how to live for ever!!!

    Reply
  29. SightLess Wisdom Posted on August 11, 2017 at 9:43 am

    I feel bad for Dr Patrick here and in several other interviews I have seen her do. As a lay person I really appreciate what she tries to do for people like me, but when she speaks to these hardcore researchers and PhDs I feel like they look down on her and don't relate to what she is saying and constantly correct her and sometimes it seems they are holding back their frustration in communicating their ideas. I hope she does not allow that to discourage her and continues to try to bring us valuable insight into current research and science regarding health. Over all I think her videos are great and very useful.

    Reply
  30. Quantum Chang Posted on September 11, 2017 at 5:19 pm

    Aubrey is still wearing the 80's digital watch. They guy refuses to change, refuses to get old. Good for him.

    Reply
  31. David Gaffney Posted on November 2, 2017 at 12:40 am

    A great man.

    Reply
  32. Naimul Haq Posted on November 18, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Is melatonin helpful for sleep, or is it harmful? Can anyone please help?

    Reply
  33. Bond Hinson Posted on December 2, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    holy shit I thought that beard was fake….. wherrrre does the food go?

    Reply
  34. uruk Posted on December 4, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    If you've listened to a few of Rhonda's videos, you will understand just how composed she is here with Aubrey. She has extensive knowledge of gene activation and how it relates to ageing. If she had the time, I think she could have convinced Aubrey of how amazing naturally modified gene expression is.

    And I'm fairly certain the best methods for reversing and slowing aging will be almost exclusively natural for a few decades more, or until AGI arises (Artifical General Intelligence).

    Reply
  35. jnb Posted on December 13, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    It's remarkable how his beard attenuate his voice.

    Reply
  36. MuhfugginMike Posted on December 15, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Great discussion here in the comments. The only thing it's lacking is the token "the only way to eternal life is through accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior" comment.

    Reply
  37. MuhfugginMike Posted on December 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm

    What is happening at 29:55???

    Reply
  38. GluttonousDragon Posted on December 30, 2017 at 2:48 am

    31:05 life expectancy of japan was 83,7 years and in usa 79,3 years. So saying 4 years was perfectly fine. She didnt have to be a fucking idiot and say oh its actually 5 years look at me Im a smart girl and know more than you. I get it, this fucking bitch is trying to make a living selling snakeoil vegan recipe bullshit online, but dont be a fucking idiot. Fucking bitch. Btw this guy is on a genius level IQ compared to this average IQ over emotional hippie bitch.

    Reply
  39. bevillenz Posted on January 4, 2018 at 3:17 pm

    I appreciate the effort of Aubrey to match his tee shirt with socks.

    Reply
  40. Crone Woman Walking Posted on January 5, 2018 at 6:48 pm

    Nothing lasts forever…having said that I intend to live till at least 125 and do gun stuff till I drop dead.

    Reply
  41. William Read Posted on January 7, 2018 at 7:57 pm

    And he will still die when he’s 70,80,90 or 100 if he’s lucky and dosent get hit by a car

    Reply
  42. Jason Morris Posted on January 7, 2018 at 8:17 pm

    You 2 should take a Hyloronic acid supplement.

    Reply
  43. Jeanette Kniebusch Posted on January 12, 2018 at 10:31 am

    Grow a big beard and no one can tell if your skin is sagging and s wrinkled. It's sun protection too.

    Reply
  44. David Schneider Posted on February 16, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    That is one focused dude.

    Reply
  45. David Schneider Posted on February 16, 2018 at 5:31 pm

    And what causes inflammation more than does anger?

    Reply
  46. The Ultimate Reductionist Posted on February 24, 2018 at 6:31 am

    Dr de Grey is the beard behind the SENS research foundation.

    Reply
  47. Narcissists Explorer Posted on March 4, 2018 at 11:54 am

    Diet

    Reply
  48. Why Not Now Posted on March 18, 2018 at 12:30 pm

    should you desire a giggle please pause the video at precisely 16.35 and look in amazement at aubreys blank stare at Rhondas frightenely garish expression lol

    Reply
  49. Robert Segovia Posted on March 21, 2018 at 2:49 am

    I am aware that this observation is not necessarily relevant to the discussion, but Dr. Aubrey de Grey sounds like the voice of the late Cary Grant.

