Search Results for: longevity supplements 2013

How Can Black Women Protect Themselves Against Fibroids? – Longevity LIVE – Longevity LIVE

Last year, Vice-President of the United States Kamala Harris introduced a bill to the United States Senate that aimed to fund both research and education on uterine fibroids. With an estimated 26 million Americans experiencing fibroids, and about 20 percent to 80 percent of women set to developfibroidsby the time they reach age 50 worldwide, its important that we follow VP Harris path and raise awareness about this debilitating condition.

Fibroids are noncancerous tumors (less than one in 1000 can turn cancerous) that grow in the uterus. They are made of muscle and other tissues. Their size can range from pea-sized to as big as a tennis ball, and sometimes even larger. Some women may even have multiple fibroids.

Some women with fibroids dont experience any symptoms. However, others may experience debilitating symptoms, as well as fertility problems and pregnancy complications. Whats more, various research has found that fibroids disproportionately affect women of color.

According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, nine out of 10 women will develop fibroids before theyre 50 years old, and in relation to white women, the statistics are even more frightening.

According to research, black women:

There are a few risk factors that can increase ones risk of developing fibroids.

According to a Chinese study published in theAsia Pacific Clinical NutritionSociety, being overweight or obese can increase ones risk for uterine fibroids.

Statistics have revealed that;

Data published in the International Journal of Womens Health suggested that low vitamin D levels can increase the likelihood of developing fibroids.

That said, research has found that vitamin D deficiencies are more prevalent in the black community (1). This may be because high levels of melanin hinder the production ofvitamin Din the skin.

Hair relaxers are products used to help straighten black womens hair. The politics of black hair aside, research has found that these products may deteriorate a black womens health.

A 2012 study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology examined over 23 000 African-American women over a period of 12 years. The researchers found that women who use hair relaxers are 1.17 times more likely to develop fibroids, and women who use hair relaxers 7 or more times a year are 1.23 times more likely to develop fibroids.

While this study was published in 2012, more recent research has highlighted the dangers of chemical relaxers. According to a study from the National Institutes of Health, black women who use hair relaxers at least every five to eight weeks are 30% more likely to develop breast cancer.

Serena Williams revealed to VOGUE magazine that while giving birth to her child, she began to experience pulmonary embolism (blood clots that block arteries in the lungs) symptoms.

Having had a history of pulmonary embolism, Williams described her symptoms to a nurse. She asked for a CT scan and blood thinner. Unfortunately, the nurse dismissed her pleas and a doctor ordered an ultrasound for her legs instead. Following the ultrasound sound that discovered nothing, Williams received a CT scan that confirmed her suspicions.

Unfortunately, the embolism had caused Williams to cough so severely that her cesarean section wound opened. Moreover, during surgery to close the wound, doctors found a pool of blood outside the blood vessel in her abdomen. Williams then had to then undergo even more surgery to prevent additional clots from spreading. As a result, she was on bed rest for the first six weeks of motherhood.

While some may say that Williams story is a once-off unfortunate incident, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that medical practitioners hold a bias towards black people and their tolerance for pain, which often causes them to ignore or disregard Black womens physical pain.

Furthermore, a study published in Epidemiology found that perceived racism was associated with an increased risk of fibroids in US-born black women.

Women with fibroids may experience the following:

In addition to the physical effects, women with fibroids have revealed that the symptoms can cause significant distress, affecting their quality of life and increasing the risk for anxiety and body image issues (2).

It also doesnt help that many women delay receiving treatment as they believe their symptoms are normal. By the time they do see a doctor, they are anemic, as well as fatigued, and very sick. This is why it is important to monitor your body for symptoms and reach out to your health practitioner. Remember: Bleeding heavily for 10 days is not normal.

While the risk for cancer is low, if left unmanaged, fibroids can lead to anemia, decreased fertility, increased pain, and they can even block your fallopian tubes (3).

For heavy bleeding and a more normal cycle, your doctor may prescribe contraceptives.

This is a medication that falls under GnRH agonists. The class of medications stimulates hormones in an effort to shrink fibroids and stop heavy bleeding.

This is a procedure whereby small particles are injected into fibroids. This is meant to shrink them and ease painful symptoms.

IUDs are meant to reduce heavy bleeding, but they do very little to address the presence of fibroids.

This is a procedure whereby a surgeon removes the fibroids from your uterus, without taking out the healthy tissue.

Women with fibroids who still want to bear children often undergo this procedure. That said, it should be noted that fibroids can still grow back after a myomectomy.

A hysterectomy remains the most effective way to remove fibroids and eliminate any chance of them growing back.

How so?

Because a hysterectomy refers to the irreversible removal of the uterus. This is a very big decision. Its important that you take your time and weigh your options before deciding to undergo a hysterectomy. Remember, once your uterus is gone, you cant put it back.

A Mediterranean diet can help you both manage and reduce your risk of developing fibroids.

Increase your intake of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, and seeds as well as fish.

A study published in the Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reportsfound that women who drink one or more beers a day increase their risk for fibroids by more than 50%.

Some studies have suggested that red meat can increase levels of estrogen, which can increase your risk for fibroids. So, it may be best to monitor your red meat consumption.

As we know, green tea is incredibly rich in a number of antioxidants that can help to protect our health. It appears that one of these antioxidants may even help to protect against fibroids.

A 2013 study found that participants who had drunk green tea experienced less severe symptoms, and their fibroids shrunk in size.

Shop for green tea online.

Sugary and processed foods can increase the risk of fibroids, and they can even worsen symptoms.

Exercising has a number of benefits, and that includes reducing your risk for fibroids,

If you already have fibroids, and you want to stay active, try low-impact exercises such as walking, jogging, or swimming.

Elevated levels of estrogen can increase your risk for fibroids, or worsen symptoms.

One way to manage estrogen levels would be by avoiding endocrine disruptors. These are chemicals found all around us that can make their way into the body and disrupt hormone levels.

Additionally, some foods contain phytoestrogens. These are compounds that can mimic the estrogen found in the body, potentially causing a host of problems. Phytoestrogens can be found in soy products and red meat injected with hormones.

In addition to getting more sun (after using the appropriate sun protection products), you can also increase your vitamin D intake with supplements or by eating more egg yolks, fatty fish as well as fortified dairy products andcereals.

Its important to familiarise yourself with fibroid symptoms so that you can address the issue before it becomes problematic. While you may have been told otherwise, incredibly painful periods and heavy bleeding are not normal. You should reach out to your medical professional if you begin to experience any of the above-mentioned symptoms.

Everybody, regardless of their race, gender, and sexual orientation, deserves access to dignified care.

Dont shy away from holding your doctor accountable by asking them questions. If you feel that you are not being heard, you have the right to seek a second opinion.

Yes, black women tend to develop fibroids more often than women of other races. However, they can still manage to protect their health by managing them in the appropriate manner. Having fibroids isnt the end of the world. Many black women still go on to live happy and healthy lives despite this condition. As long as they reach out to their healthcare professional and receive the appropriate care.

