Всего за 160 руб. Купить полную версию
Among other myths, it should be mentioned first of all the idea that there is a Maximum life expectancy (MLE) equal to 100-120-140-170 years, etc. (depending on the personal preferences of the authors), and it can be achieved, it is enough just to study the experience and device of long-livers.
However, the available fixed maximum life spans are the Record life span (RLS) the exception is that the tails of the curves of the normal distribution of signs are impossible for any large part of the population to achieve. Such tails are typical for any statistical distribution and can only be oriented on the life expectancy policy. In addition, the MLE, in general, cannot exist as a definite digit: the extinction of a population is a probabilistic law (a curve, not a digit) and there is always some probability of living longer than a given limit. You can only talk about what percentage of the remaining population (and accordingly what percentage of the extinct population) is considered as the basis of the MLE, which should rather be interpreted as SLE (the species limit of life).
At the same time, a sharp increase in mortality with age leads to the fact that the differences between the life span of the remaining 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% and so on, the populations differ not even by years, but by months, therefore the MLE it is quite adequate to consider the life span of the life span for the remaining 1% or even 510% of the population
The notion that mortality is determined only by a specific cause, and by removing specific causes we remove the mortality itself, indefinitely extending the life span the typical myth of doctors. This gave rise in the middle of the last century to numerous movements for general improvement. A number of longitudinal studies, however, showed that mortality in such groups, usually focused on the prevention of cardiovascular diseases, as the main cause of death, decreases very slightly, although the mortality from cardiovascular diseases itself is quite pronounced there is a redistribution of mortality: Compensatory phenomenon of mortality, with increased mortality from other causes. For a gerontologist biologist, however, it is quite obvious that mortality is the result primarily of a decrease in viability, and causes of mortality are secondary: mortality does not add up as the sum of causes, but decomposes according to them, while the specific causes of death and internal super-strong effects for the body.
The concepts of the relationship between aging and evolutionary processes are widespread (Flatt, Schmidt, 2009; Giaimo, 2014; Hughes, 2010; Kirkwood, Melov, 2011). The myth that aging is evolutionarily important: like the death of old for opening the road to the young is a typical myth of non-specialists in the field of evolutionary theory and ecology. It has long been known, however, that in real life with very high mortality to old age, almost no wild animal survives. On the other hand, in many cases, age experience (birds, mammals) or sizes that increase constantly with age (fish) reduce (!), and do not increase, actual mortality under natural conditions. In addition, evolution can only affect the reproductive period, and the older ages are simply not visible to it. Evolutionary influences are important in a certain form evolutionary found mechanisms of maximum adaptation are not required for the period of aging, and if they are important for the maturity period but have off or mismatch mechanisms with age and other unfavorable moments, these features will appear in old age as regulatory mechanisms aging (typically climax).
A whole group of myths is connected with the possibilities of absolute regeneration of all structures of the body or, on the contrary, with the programmed aging and death, which leads to ideas about biological hours of death (Kirkwood, Melov, 2011; Afanasev, 2010; Olovnikov, 2005; Rando, Chang, 2012; Walker, 2011). This is usually associated with cellular self-renewal: with the fact that cells, on the one hand, have a life limit within them (Hayflick phenomenon), on the other hand, many cells are immortal in culture, and on the third side, only stem cells are immortal and only update all body tissues. In fact, everything here is not true. It has long been shown that the Hayflick phenomenon is a purely cultural phenomenon and only for a limited cell type, with which the author himself had long agreed, preferring now stochastic ideas about the nature of aging (Hayflick, 2007). Cells in culture change over time, mutate and undergo selection, so over time, it is a different culture (this is well known to practitioners who initially work with one type of cells for a long time the results obtained on cultures of the same cells with different groups of scientists are contradictory).
It is known that self-renewal of cells, such as the liver, is primarily due to the liver cells themselves, and not stem cells this is clearly seen when regenerating it in an experiment, when almost all hepatic cells can enter during the first regenerative mitosis during the day; only when such regeneration is blocked, stem cells begin to be activated in significant quantities the so-called oval liver cells (Strick-Marchand et al., 2008). Stem cells are not immortal silent stem cells eventually die for purely probabilistic reasons and mechanisms; stem cells that emerged into division form populations that are also depleted over time, some are replaced by other populations. Whether dividing stem cells can go to rest and replenish the silent pool of stem cells, and not only differentiate into more specific, highly differentiated tissue cells, remains little understood. With aging, rather, the active effects of an old organism on the stem and other cells are revealed, which can be seen in systems of syngeneic transfer between young and old animals (Albright, Makinodan, 1976; Gorskaya, 2011).
The notion that there is an aging program is another widespread myth (Kirkwood, Melov, 2011; Olovnikov, 2005; Rando, Chang, 2012). It is enough, however, to indicate that they ignore (or rather, do not understand or even do not know) stochastic processes, which naturally direct any systems to decay, and which do not require any special program for this. It is easy to understand on the basis of a mechanical analogue: a mechanical machine is created according to the drawings according to the program, but when it starts to be used, the program is completed and its aging goes not according to the program, but according to the stochastic mechanism, due to the law of increasing entropy.
Thus, it is quite clearly seen that the basis of all the myths about aging is the lack of knowledge of scientific methodology and the inability to apply theoretical methods on the one hand, while inflating particulars on the other. As a result of the extreme specialization of the sciences, there are almost no scientists with a broad view there are narrow specialists who do not see the big picture. On the other hand, there is the issuance of their own desires for scientific truth, as well as abstract reasoning for experimentally verified facts.
In questions about the cause of aging, the main mistake is a lack of understanding of the epistemological (theory of knowledge) fundamentals: the reason is not a specific mechanism, but a principle, another level of problem analysis. For the reason they give out various particular mechanisms, which leads to the theories of aging that grow beyond any measure and which do not see each other and any other mechanisms of aging.