    Reply
  50. Flexnet User Posted on March 31, 2018 at 9:50 pm

    I love his work. But I want to give him a makeover. 😉

    Reply
  51. Flexnet User Posted on March 31, 2018 at 11:05 pm

    I love his work and his brilliance. However it’s completely untrue that nobody’s had any success in slowing down some of this damage. One of the things that requires the most energy is the digestion and elimination of food. So why not lift the digestive load from the body by eating everything that is already in the most broken down and nutritious form?. If you were to live on the juice of fruits and vegetables or a that, along with sprouts, raw nut milk, raw fruits and veggies, fish oil, the highest grade supplements as researched by someone like life extension foundation, “superfoods”, the best amount of exercise for your body, and a decent lifestyle ,you can dramatically alter the processes of aging. For example, instead of eating meat or other forms of protein, one can use freeform amino acids, which require no digestion.. And, we are only at the beginning of exploring the possibilities of improving the gut biome, and there is much research on the benefits of well tested probiotic strains.

    Reply
  52. Flexnet User Posted on March 31, 2018 at 11:12 pm

    This is such a great interview because Dr. Rhonda is also very articulate and knowledgeable.

    Reply
  53. Bob Fazio Posted on April 3, 2018 at 9:02 pm

    Great interview, it was a big help having the definitions at the bottom. Thank you for not talking down to us and making us stretch to learn more.

    Reply
  54. Nmethyltransferase Posted on April 17, 2018 at 5:00 am

    Wait, wait, wait… So Paleos and vegans have been fighting over 2 extra years of life, this whole time?

    Reply
  55. edstud1 Posted on May 4, 2018 at 7:00 am

    Dr. Patrick's work may not dramatically extend human lifespan, but it may improve the quality of life in later years of life!

    Reply
  56. First Last Posted on May 7, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    This guy is a dickhead

    Reply
  57. FoundMyFitness Posted on May 15, 2018 at 12:17 am

    This episode now has show notes and a transcript! Get that here…
    https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/aubrey-de-grey

    Reply
  58. 1MinuteFlipDoc Posted on May 16, 2018 at 2:38 am

    i wish i could hear him better. his accent and mumbley speach pattern made it difficult for me.

    Reply
  59. natasja van limburg stirum Posted on June 3, 2018 at 3:59 pm

    Pity of the audio quality.. He is hard to understand.

    Reply
  60. Etienne Vivente Posted on June 23, 2018 at 10:53 pm

    Whats the meaning at 24.31? I presume you'd not be to keen to….. what and why anybody?

    Reply
  61. Kube Dog Posted on July 5, 2018 at 4:49 am

    I still miss Duck Dynasty too. I feel ya, Doc.

    Reply
  62. enkibumbu Posted on July 9, 2018 at 3:30 pm

    I can't hear him through that beard.

    Reply
  63. Mikael Vitaly Vyacheslav Posted on July 10, 2018 at 2:30 am

    people with redhead and very light skin are half "albinos" and have the Albino gene ! They carry albino gene ,their skin becomes damaged from the Cosmic Radiation will age you fast and make your skin full of brown freckles and very pre-aged skin . when redheads or light skin rednecks reach 40 they look like 50 ! Better you move to the Uk and Ireland no sun there !! You're a red head or very light skin pale you're born with a curse ! ….the sun radiation will kill damage your DNA and cause you skin Cancer ! Cosmic Radiation will age you fast ! and kill you ! Solution ; Time for you English redneck colonials to go back home to your ancestors homeland Great Briton and take back your toxic junk food culture , your drug culture , your gay sick culture and leave the land you stole from the Native Indians of north America and from indigenous native Mexican people . You Rednecks are living on stolen land .

    Reply
  64. Mikael Vitaly Vyacheslav Posted on July 10, 2018 at 2:55 am

    What waist of time B.S. video nothing new ! you will die ! your genes will and diet will decide when you die ! you're programmed already to die ..This hippie with a PHD is paid by big pharma !

    Reply
  65. Brandalynne Majors Posted on August 22, 2018 at 11:16 am

    we must eat more insects.. then we will heal up much better it's the main thing missing on the menu right?