Go here to read the rest:
How Can Black Women Protect Themselves Against Fibroids? - Longevity LIVE - Longevity LIVE

Posted in Longevity | Comments Off on How Can Black Women Protect Themselves Against Fibroids? – Longevity LIVE – Longevity LIVE

Conquering Metabesity: What Does The Government Do For The Longevity Of Their Citizens? – Forbes

Biological Aging Clock Forum

While it may seem from the media that the world is constantly in the state of critical collapse, it is not as bad as it seems and the level of welfare is increasing even in the farthest developing countries. Did you know that the average life expectancy in the world, including the countries commonly perceived as less privileged, is 73.2 years? If not, before reading any further, please check out the table on the life expectancy by Wordometers and find your country on the list. The US currently ranks 46 with an average life expectancy of 79.11 between Cuba (79.18) and Panama (79.1). If you are born in Hong Kong today, a city in China (77.47), which ranks first on the list (85.29), you should expect to live on average 6 years, or about 7.5% longer than the average American.

I have Worldometers bookmarked and check it every morning when I wake up to see how many people died of aging while I was asleep to get more motivation to go through the day, think of more ways to generate QALY, and avoid being distracted by less important issues. And it constantly puzzles me why the countries that spend the most on healthcare and research are not there at the top of the list in terms of average life expectancy. And, why are countries not competing on life expectancy while competing on pretty much everything else?

Dr. Alexander Fleming

And I could not think of a better group of people to ask this question than Thomas Seoh and Dr. Alexander Fleming, of Kinexum, who with Stanford Professor Lawrence Steinman, founded the Metabesity conference which brings together some of the most important decision makers in the government, academia, and the industry.

Thomas Seoh

On September 11, 2020, they organized the industrys first panel on the regulatory considerations for aging biomarkers. It included senior officials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA).

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: Lets address the most important question I posed in this article. You recruit senior regulators at Metabesity events. Why dont we see governments competing on the longevity of their citizens and some of the most developed countries that technically drive progress in science and technology are so far behind?

Dr. Alexander Fleming:First, regulators, medicine, industry and the general population have not historically viewed aging as a disease or condition to be treated or cured, but rather as an unalterable human condition. There is not yet adequate awareness of the abundant evidence that geroscience has amassed that biological aging can be delayed or even reversed. Decision makers do not appreciate that this science can be applied to prevent or delay major chronic diseases and thereby substantially improve health and quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.

Second, when the general public is asked if they want materially longer lives, many tend to picture a dependent nonagenarian in a wheelchair or an ICU bed, instead of a vigorous, healthy, mentally alert senior equivalent to those decades younger. The emphasis of geroscientists is to increase heathspan, the period of life free of chronic disease and not just to increase lifespan.

Third, many people are uncertain about the socioeconomic and cultural implications of extended healthspan, in terms of retirement, new careers, personal finance, and making way for new generations.

Education of policy makers and lawmakers and voters about the promise of advancing science and medicine for extending healthy longevity, the unsustainability of the current trajectory of health care costs and the qualitative and quantitative benefits of the longevity dividend is the key.

But to specifically answer your question, Alex, some countries ARE leading the way: UK, Singapore, Switzerland, and others. The UK, has adopted a national goal of extending healthspan by 5 years by 2035, with more equitable access. The US is behind such leaders in even recognizing healthy longevity as a national priority, and we need to spark an enlightened arms race to harvest the healthy longevity dividend. But first, we have to educate our citizenry that geroscience has shown us that it is now no longer a question of if, but when we can delay or even reverse biological aging. We need widespread understanding that healthy, vital elderly are assets, not liabilities.

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: What steps should the government take to accelerate the progress in aging research and translation of aging research into clinical practice?

Dr. Alexander Fleming: A major challenge to Big Pharma and investors entering the field is the lack of clear regulatory pathways and evidence needed for approving both drugs and nutritional products with health span claims. Today, if a company approaches the FDA with a product that reduces the aging process, the agency would probably only give approvals for reducing risk of one chronic disease or another, and that would not reflect the full value of the product. Worse would be the scenario in which the product is not approved even though it results in consistent positive effects across multiple chronic diseases, but none of the effects on the individual diseases is sufficient to support approval of any individual disease indication. The largest uncertainty facing developers of these products is the evidence that would be required to support a health span claim. We need to hear from FDA that it can approve products under the above scenario. This would enable trials of 3-5 years duration instead of the decade it might take to show convincing preventive effects in healthy populations on individual diseases. Investors will not get behind trials that have to be long and large enough to show large effects on delaying each chronic age-related disease. The costs, times and risks of such trials are beyond the ability of an investor to consider. There are creative trial design approaches that can feasibly provide convincing evidence, but FDAs willingness to accept them is needed. Federal legislation, analogous to the Orphan Drug Act and the 21st Century Cures Act, for encouraging FDA to provide clear guidance and incentivize the development of these products could be game-changing.

By the way, such interventions should not be limited to drugs or biologics but include a range of modalities, including nutritional product supplements and medical devices, including mobile apps and sensors. Other measures, like exercise and social interventions, are also important but do not involve regulations. Additional legislation and public policies could declare healthy longevity a national interest and set a national moonshot goal (like the UKs goar to extend healthspan by 5 years by 2035). Additional studies will further quantitate how much the longevity dividend would, net of increased benefit costs for longer-lived elderly, save on public health care costs and create economic value.

Federal appropriations can also supplement resources in addition to those dedicated to researching individual chronic diseases. Today, there is sort of a whack a mole problem: heroic efforts are made to save a patient from heart disease, only for them to die from cancer a few years later; if heroic measures beat back the cancer, the patient succumbs to dementia. While we should certainly continue to invest in research into diabetes and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and cancer, we should invest a small portion of the billions of dollars going into the War on Diabetes, the War on Obesity, the War on Alzheimers, and the War on Cancer, into ways to delay or even reverse biological aging, and thereby prevent or delay all or a number of these chronic diseases.

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: What is Metabesity and what is the story behind it?

Dr. Alexander Fleming: I coined the word Metabesity, around 2013, to name the constellation of age-related chronic diseases, from diabetes to cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases to cancer to the aging process itself, all with shared metabolic roots, which therefore may be targeted together with common solutions. The intent of naming this target was to encourage concerted effort to invest in and achieve solutions to prevent multiple diseasesand not wait to manage them. Metabesity is sometimes confused with metabolic syndrome and obesity, which are drivers of Metabesity but far from being the only drivers. The emerging geroscience convinced me that after the great successes of medicine against acute diseases and conditions the next frontier could be the prevention of chronic age-related diseases and disabilities. This is a passion on which I want to focus the remainder of my professional life. Around 2016, my co-chair, Larry Steinman, co-discoverer of the MS drug Tysabri and multiple other therapies and long-time former head of the Stanfords immunology program, and I organized a conference on this motivating theme. Our inaugural conference was in London in October, 2017, set across the street from Wembley Stadium in London. Alex, you were there, and made quite a mark, along with other leaders from various disciplines. We held the next conference at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, DC in October 2019, and here we are now, as a virtual conference in October 2020 due to the pandemic. This has been a pro bono labor of love, and the losses have been covered by our strategic regulatory and clinical development advisory firm, Kinexum. This year, we established the not-for-profit Kitalys Institute to take over organization of future Metabesity conferences and support other initiatives aimed at supporting healthy longevity.

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: I decided to dedicate my life to aging research and longevity biotechnology almost 20 years ago and back then it was a very barren place. There were only a few scientists to follow, few companies, and definitely less funding. However, during the past decade, the situation seems to have changed dramatically. Even the pharmaceutical companies are looking closely at aging. What do you think was the main catalyst for this acceleration? In your opinion, what are the main discoveries made over the past few years that will help drive the longevity ecosystem?

Thomas Seoh: Im no historian of geroscience, but certainly important scientific and technological milestones have created a mounting sense of excitement - from the discovery that the lifespans of different species, from yeast to worms to rodents, could be extended by genetic and molecular pathway intervention. Other milestones include the demonstration that an old mouse sharing a circulatory system with a young mouse rejuvenates while the younger mouse ages, the reprogramming of mature cells into young, pluripotent cells utilizing Yamanaka factors, and the discovery of epigenetic biological clocks and other biomarkers of aging. Accelerating advances in molecular, cellular and systems biology, rocket-boosted by Big Data and Artificial Intelligence, your field of expertise, Alex, where you have made substantial contributions, indicate that geroscience discoveries will continue to grow explosively for the foreseeable future. The small town you arrived at 20 years ago is now explosively growing into a megalopolis.

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: I attended the recent panel you put together with the FDA and NIH on the regulatory issues around the biological aging clocks. One of the questions was on the barriers for using the deep aging clocks developed using artificial intelligence in clinical trials. And I was very surprised when Dr. Robert Temple of the FDA said that there are fewer barriers than we think and that the introduction of such clocks may not overcomplicate the trial or put it at risk. Can you expand on this issue and on the future of aging clocks in clinical trials?

Thomas Seoh: That discussion between pre-eminent thought leader Bob Temple from the FDA and some of the leading experts in biological clocks and other biomarkers of aging was indeed elucidating, and an important start of a cultural exchange between the innovator scientists and the regulators. First, we should explain that biological clocks and other biomarkers of aging measure biochemical and other biometric values to estimate a biological age that may be more indicative of health and the amount of lifespan an individual may have left than her chronological age - we all know people who seem young and well-preserved for their age, or who seem older and frail beyond their years. Its important to recognize a distinction in what Dr. Temple said: he was fine with, indeed very supportive of, how tools like biological clocks and other biomarkers of aging could be used to inform selection of drug candidates, enrich clinical trial populations, generate hypotheses for testing whether clinical benefits could be demonstrated, etc. But one critical role developers of interventions against biological aging hanker for is biomarkers to be promoted into surrogate markers or registrable endpoints that can be the basis for approval of therapies for the market. This is important because in the absence of biomarkers, actual clinical benefit would need to be demonstrated; for a therapy that purports to extend lifespan, a clinical trial would have to demonstrate, for example, that those on the intervention lived longer compared to controls, which could take years for such a trial to complete. And here, Dr. Temple noted that historically, it took decades of emerging scientific and medical consensus to elevate biomarkers such as blood pressure, cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c or viral load to surrogate markers or registrable endpoints deemed sufficiently predictive of heart attack, stroke, diabetes or AIDS to serve as the basis of approval. So he was saying use biological clocks and other biomarkers of aging however they may be deemed useful guidance for product development. But, to gain regulatory approval, sufficiently long and large clinical trials are needed to demonstrate an intervention's clinical benefit (like improved function or longer survival). These outcome trials can be used to validate biomarkers as predictive of such a clinical benefit so that they can become the basis for approval of future interventions.

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: In your opinion, why did the resTORbio trial on rapalogs fail? Could they have done better if they were to use aging clocks?

Dr Alexander Fleming: The resTORbio trial did fail on the primary endpoint of the percentage of subjects with clinically symptomatic respiratory illness. However, demonstrating benefits on symptoms is a very high bar, if not an unreasonable one for an initial phase 3 trial for a first in class and indication therapy. The trial actually did show some encouraging results and there is good reason to pursue development in higher risk populations. COVID-19 might provide such an opportunity.

Using a deep aging clock would not have altered the regulatory result, that the trial failed to meet the primary endpoint(s). However, deep aging clock data could well help to generate hypotheses about responsive subgroups or other factors for testing in further trials. Again, the goal of the field, to seek approval if an intervention moved the needle to the requisite extent on the clock, remains distant, according to Bob Temple, until the clock has been validated by trials demonstrating the agreed upon and required clinical benefits.

Dr. Alex Zhavoronkov: And my final question. You first invited me to speak at Metabesity London in 2017. And despite the event being rather small, the level of the speakers was staggering. You had Tomas Olssen, the chair of the Nobel Assembly that selects the recipients of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, Sir. John Bell, one of the worlds most famous Canadian physician-scientists, top executives from the UK National Health Services, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and other government officials, and big pharma executives. How do you manage to get this level of speakers to present at the conference? I assume that you can not simply call them up? What is your secret?

Thomas Seoh: Actually, it is that simple, we ask them, but the secret sauce is the extent and quality of connections of co-chairs Larry Steinman, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and Zan, with his deep regulatory and clinical connections. Also, a couple of distinctive features of our Metabesity conferences are that (i) like Steven Spielberg is said to have started making movies he wanted to watch, we organize conferences we want to attend; and (ii) we try to avoid it being a parade of lectures from the podium - we try to put together a dinner salon comprised of leaders from various disciplines, rather than put on a music concert. So as one example among many of a session I am really looking forward to at Metabesity 2020, there is a session in the lifestyle track on exercise entitled Why is Exercise Geroprotective? Molecular and Evolutionary Perspectives with geroscientist Tom Rando (a Stanford colleague of Larry Steinman) and evolutionary biologist and cultural anthropologist Dan Lieberman of Harvard (whom I heard at my 25th college reunion), moderated by Judy Foreman, longtime science journalist and author of Exercise is Medicine (recruited by Adriane Berg, Executive Director of the Kitalys Institute, from her own very broad network). I think the word has gotten around that we put on an insightful and important yet fun dinner salon at Metabesity, and a number of speakers want to come chat with other speakers and our sophisticated audience. You know, there are conferences on how human lifespan might be expanded to centuries, and those on how to make money investing in the longevity space; our distinct lane is translating emerging science into material, accessible gains in public health. This starts with clinical translation but extends to daunting challenges in the commercial, public policy, healthcare practice, and consumer behavior domains. To come up with practical ways forward requires bringing a large, diverse set of smart committed people together across what are traditionally subject matter or functional silosand that makes it fresh and exciting for the speakers and the attendees.

Targeting Metabesity 2020: Extending Healthspan will transpire 12-15 of October as a free virtual conference and will bring together many top academics, clinicians, government officials, pharmaceutical companies, and startups.

More:
Conquering Metabesity: What Does The Government Do For The Longevity Of Their Citizens? - Forbes

Posted in Longevity | Comments Off on Conquering Metabesity: What Does The Government Do For The Longevity Of Their Citizens? – Forbes

11 Healthy Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Red Meat – Longevity LIVE

The coronavirus pandemic has given each of us a new lease on life. In fact, a lot of us are looking to protect our health as well as ensure our longevity, long after weve survived this pandemic. That said, many are re-examining their choices and the impact of said choices on their health. Considering the fact that the average American consumes around 222.2 (100.8 kilos) pounds of red meat per year,one hasto wonder what effect this dietary habit has on their health.

As much as you love cutting up and digging into a thick, juicy steak, you probably shouldnt be. By now, youre likely aware of the effects that red meat consumption has on our health, as well as our environment. The good news is, its never too late to make a change, and if you needed any more convincing, heres everything that you can expect your body to experience when you decide to cut back on your love of steaks and cheeseburgers.

Inflammation is a biological response that is supposed to help as well as protect your bodys tissue from harm. Unfortunately, lifestyle choices can cause chronic inflammation, which increases the risk of heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases, among other conditions.In regards to red meat, a study published in the journalNutritionfound that vegetarians have less inflammation in the body than meat-eaters.This may be due to the fact that plant-based diets are high in antioxidants and fiber both of which contain anti-inflammatory properties.