    Reply
  66. Dan Brad Posted on August 25, 2018 at 5:57 pm

    Dr. Aubrey de Grey once said there is no diet that expand your life span, so its very weird seing these two talking! lol

    Reply
  67. Cindy Shi Posted on September 12, 2018 at 3:13 am

    Aubrey de Grey does not really say anything. He's not going to be very convincing by just saying "spaghetti code" and not mentioning specific research. Still goes for Doctor Rhonda.

    Reply
  68. Discovered Posted on October 19, 2018 at 5:29 pm

    I know he must have some great points, but I can't understand what he's saying a lot of the time!

    Reply
  69. Laura Loo Posted on October 22, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    I find this man insufferable….He 's so patronising and seems really arrogant….not a good attitude for a scientist who should be open to ideas and debates…. and his lack of spatial awareness is really cringey…poor Rhonda had this guy's knee encroaching on her personal space the whole times…suprised know one's noticed this yet

    Reply
  70. Bill McGonigle Posted on December 16, 2018 at 7:00 pm

    R: here's some exciting new finding from cutting-edge research.
    A: we're working on that already.
    R: what do you think of [x, slightly simplified for the audience]
    A: you don't understand x because you simplified it for your audience.
    R: people should be optimally healthy to the extent of their abilities using the best science we have.
    A: eh, don't bother – we'll fix them later with that research I told you we're definitely working on.
    R: there are some exciting therapeutic modalities on the horizon.
    A: they may not be perfect so they're not worth considering.

    This podcast had the lowest SNR of any of the ones on this channel I've seen and it's not because of Ms. Patrick. The only thing I picked up is to look at what they're talking about regarding the thymus.

    Reply
  71. 1234 Posted on December 21, 2018 at 10:57 pm

    If that watch is the watch I think it is, then I had the same watch but I worked at a factory with a lot of coolants and such and eventually the strap on the watch got brittle and broke the plastic of the watch got brittle so I couldn't really repair it… I was pretty sad cause I had that watch for a long time…

    I know it's off track, but I had to get a better Casio to replace it.

    I'm sure there is an allegory on aging somewhere in that story. That due to stress and wear and tear even well made things break and must be replaced? Idk…

    Reply
  72. ConspiracyBear Posted on December 24, 2018 at 2:09 am

    Aubrey de grey is a fraud.

    Reply
  73. F B Posted on January 14, 2019 at 10:30 am

    Dr Grey’s beard and terrible clothes destroys his image as a serious scientist

    Reply
  74. F B Posted on January 14, 2019 at 10:35 am

    Results show a whole food vegan diet supplemented with B12, algae omega 3, and vitamin D let’s you live longer. All this talk is endless with no firm recommendations. I may not live long enough for mr z z top to form a conclusion

    Reply
  75. stella karimi Posted on January 18, 2019 at 11:07 am

    Just like our cells have to be supported by an extracellular system so too does Aubrey's therapy has to be supported by what Rhonda works to develop, a rejuvenative lifestyle. Think of this for instance if SENS foundation is able to develop catabodies for instance that break down extracellular junk, the only way these catabodies can be assimilated to work in our system is if they can be accepted by our natural immune pathways. In other words using a therapy that does not put into account our bodies natural mechanisms is like throwing an alien inside earth who looks exactly human but has no idea how to be human or how to behave like a human. Sooner or later something is bound to go terribly wrong. A foreigner cannot fix internal family feuds until they get to know the inner working of that family.

    Reply
  76. Lithium Posted on January 23, 2019 at 9:57 pm

    De Grey is wrong in his speculation that very good health habits give you only two years of extra life compared to the average lifespan. In ideal conditions with ideal habits people will live close to hundred years on average. For example people living in these "blue zones" around the world. Also even places like Monaco have over 90 years average lifespan. Cardiovascular diseases are the biggest killer and these can be almost eliminated with optimal lifestyle. Low cholesterol level and blood pressures through life are very important. The average person does not have these at all. Low BMI is also important and will lower cancer risk.

    Reply
  77. Bob and Donna Reynolds Posted on January 28, 2019 at 2:17 am

    I'll have a whiskey and cigar to that.