Your gut microbiome refers to the trillions of microorganisms living in your gut that play a pivotal role in your overall health. They can influence your mental and immune health, as well as help to reduce your risk for chronic diseases.

Like many things, your gut health is influenced by diet and if youre a regular meat-eater, you may be putting your gut microbiome through a lot (2).

Eating red meat causes your gut bacteria to create TMAO (trimethylamine oxide). TMAO is quite toxic at high levels, as it can increase cholesterol levels, which then increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. That said, research has found that plant-based eatersmake little or no TMAOafter eating a meal containing meat because they have a different gut microbiome.If youre worried about your gut health, youll be happy to know that it only takes a few days for your gut bacteria to change after youve cut out animal products (3).

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified red meat as a possible carcinogen, meaning it could possibly cause cancer. They were working off of a published report that contained studies that had been done over the past 20 years.

The report concluded that the consumption of processed meat was classified as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic. Processed meat includes meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation. Examples of such meats include sausages, ham, hot dogs, and canned meats.

A 2019studypublished in theInternational Journal of Epidemiologyrevealed thateating an average of 76 grams (about 2.6 ounces) of red or processed meat a day was associated with a 20% higher chance of developingcolorectal cancer.

Additionally, a separate studyfound in theInternational Journal of Cancer shared that red meat consumption was found to increase the risk of invasive breast cancer, while poultry was found to reduce the risk.

Highlevels of LDL cholesterol in your blood can cause thebuildup of plaque in artery walls,and this can increase the risk for heart disease, heart attack, and stroke.

Red meat is high in saturated fats, and saturated fat is a major contributor to raising blood cholesterol levels. A studypublished in Nutrition Reviews found that plant-based diets typically reduce LDL cholesterol levels by about 15 to 30 percent.

Around 50 million are battling with Alzheimers and red meat may play a role.

Red meat is rich in iron and a studypublished in theBritish Medical Journalsuggested thatexcessive iron accumulationin the brain can trigger the development of Alzheimers.If youre concerned about your Alzheimers risk, consider these lifestyle changes.

Plant-based diets are higher in fiber and fiber has been associated with a lower body mass index. It also helps that plant-based diets are lower in fat, sugar, and calories.

For instance, a studypublished in the Journal of General Internal Medicinefound that people on a vegetarian diet lost more weight than those on a non-vegetarian diet and thatvegansshed more pounds than people who still ate eggs and dairy products.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death worldwide and this is largely due to our dietary habits. Red meat has been linked to increased blood pressure and cholesterollevels so its safe to say that its not the healthiest food for your heart.

For instance, a study published in Nature Medicine found that eating red meat delivers L-carnitine to bacteria that live in the human gut, and this triggers the production of trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). TMAO has been shown to speed up the hardening and thickening of artery walls, which in turn causes heart problems.

Additionally, amuch more recentstudypublished in theEuropean Heart Journalconfirmed these findings by revealing thatparticipants who ate red meat had blood levels of TMAO that were three times higher than when they were on diets based on either white meat or non-meat protein sources.

Foods such as red meat can affect the bods production of insulin, leading to insulin resistance which we know is a contributing factor for the development of diabetes.

The Seventh Day Adventists in the Loma Linda area are a group of people that live AmericasBlue Zoneregionwho follow a largely vegetarian diet.Blue Zones are five areas across the globe virtually free of disease and with numerous healthy residents that were living to age 100 and beyond.

A study published in Diabetes Care found that omnivores in the Adventist population have double the rate of diabetes compared with vegans.Additionally, a separate study found linked the increased intake of red meat intake by more than just half a serving per day to a 48% increased risk of diabetes over 4 years.

Your kidneys act as the bodys personal detox system so its important to keep them healthy as kidney damage is often irreversible.

A studypublished in theJournal of the American Society of Nephrology found that individuals that had kidney failurewere in the upper percentages for red meat consumption.

As mentioned, Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda tend to live several years longerthan the national averageas this may have to do with the fact that theyre non-meat eaters.In fact, Harvard Medical School once reported that eating unprocessed red meat increased the risk of dying prematurely by 13% while eating processed meat increased the risk by 20%.Additionally, research found that plant-based diets help to lengthen telomeres the caps at the end of chromosomes that help to keep DNA stable, causing cells and tissue to age more slowly.

Its not just your health that will benefit when you cut back on steak and cheeseburgers. Youll be happy to know that youll also be doing the planet a huge favor.

Around 51%of global greenhouse gas emissionsare caused by animal agriculture, and animal agriculture also contributes to world hunger as the majority of crops grown worldwide go toward feeding livestock, not feeding people.Furthermore, animal agriculture also places strain on our water resources as beef requiresapproximately20 times more water per calorie than crops like cereals and starchy roots. In fact, the water footprint for beef is six times larger than that needed to produce protein-rich beans, chickpeas, as well as lentils, and peas.

The welfare of the animals is also a concern as some industrially-farmed pigs and cows spend the last months of their lives in horrible conditions. If you still want to continue to eat red meat, its important to choose pasture-raised meatfrom ethical suppliers.

It should be noted that once you cut back on your intake of red meat, your muscles may take longer to recover after a workout and your taste buds may change.

This is because protein is essential for musclerecovery after a workout, but plant protein can still get the job done, itll just take a little longer.

Regarding your changing taste buds, zinc (commonly found in beef) can affect your sense of taste and smell and if you notice any sensitivity of the taste buds, then you may not be getting enough zinc. You can choose to take supplements or opt for zinc-rich foods like whole grains, tofu, tempeh, legumes, nuts and seeds, as well as fortified breakfast cereals, and dairy products.

Nuts, beans, legumes, and soy are each great sources of plant-based protein. Additionally, you can also opt for fish and even plant-based options that mimic the taste and texture of the meatcan help to provide you with your protein intake.In fact, these options are taking over the market, however, there are concerns about which of these options are truly healthy for us to be eating regularly.

David, L. A., Maurice, C. F., Carmody, R. N., Gootenberg, D. B., Button, J. E., Wolfe, B. E., Ling, A. V., Devlin, A. S., Varma, Y., Fischbach, M. A., Biddinger, S. B., Dutton, R. J., & Turnbaugh, P. J. (2014). Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome.Nature,505(7484), 559563. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12820

Goldsmith, J. R., & Sartor, R. B. (2014). The role of diet on intestinal microbiota metabolism: downstream impacts on host immune function and health, and therapeutic implications.Journal of gastroenterology,49(5), 785798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-014-0953-z

Koeth, R. A., Wang, Z., Levison, B. S., Buffa, J. A., Org, E., Sheehy, B. T., Britt, E. B., Fu, X., Wu, Y., Li, L., Smith, J. D., DiDonato, J. A., Chen, J., Li, H., Wu, G. D., Lewis, J. D., Warrier, M., Brown, J. M., Krauss, R. M., Tang, W. H., Hazen, S. L. (2013). Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis.Nature medicine,19(5), 576585. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3145

Larsson, S. C., Traylor, M., Malik, R., Dichgans, M., Burgess, S., & Markus, H. S. (2017). Modifiable pathways in Alzheimers disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis.Bmj,359.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5375

Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2013). Changes in red meat consumption and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: three cohorts of US men and women.JAMA internal medicine,173(14), 1328-1335.

Tonstad, S., Butler, T., Yan, R., & Fraser, G. E. (2009). Type of vegetarian diet, body weight, and prevalence of type 2 diabetes.Diabetes care,32(5), 791796. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1886

Turner-McGrievy, G. M., Wirth, M. D., Shivappa, N., Wingard, E. E., Fayad, R., Wilcox, S., Frongillo, E. A., & Hbert, J. R. (2015). Randomization to plant-based dietary approaches leads to larger short-term improvements in Dietary Inflammatory Index scores and macronutrient intake compared with diets that contain meat.Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.),35(2), 97106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2014.11.007

Wang, Z., Bergeron, N., Levison, B. S., Li, X. S., Chiu, S., Jia, X., & Krauss, R. M. (2019). Impact of chronic dietary red meat, white meat, or non-meat protein on trimethylamine N-oxide metabolism and renal excretion in healthy men and women.European heart journal,40(7), 583-594.

Yokoyama, Y., Levin, S. M., & Barnard, N. D. (2017). Association between plant-based diets and plasma lipids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nutrition reviews,75(9), 683-698.

Go here to see the original:
11 Healthy Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Red Meat - Longevity LIVE

Posted in Human Longevity | Comments Off on 11 Healthy Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Red Meat – Longevity LIVE

Vitamin C : Beauty Benefits of This Anti-Aging Powerhouse Ingredient – Longevity LIVE

There are a few ingredients that are always thrown around when it comes to skincare, and vitamin C is definitely one of them. As of late, the only time weve been hearing of vitamin C is in regards to our immune system. However, this ingredient is just as necessary for our skin as it is for our overall health.

The antioxidant helps to address a number of skin concerns and this is why it continues to be a dermatologists best skincare ingredient, and why its constantly found in every lotion, face cream, and serum known to man.

Vitamin C is an essential nutrient used by the body for the growth and repair of tissues. Unfortunately, the body cannot produce it on its own so the best way to get it is through supplements or your diet.

Now while you can eat your way to a healthy vitamin C intake, you cant do the same for your skin. This is because, when it comes to your skin, the topical application of vitamin C works out better than oral intake. In fact, a studypublished in Dermatologic Therapy found that the topical application of vitamin C resulted in 27 times higher levels of vitamin C in the skin than even the highest possible oral intake.

Free radicals are unstable molecules that damage cells, and in doing so, they encourage premature aging, and they may even trigger skin cancer. Being an antioxidant, vitamin C works to protect the skin by working to neutralize free radicals, thus preventingpremature aging and leaving the skin with ayounger and fresherappearance.

Loss of moisture can not only lead to dull and dry skin, but it can also accentuate the appearance of wrinkles and fine lines.

Vitamin C helps the skin retain moisture by supporting the skin barrier. Additionally, magnesium ascorbyl phosphate is a vitamin C derivative used in skincare, and it has been shownto help hydrate the skin (1).

Vitamin C doesnt only have benefits for your skin.

Firstly, it helps to protect your locks from free radical damage (which can cause breakage and hair loss). Secondly, it helps to stimulate the production of collagen. This is an important protein that helps to keep your hair healthy. Lastly, vitamin C helps the body absorb iron, which is a necessary mineral for healthy hair growth.

As we age, the levels of collagen begin to decline and this greatly contributes to the formation of fine lines and wrinkles, as well as a loss of volume. Thankfully, vitamin C helps to stimulate the production of collagen, and in doing so, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles.

In fact, a studypublished intheClinical, Cosmetic and Investigational DermatologyJournal found that vitamin C helped to increasecollagen production among study participants in all age groups.

Whats more, its antioxidant properties help to neutralize the free radicals that speed up the breakdown of collagen.

Prolonged sun exposure and poor sun protection wont only accelerate the aging process, but it can also cause skin concerns like flakiness, redness, and sunspots.

One animal studyfound that vitamin C helped to reverse sun damage. If youre interested in human trials, a 1999 study found that a 3-month vitamin C treatment helped participants withmild to moderately photo-damaged skin. In fact, they experienced a significant improvement in skin tone and roughness. As of this writing, there are not any recent human trials looking at vitamin C and sun damage.

Hyperpigmentation happens when the body produces too much melanin in certain areas of the skin. This leaves you with unwanted brown spots and discoloration. That said, if you have concerns about uneven skin tone, vitamin C has been found to address the overproduction of melanin.

According to astudypublished intheJournal of Drugs and Dermatology,participants noticed a73%improvement in skin pigmentation after using vitamin C.

When it comes to buying an effective vitamin C beauty product, there are a few things that you need to remember.

Vitamin C comes in various forms, yet L-ascorbic acid has been found to be the most stable and effective form. That said, when shopping for products, make sure that they list L-ascorbic acid as an ingredient.

For instance, the Skinceuticals CE Ferulic serumcontains 15% L-ascorbic acid and its been found to improve the appearance of wrinkles and appearance.

The concentration of vitamin C also plays a role with research showing that a concentration higher than 8 but lower than 20 is quite effective (2). Take the Exuviance AF Vitamin C20 Serum Capsuleswhich contain 20% L-ascorbic acid and have been found to effectively address skin concerns such as sun damage and dullness.

Vitamin C breaks down when its exposed to light or air. Its important that any product you purchase comes in a dark glass bottle.

The LOral Revitalift Derm Intensive Vitamin C Serumcomes in the form of a metal tube, which helps to keep the product stable, ensuring that it delivers great benefits to your skin.

Store your product in a cool, dark place and away from extreme heat. Additionally, if you notice that the product has become yellow or brown, this means that its been oxidized and is likely going to be less effective.

Vitamin C is more effective if its paired with complementary ingredients, particularly vitamin E and ferulic acid.Ferulic acid has been found to stabilize the powerhouse ingredientwhereas vitamin E helps to boost antioxidant protection.

Paulas Choice Resist C15 Super Boosternot only contains vitamins C and E, as well as ferulic acid, but it also contains peptides, which helps to boost your skin health.

If you have sensitive skin, its best to start with a lower concentration. Reach out to your dermatologist to find a product that is best suited for your skin type.

That said, its also advisable to not use vitamin C and retinol at the same time. This can cause irritation. Rather, use vitamin C products in the morning and retinoids at night.

As lockdown regulations lift, more and more of us are making our way outside. So, for those still battling with skin concerns, these post-lockdown buys will not only prep your skin for the outside, but theyll also help to address skin issues brought on by being stuck indoors all day.

Al-Niaimi, F., & Chiang, N. (2017). The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology,10(7), 1417.

Burke, K. E. (2007). Interaction of vitamins C and E as better cosmeceuticals.Dermatologic therapy,20(5), 314-321.

Crisan, D., Roman, I., Crisan, M., Scharffetter-Kochanek, K., & Badea, R. (2015). Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology,8, 463470. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S84903

Pullar, J. M., Carr, A. C., & Vissers, M. (2017). Nutrients,9(8), 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9080866

Telang P. S. (2013). Indian dermatology online journal,4(2), 143146. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5178.110593

Traikovich, S. S. (1999). Use of topical ascorbic acid and its effects on photodamaged skin topography.Archives of otolaryngologyhead & neck surgery,125(10), 1091-1098.

Zussman, J., Ahdout, J., & Kim, J. (2010). Vitamins and photoaging: do scientific data support their use?.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology,63(3), 507525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.07.037

See the original post here:
Vitamin C : Beauty Benefits of This Anti-Aging Powerhouse Ingredient - Longevity LIVE

Posted in Human Longevity | Comments Off on Vitamin C : Beauty Benefits of This Anti-Aging Powerhouse Ingredient – Longevity LIVE

Jeunesse Founders, Jeunesse Global Review 2013. – Video


Jeunesse Founders, Jeunesse Global Review 2013.
bmg.jeunesseglobal.com What are you waiting for??? Start to DREAM Again.... About Jeunesse Jeunesse is not the same old story of skin care and supplements. We are not the same old network model. Jeunesse is a global business that helps people reach their full potential in youthful looks, in healthy living, in embracing life. Jeunesse combines breakthrough sciences in a product system that enhances youth by working at the cellular level. By focusing on the health, longevity, and renewal of cells, we help people enjoy vibrant, youthful results that last. Jeunesse delivers the rewards of youth in four innovative ways Products. The Jeunesse Youth Enhancement System (YES) isn #39;t just about looking young. It #39;s about feeling young for the long term. Even the sciences we employ are new and cutting edge. Our best-of-the-best formulas are innovative, and the youthful results are real. Learn more about our line of Personal Care and Nutrition products. People. Jeunesse shares an emotional reward no networking company can match. The culture of Jeunesse springs from the integrity and core values of our Founders. As a result, our global family of distributors experience rewarding relationships based on mutual respect, trust, and love. Plan. With one of the most lucrative and truly balanced compensation plans around, the Jeunesse Financial Rewards Plan is able to reward more people with more money. And with the plentiful incentives and built-in travel promotions that are our way of doing ...From:Jeunesse2013Views:0 0ratingsTime:04:57More inHowto Style

See the article here:
Jeunesse Founders, Jeunesse Global Review 2013. - Video

Posted in Longevity | Comments Off on Jeunesse Founders, Jeunesse Global Review 2013. – Video

Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution – OUP Academic

Abstract

Genetic engineering opens new possibilities for biomedical enhancement requiring ethical, societal and practical considerations to evaluate its implications for human biology, human evolution and our natural environment. In this Commentary, we consider human enhancement, and in particular, we explore genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. In summarizing key open questions, we highlight the importance of acknowledging multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetic interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology, and the need to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). We also propose that a practicable distinction between therapy and enhancement may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations. Overall, we suggest that it is essential for ethical, philosophical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines.

Lay Summary: This Commentary explores genetic enhancement in an evolutionary context. We highlight the multiple effects associated with germline heritable genetic intervention, the need to consider the unit of impact to human populations and their natural environment, and propose that a practicable distinction between therapy and enhancement is needed.

There are countless examples where technology has contributed to ameliorate the lives of people by improving their inherent or acquired capabilities. For example, over time, there have been biomedical interventions attempting to restore functions that are deficient, such as vision, hearing or mobility. If we consider human vision, substantial advances started from the time spectacles were developed (possibly in the 13th century), continuing in the last few years, with researchers implanting artificial retinas to give blind patients partial sight [13]. Recently, scientists have also successfully linked the brain of a paralysed man to a computer chip, which helped restore partial movement of limbs previously non-responsive [4, 5]. In addition, synthetic blood substitutes have been created, which could be used in human patients in the future [68].

The progress being made by technology in a restorative and therapeutic context could in theory be applied in other contexts to treat non-pathological conditions. Many of the technologies and pharmaceutical products developed in a medical context to treat patients are already being used by humans to enhance some aspect of their bodies, for example drugs to boost brain power, nutritional supplements, brain stimulating technologies to control mood or growth hormones for children of short stature. Assistive technology for disabled people, reproductive medicine and pharmacology, beside their therapeutic and restorative use, have a greater potential for human enhancement than currently thought. There are also dual outcomes as some therapies can have effects that amount to an enhancement as for example, the artificial legs used by the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius providing him with a competitive advantage.

This commentary will provide general ethical considerations on human enhancement, and within the several forms of so-called human biomedical enhancement, it will focus on genetic engineering, particularly on germline (heritable) genetic interventions and on the insights evolutionary biology can provide in rationalizing its likely impact. These insights are a subject often limited in discussions on genetic engineering and human enhancement in general, and its links to ethical, philosophical and policy discussions, in particular [9]. The rapid advances in genetic technology make this debate very topical. Moreover, genes are thought to play a very substantial role in biological evolution and development of the human species, thus making this a topic requiring due consideration. With this commentary, we explore how concepts based in evolutionary biology could contribute to better assess the implications of human germline modifications, assuming they were widely employed. We conclude our brief analysis by summarizing key issues requiring resolution and potential approaches to progress them. Overall, the aim is to contribute to the debate on human genetic enhancement by looking not only at the future, as it is so often done, but also at our evolutionary past.

The noun enhancement comes from the verb enhance, meaning to increase or improve. The verb enhance can be traced back to the vulgar Latin inaltiare and late Latin inaltare (raise, exalt), from altare (make high) and altus (high), literally grown tall. For centuries human enhancement has populated our imagination outlined by stories ranging from the myths of supernormal strengths and eternal life to the superpowers illustrated by the 20th century comic books superheroes. The desire of overcoming normal human capacities and the transformation to an almost perfect form has been part of the history of civilization, extending from arts and religion to philosophy. The goal of improving the human condition and health has always been a driver for innovation and biomedical developments.

In the broadest sense, the process of human enhancement can be considered as an improvement of the limitations of a natural version of the human species with respect to a specific reference in time, and to different environments, which can vary depending on factors such as, for example, climate change. The limitations of the human condition can be physical and/or mental/cognitive (e.g. vision, strength or memory). This poses relevant questions of what a real or perceived human limitation is in the environment and times in which we are living and how it can be shifted over time considering social norms and cultural values of modern societies. Besides, the impact that overcoming these limitations will have on us humans, and the environment, should also be considered. For example, if we boost the immune system of specific people, this may contribute to the development/evolution of more resistant viruses and bacteria or/and lead to new viruses and bacteria to emerge. In environmental terms, enhancing the longevity of humans could contribute to a massive increase in global population, creating additional pressures on ecosystems already under human pressure.

Two decades ago, the practices of human enhancement have been described as biomedical interventions that are used to improve human form or functioning beyond what is necessary to restore or sustain health [10]. The range of these practices has now increased with technological development, and they are any kind of genetic, biomedical, or pharmaceutical intervention aimed at improving human dispositions, capacities, or well-being, even if there is no pathology to be treated [11]. Practices of human enhancement could be visualized as upgrading a system, where interventions take place for a better performance of the original system. This is far from being a hypothetical situation. The rapid progress within the fields of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science has brought back discussions about the evolutionary trajectory of the human species by the promise of new applications which could provide abilities beyond current ones [12, 13]. If such a possibility was consciously embraced and actively pursued, technology could be expected to have a revolutionary interference with human life, not just helping humans in achieving general health and capabilities commensurate with our current ones but helping to overcome human limitations far beyond of what is currently possible for human beings. The emergence of new technologies has provided a broader range of potential human interventions and the possibility of transitioning from external changes to our bodies (e.g. external prosthesis) to internal ones, especially when considering genetic manipulation, whose changes can be permanent and transmissible.

The advocates of a far-reaching human enhancement have been referred to as transhumanists. In their vision, so far, humans have largely worked to control and shape their exterior environments (niche construction) but with new technologies (e.g. biotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology) they will soon be able to control and fundamentally change their own bodies. Supporters of these technologies agree with the possibility of a more radical interference in human life by using technology to overcome human limitations [1416], that could allow us to live longer, healthier and even happier lives [17]. On the other side, and against this position, are the so-called bioconservatives, arguing for the conservation and protection of some kind of human essence, with the argument that it exists something intrinsically valuable in human life that should be preserved [18, 19].

There is an ongoing debate between transhumanists [2022] and bioconservatives [18, 19, 23] on the ethical issues regarding the use of technologies in humans. The focus of this commentary is not centred on this debate, particularly because the discussion of these extreme, divergent positions is already very prominent in the public debate. In fact, it is interesting to notice that the moderate discourses around this topic are much less known. In a more moderate view, perhaps one of the crucial questions to consider, independently of the moral views on human enhancement, is whether human enhancement (especially if considering germline heritable genetic interventions) is a necessary development, and represents an appropriate use of time, funding and resources compared to other pressing societal issues. It is crucial to build space for these more moderate, and perhaps less polarized voices, allowing the consideration of other positions and visions beyond those being more strongly projected so far.

Ethical and societal discussions on what constitutes human enhancement will be fundamental to support the development of policy frameworks and regulations on new technological developments. When considering the ethical implications of human enhancement that technology will be available to offer now and in the future, it could be useful to group the different kinds of human enhancements in the phenotypic and genetic categories: (i) strictly phenotypic intervention (e.g. ranging from infrared vision spectacles to exoskeletons and bionic limbs); (ii) somatic, non-heritable genetic intervention (e.g. editing of muscle cells for stronger muscles) and (iii) germline, heritable genetic intervention (e.g. editing of the CC chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) gene in the Chinese baby twins, discussed later on). These categories of enhancement raise different considerations and concerns and currently present different levels of acceptance by our society. The degree of ethical, societal and environmental impacts is likely to be more limited for phenotypic interventions (i) but higher for genetic interventions (ii and iii), especially for the ones which are transmissible to future generations (iii).

The rapid advances in technology seen in the last decades, have raised the possibility of radical enhancement, defined by Nicholas Agar, as the improvement of human attributes and abilities to levels that greatly exceed what is currently possible for human beings [24]. Genetic engineering offers the possibility of such an enhancement by providing humans a profound control over their own biology. Among other technologies, genetic engineering comprises genome editing (also called gene editing), a group of technologies with the ability to directly modify an organisms DNA through a targeted intervention in the genome (e.g. insertion, deletion or replacement of specific genetic material) [25]. Genome editing is considered to achieve much greater precision than pre-existing forms of genetic engineering. It has been argued to be a revolutionary tool due to its efficiency, reducing cost and time. This technology is considered to have many applications for human health, in both preventing and tackling disease. Much of the ethical debate associated with this technology concerns the possible application of genome editing in the human germline, i.e. the genome that can be transmitted to following generations, be it from gametes, a fertilized egg or from first embryo divisions [2628]. There has been concern as well as enthusiasm on the potential of the technology to modify human germline genome to provide us with traits considered positive or useful (e.g. muscle strength, memory and intelligence) in the current and future environments.

To explore some of the possible implications of heritable interventions we will take as an example the editing (more specifically deletion using CRISPR genome editing technology) of several base pairs of the CCR5 gene. Such intervention was practised in 2018 in two non-identical twin girls born in China. Loss of function mutations of the CCR5 had been previously shown to provide resistance to HIV. Therefore, the gene deletion would be expected to protect the twin baby girls from risk of transmission of HIV which could have occurred from their father (HIV-positive). However, the father had the infection kept under control and the titre of HIV virus was undetectable, which means that risk of transmission of HIV infection to the babies was negligible [29].

From an ethical ground, based on current acceptable practices, this case has been widely criticized by the scientific community beside being considered by many a case of human enhancement intervention rather than therapy [29, 30]. One of the questions this example helps illustrate is that the ethical boundary between a therapy that corrects a disorder by restoring performance to a normal scope, and an intervention that enhances human ability outside the accepted normal scope, is not always easy to draw. For the sake of argument, it could be assumed that therapy involves attempts to restore a certain condition of health, normality or sanity of the natural condition of a specific individual. If we take this approach, the question is how health, normality and sanity, as well as natural per se, are defined, as the meaning of these concepts shift over time to accommodate social norms and cultural values of modern societies. It could be said that the difficulty of developing a conceptual distinction between therapy and enhancement has always been present. However, the potential significance of such distinction is only now, with the acceleration and impact of technological developments, becoming more evident.

Beyond ethical questions, a major problem of this intervention is that we do not (yet?) know exactly the totality of the effects that the artificial mutation of the CCR5 may have, at both the genetic and phenotypic levels. This is because we now know that, contrary to the idea of one gene-one trait accepted some decades ago, a geneor its absencecan affect numerous traits, many of them being apparently unrelated (a phenomenon also known as pleiotropy). That is, due to constrained developmental interactions, mechanisms and genetic networks, a change in a single gene can result in a cascade of multiple effects [31]. In the case of CCR5, we currently know that the mutation offers protection against HIV infection, and also seems to increase the risk of severe or fatal reactions to some infectious diseases, such as the influenza virus [32]. It has also been observed that among people with multiple sclerosis, the ones with CCR5 mutation are twice as likely to die early than are people without the mutation [33]. Some studies have also shown that defective CCR5 can have a positive effect in cognition to enhance learning and memory in mice [34]. However, its not clear if this effect would be translated into humans. The example serves to illustrate that, even if human enhancement with gene editing methods was considered ethically sound, assessing the totality of its implications on solid grounds may be difficult to achieve.

Beyond providing the opportunity of enhancing human capabilities in specific individuals, intervening in the germline is likely to have an impact on the evolutionary processes of the human species raising questions on the scale and type of impacts. In fact, the use of large-scale genetic engineering might exponentially increase the force of niche construction in human evolution, and therefore raise ethical and practical questions never faced by our species before. It has been argued that natural selection is a mechanism of lesser importance in the case of current human evolution, as compared to other organisms, because of advances in medicine and healthcare [35]. According to such a view, among many others advances, natural selection has been conditioned by our niche-construction ability to improve healthcare and access to clean water and food, thus changing the landscape of pressures that humans have been facing for survival. An underlying assumption or position of the current debate is that, within our human species, the force of natural selection became minimized and that we are somehow at the end-point of our evolution [36]. If this premise holds true, one could argue that evolution is no longer a force in human history and hence that any human enhancement would not be substituting itself to human evolution as a key driver for future changes.

However, it is useful to remember that, as defined by Darwin in his book On the Origin of the Species, natural selection is a process in which organisms that happen to be better adapted to a certain environment tend to have higher survival and/or reproductive rates than other organisms [37]. When comparing human evolution to human genetic enhancement, an acceptable position could be to consider ethically sound those interventions that could be replicated naturally by evolution, as in the case of the CCR5 gene. Even if this approach was taken, however, it is important to bear in mind that human evolution acts on human traits sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing our biological fitness, in a constant evolutionary trade-off and in a contingent and/or neutralin the sense of not progressiveprocess. In other worlds, differently from genetic human enhancement, natural selection does not aim at improving human traits [38]. Human evolution and the so-called genetic human enhancement would seem therefore to involve different underlying processes, raising several questions regarding the implications and risks of the latter.

But using genetic engineering to treat humans has been proposed far beyond the therapeutic case or to introduce genetic modifications known to already occur in nature. In particular, when looking into the views expressed on the balance between human evolution and genetic engineering, some argue that it may be appropriate to use genetic interventions to go beyond what natural selection has contributed to our species when it comes to eradicate vulnerabilities [17]. Furthermore, when considering the environmental, ecological and social issues of contemporary times, some suggest that genetic technologies could be crucial tools to contribute to human survival and well-being [2022]. The possible need to engineer human traits to ensure our survival could include the ability to allow our species to adapt rapidly to the rate of environmental change caused by human activity, for which Darwinian evolution may be too slow [39]. Or, for instance, to support long-distance space travel by engineering resistance to radiation and osteoporosis, along with other conditions which would be highly advantageous in space [40].

When considering the ethical and societal merits of these propositions, it is useful to consider how proto-forms of enhancement has been approached by past human societies. In particular, it can be argued that humans have already employedas part of our domestication/selective breeding of other animalstechniques of indirect manipulation of genomes on a relatively large scale over many millennia, albeit not on humans. The large-scale selective breeding of plants and animals over prehistoric and historic periods could be claimed to have already shaped some of our natural environment. Selective breeding has been used to obtain specific characteristics considered useful at a given time in plants and animals. Therefore, their evolutionary processes have been altered with the aim to produce lineages with advantageous traits, which contributed to the evolution of different domesticated species. However, differently from genetic engineering, domestication possesses inherent limitations in its ability to produce major transformations in the created lineages, in contrast with the many open possibilities provided by genetic engineering.

When considering the impact of genetic engineering on human evolution, one of questions to be considered concerns the effects, if any, that genetic technology could have on the genetic pool of the human population and any implication on its resilience to unforeseen circumstances. This underlines a relevant question associated with the difference between health and biological fitness. For example, a certain group of animals can be more healthyas domesticated dogsbut be less biologically fit according to Darwins definition. Specifically, if such group of animals are less genetically diverse than their ancestors, they could be less adaptable to environmental changes. Assuming that, the human germline modification is undertaken at a global scale, this could be expected to have an effect, on the distribution of genetically heritable traits on the human population over time. Considering that gene and trait distributions have been changing under the processes of evolution for billions of years, the impact on evolution will need to be assessed by analysing which genetic alterations have been eventually associated with specific changes within the recent evolutionary history of humans. On this front, a key study has analysed the implications of genetic engineering on the evolutionary biology of human populations, including the possibility of reducing human genetic diversity, for instance creating a biological monoculture [41]. The study argued that genetic engineering will have an insignificant impact on human diversity, while it would likely safeguard the capacity of human populations to deal with disease and new environmental challenges and therefore, ensure the health and longevity of our species [41]. If the findings of this study were considered consistent with other knowledge and encompassing, the impact of human genetic enhancements on the human genetic pool and associated impacts could be considered secondary aspects. However, data available from studies on domestication strongly suggests that domestication of both animals and plans might lead to not only decreased genetic diversity per se, but even affect patterns of variation in gene expression throughout the genome and generally decreased gene expression diversity across species [4244]. Given that, according to recent studies within the field of biological anthropology recent human evolution has been in fact a process of self-domestication [45], one could argue that studies on domestication could contribute to understanding the impacts of genetic engineering.

Beyond such considerations, it is useful to reflect on the fact that human genetic enhancement could occur on different geographical scales, regardless of the specific environment and geological periods in which humans are living and much more rapidly than in the case of evolution, in which changes are very slow. If this was to occur routinely and on a large scale, the implications of the resulting radical and abrupt changes may be difficult to predict and its impacts difficult to manage. This is currently highlighted by results of epigenetics studies, and also of the microbiome and of the effects of pollutants in the environment and their cumulative effect on the development of human and non-human organisms alike. Increasingly new evidence indicates a greater interdependence between humans and their environments (including other microorganisms), indicating that modifying the environment can have direct and unpredictable consequences on humans as well. This highlight the need of a systems level approach. An approach in which the bounded body of the individual human as a basic unit of biological or social action would need to be questioned in favour of a more encompassing and holistic unit. In fact, within biology, there is a new field, Systems Biology, which stresses the need to understand the role that pleiotropy, and thus networks at multiple levelse.g. genetic, cellular, among individuals and among different taxaplay within biological systems and their evolution [46]. Currently, much still needs to be understood about gene function, its role in human biological systems and the interaction between genes and external factors such as environment, diet and so on. In the future if we do choose to genetically enhance human traits to levels unlikely to be achieved by human evolution, it would be crucial to consider if and how our understanding of human evolution enable us to better understand the implications of genetic interventions.

New forms of human enhancement are increasingly coming to play due to technological development. If phenotypic and somatic interventions for human enhancement pose already significant ethical and societal challenges, germline heritable genetic intervention, require much broader and complex considerations at the level of the individual, society and human species as a whole. Germline interventions associated with modern technologies are capable of much more rapid, large-scale impacts and seem capable of radically altering the balance of humans with the environment. We know now that beside the role genes play on biological evolution and development, genetic interventions can induce multiple effects (pleiotropy) and complex epigenetics interactions among genotype, phenotype and ecology of a certain environment. As a result of the rapidity and scale with which such impact could be realized, it is essential for ethical and societal debates, as well as underlying scientific studies, to consider the unit of impact not only to the human body but also to human populations and their natural environment (systems biology). An important practicable distinction between therapy and enhancement may need to be drawn and effectively implemented in future regulations, although a distinct line between the two may be difficult to draw.

In the future if we do choose to genetically enhance human traits to levels unlikely to be achieved by human evolution, it would be crucial to consider if and how our understanding of humans and other organisms, including domesticated ones, enable us to better understand the implications of genetic interventions. In particular, effective regulation of genetic engineering may need to be based on a deep knowledge of the exact links between phenotype and genotype, as well the interaction of the human species with the environment and vice versa.

For a broader and consistent debate, it will be essential for technological, philosophical, ethical and policy discussions on human enhancement to consider the empirical evidence provided by evolutionary biology, developmental biology and other disciplines.

This work was supported by Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal [CFCUL/FIL/00678/2019 to M.A.].

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Pham

P

Roux

S

Matonti

F

Post-implantation impedance spectroscopy of subretinal micro-electrode arrays, OCT imaging and numerical simulation: towards a more precise neuroprosthesis monitoring tool

J Neural Eng

2013

10

046002

Maghami

MH

Sodagar

AM

Lashay

A

Visual prostheses: the enabling technology to give sight to the blind

J Ophthal Vis Res

2014

9

494

505

Weitz

AC

Nanduri

D

Behrend

MR

Improving the spatial resolution of epiretinal implants by increasing stimulus pulse duration

Sci Transl Med

2015

7

318ra203.

Bouton

CE

Shaikhouni

A

Annetta

NV

Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia

Nature

2016

533

247

50

Geddes

L.

First paralysed person to be reanimated offers neuroscience insights. Technique moves mans arm by decoding his thoughts and electrically stimulating his own muscles

Nat News

2016

533

Squires

JE.

Artificial blood

Science

2002

295

1002

5

Lowe

KC.

Blood substitutes: from chemistry to clinic

J Mater Chem

2006

16

See the original post:
Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution - OUP Academic

Posted in Human Genetic Engineering | Comments Off on Human enhancement: Genetic engineering and evolution – OUP Academic