    Reply
  78. Q Jones Posted on February 18, 2019 at 8:35 pm

    The advantage of the charity science is that there is some Synergy between the different research branches. In my mind, I want to make sure that the Therapies are available before I need them. If I cannot canvas someone for sens, they might be willing to give for Alzheimer's, Etc

    Reply
  79. froilan anthony Posted on March 3, 2019 at 11:10 am

    thank you very much dr rhonda patrick for coming in the philippines , your great knowledge in biochemistry and nutrition, filipinos needs it so much.

    thanks for the collaborations with dr ted achacoso. thank you so much
    more of it in the philippines maybe in cebu.

    Reply
  80. Chris Faraday Posted on March 12, 2019 at 6:37 pm

    His hair is Fifty Shades of Grey -_-

    Reply
  81. Steve Hudson Posted on March 19, 2019 at 10:59 pm

    This guy is like the sorcerer from a movie…. next level intelligence. My intelligence compared to him would be like a cat.

    Reply
  82. Steve Hudson Posted on March 19, 2019 at 11:02 pm

    It’s like the superman and wonder woman of brains

    Reply
  83. Aaron Posted on March 21, 2019 at 1:16 am

    Have SENS done anything I can benefit from today?

    Reply
  84. Bob Bach Posted on March 24, 2019 at 11:51 pm

    appreciate the work she is doing… I think this all has value for decreased age morbidity..go strong and kick the bucket quick. I haven't seen an ageing expert yet that doesn't look their age.

    Reply
  85. White Ninja Posted on March 30, 2019 at 4:01 pm

    A meeting of the minds? lol

    Reply
  86. 1weird Doe Posted on March 31, 2019 at 4:16 am

    So good diet will get you to 100. Damage maintenance repair will allow 2, 3, 4 x 100 years? Then why are the religious cop-outs all worshipping death?

    Reply
  87. White Ninja Posted on March 31, 2019 at 8:47 am

    How does one of the Smith Brothers brush his teeth after taking a cough drop?

    Reply
  88. Victor Da Silva Posted on April 4, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    cannot understand anything he says. jeez..glad it has sub titles. good stuff…when did he leave zz top?

    Reply
  89. Danno Posted on April 5, 2019 at 6:02 pm

    it's only 4 YEARS, it's only 4 YEARS !!!! this fact makes me sad….

    Reply
  90. Jessica LT Posted on April 18, 2019 at 9:57 am

    Nasty beard, but smart researcher.

    Reply
  91. White Donkey Posted on May 10, 2019 at 3:30 am

    Dude has no concept of personal space, lol.

    Dr. Patrick handled the interview very well 🙂

    Reply
  92. MMABeijing Posted on May 20, 2019 at 5:12 pm

    subtitles or denture, pick one

    Reply
  93. Tj Green Posted on June 3, 2019 at 8:23 am

    Senescent cells are thought to be the root cause of aging, and by 2025 we will have two therapies to kill these cells. If we take these therapies at a young age would these be enough to end aging?

    Reply
  94. The Ultimate Reductionist Posted on June 8, 2019 at 3:36 am

    We will not have any fundamental breakthroughs in physical science or engineering or technology
    until we figure out how to exactly solve large systems of nonlinear partial & functional differential equations.
    We will not have any fundamental breakthroughs in science until we have fundamental breakthroughs in math.

    Reply
  95. Nmethyltransferase Posted on June 9, 2019 at 12:19 am

    June 29 Update: 32 paleos and vegans can't handle reality.

    Reply
  96. doglas xuxu Posted on June 16, 2019 at 2:11 pm

    obrigado pela entrevista.

    Reply
  97. Leadingbrandz Posted on July 15, 2019 at 3:01 am

    I am a sponge for these wonderful discussions. Is there a visual model of where things stand with all lines of longevity research and the obstacles that exist?

    Reply
  98. Leadingbrandz Posted on July 15, 2019 at 3:18 am

    I think that if Dr. Patrick helps extend Dr. de Grey's life (and many others doing profound good) by any years, its exactly what we need.

    Reply
  99. Brett Dwyer Posted on July 17, 2019 at 9:42 pm

    Sarcopenia…age related muscle loss is a big problem which seems to have taken hold on Aubrey. He's not smart as it relates to maintaining as much muscle mass as possible as one ages. Besides that he just appears to be an arrogant fucker.

    Reply
  100. Ryan K Posted on August 21, 2019 at 6:16 am

    This is the first interview with Rhonda where it just ends abruptly without thanking the guest. Really demonstrates how she feels about him on a personal level

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT