Talk:Maximum life span

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose of this article[edit]

Damn, people, stop the ignorance!

This page was intended to be an encyclopaedic definition of "maximum life span," NOT "mean life span," NOT anti-aging quackery. Re-defining the word to make it fit non-results is B.S.

The FACTS remain: the maximum life span of the mouse has not yet been extended...the record currently stands at 4.98 years. Until this is passed significantly, claims that the maximum life spans in mammals have been extended is FICTION. 70.89.83.190 06:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. This article WAS originally founded as "life span," defined by gerontologists as the maximum observed life span of a species. Someone first changed it to "maximum life span." Now someone wants to hijack this to "mean life span=maximum life span." That's like saying 1+1=3 because we've 'redefined" what "1" means. Sorry, that doesn't make sense.
The FACT remains: the Methuselah Mouse prize remains UNCLAIMED. Caloric restriction has NOT increased the life span of the mouse. The only potential life span increases have been shown in invertebrates, such as worms and fruit flies. → R Young {yakłtalk} 06:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The extension of rodent maximum lifespan by calorie restriction has been demonstrated in thousands of studies, beginning with McCay in 1935. Walford and Weidruch created a benchmark in the field by many years of investigation into the quantitative relationships associated with calorie restriction and maximum lifespan extension in mice as well as quantifying the physiological changes associated with the extension of maximum lifespan by calorie restriction. Their results were summarized in The Retardation of Aging and Disease by Dietary Restriction (1988). In correcting your deletions in the main Wikipedia article I added a reference to a recent review of extended maximum lifespan in rodent studies in Genes & Development, which I suggest that you read. One of the few things that gerontologists can agree upon is the fact that calorie restriction in laboratory rodents extends maximum lifespan. Also, many transgenic species of mice with extended maximum life span have been created. You also misunderstand The Methuselah Mouse Prize. The prize is awarded to anyone who increases the current world record for maximum lifespan of rodents. The amount of the award is based on a calculation of proportional extension of maximum lifespan above the current record, and a proportion of the prize is distributed on that basis. So the total amount of the prize would never be given. An award ([Reference http://technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=275]) has already been made and awards will continue to be made with each new world record for mouse longevity maximum lifespan.--Ben Best 22:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Benbest, it is not that I 'misunderstand' maximum life span...it's that people see what they want to see. Roy Walford lived to 79. Claims that caloric restriction have increased 'maximum life span' have been based on disengenuously re-defining maximum life span to fit the results. In reality, we have NOT seen any actual increase in maximum life span for mammals due to caloric restriction, as opposed to animals kept in cages/captivity and not given a calorie-restricted diet. Increases in life expectancy do not equate to increases in maximum life span. Rather, the rectangularization of the mortality curve shows that the benefits so far have been logarithmic, with most of the increases at the lower ends of the curve (i.e. preventing premature, obesity-related deaths), not extending the lives of the already-healthy individuals. I regret that a lot of people purporting to be scientists, but actually proponents of science-fiction, continue to make claims no different than the quacks of the past. Actual science must be backed up by proven results, not hype. Last I checked, the Methuselah Mouse project has not been able to produce even a 5-year-old mouse. So, claims to have 'extended' the maximum life span are incorrect. Further, I believe that you can have your say on another page, such as 'life extension,' so there's no need to co-opt what was intended as an encyclopaedic definition and description that recognizes maximum life span as defined by the longest-lived member of an individual species. Until caloric restriction has produced a 123-year-old person, claims that it extends the human life span are fallacious and inaccurate. → R Young {yakłtalk} 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the transgenic results, the Research data concerning maximum life span section of this article contains the citations for two of those studies, the catalase enzyme extension of maximum lifespan by 20% and the 18% maximum life span increase in FIRKO mice. There are many others. --Ben Best 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't the topic of the article, but shouldn't the age at which half the species has died be the _median_ life span? If it actually is called "mean," then the scientists of this field are silly. :) -- Ned
What you say is absolutely true, Ned! It looks like some revisions are in order, but I want to give the matter some thought. --Ben Best 06:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the matter did not really require much thought. There is already a Wikipedia entry for "mean life span" = "life expectancy", and that is a better definition than the incorrect one given. I deleted erroneous explanation which was actually a definition of median lifespan. --Ben Best 08:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because 'average lifespan' is so often confuddled with 'life expectancy,' I've marked the 'average ages' near the top of the page with {{Fact}}. These statements should be disambiguated by their sources. Ethanjohn 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur! Mindman1 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that some people still refuse to accept that maximum lifespan can be increased AND that at least 3 antioxidants have proven to increase it, your very Wikipedia states so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-Mercaptoethanol#Biological_effects Please change the statements about antioxidants not being able to increase maximum lifespan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.153.206 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Clean-up Tag[edit]

User:Sin-man tagged this article for clean-up on April 3, 2006 without any comment on this page or any indication of what was regarded as a problem. Since that time I have updated the referencing method, which certainly counts as a clean-up. If Sin-man wants more cleaning he will have to come clean about his view of the problem. --Ben Best 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval[edit]

Why isn't anything for the Middle Ages state? For instance, Stephen Nemanya from the High Medieval Ages (12th century) lived for nine decades. --PaxEquilibrium 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish Maximum Lifespan[edit]

What goldfish has ever lived 49 years?!? If it was 49 months, I think I would still have a hard time believing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.179.219.56 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Try one of those aquariums at the local Chinese restaurant. Goldfish survival rates actually go up once they reach a certain size.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the same thing for sturgeon: once they reach a given size, they are too large for their natural predators to eat, & are practically immortal. Boy, that's one way to live forever -- but you'd have to be an ugly fish that living your life as a bottom-feeder. -- llywrch 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold fishes can't just live 49 months 'cause mine have lived 4 about 5 or 6 years and r still living

The links that are evidence for the fantastic 49 year old goldfish are broken. And the one that talks about that 200 year old koi is for a store trying to sell me a koi. 220.77.95.44 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Races[edit]

Shouldn't there be a maximum age for each human race? The Symbolic Icon 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced Sourcing[edit]

Why is there only articles for Leonid Gavrilov listed? Please balance or delete them.R Young {yakłtalk} 08:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah[edit]

I'm not sure Methuselah should be mentioned under "In Humans". It seems a bit unprofessional to use religious icons in an article meant to provide a scientific look at maximum life spans. I haven't edited the article, but does anyone agree or disagree? 216.232.206.206 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah should not be mentioned, because the other Genesis 5 numbers are also impossibly large. And different versions of Genesis 5 give different numbers. Greensburger (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeta, the Chimpanzee[edit]

Cheeta's real age is freshly controversial as of February 6, 2009. See article: The last word: The truth about ‘Cheeta’ [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.74.29 (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeta just passed away and the age is claimed to be 80. Since he starred in movies in the 1930s it's not inconceivable. The article lifespan for chimps needs to be changed to 80. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.90.29 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Miyan[edit]

Habib Miyan is not the oldest recognized person. His age is not universally recognized and such, should not be mentioned as the oldest person. That distinction goes to Jeanne Calment, who is universally recongnized as the oldest person ever. --Ddog892 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New information[edit]

In the section 'increasing maximum life span' the statement 'Currently, the only (non-transgenic) method of increasing maximum life span that is recognized by biogerontologists is calorie restriction with adequate nutrition' (with an overly generic footnote source) ignores information on de Grey's website. The article currently mentions the Mprize de Grey sponsors. One winner of the prize was for 'Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice' (2009 prize). This research claimed an age increase of around 11 per cent depending on the sex of the mouse. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/nature08221.html Star A Star (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stem Cell advance[edit]

At http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-rejuvenated-stem-cells-coaxed-centenarian.html there is an article on 'Rejuvenated stem cells coaxed from centenarian' (October 31, 2011 by Marlowe Hood) which states 'Scientists said Tuesday they had transformed age-worn cells in people over 90 -- including a centenarian -- into rejuvenated stemcells that were 'indistinguishable' from those found in embryos. This information may be too generic for the focus of this article as it is early days yet and its applicability may be lacking, however it could also be argued it is of note. Star A Star (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

Noakes (p. 84) notes that, on the basis of this hypothesis, athletes with a VO2max value between 50 and 60 at age 20 can be expected "to live for 100 to 125 years, provided they maintained their physical activity so that their rate of decline in VO2max remained constant. Of course, the reason few athletes ever achieve such longevity is that disease intervenes." Questionable reliability of source in this matter, this dubious claim being an example. Do a few diseases really wipe decades off of an athlete's life span so that they don't live much longer (if longer at all) than the general population?! --Xagg (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has been silent since 2012, can I delete the tag? It looks bad to have a tag on a discussion for so long and it doesn't even seem relevant to the article 72.89.58.230 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This comment above yours in this section isn't even about the material that you have been repeatedly removing (which is about a book by Dong, Mulholland and Vijg, not Noakes). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the link from the dubious tag is leading me. 72.89.58.230 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link in the tag is an automatically created link to a section named "Dubious" that the editor who added the tag should have created but didn't, while this section is about an earlier "dubious"-tag that is no longer in the article. Always check what the section you're led to is about, before using it as an excuse for removing sourced material. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies[edit]

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Maximum life span[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Maximum life span which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://naturalshilajit.com/
    Triggered by \bnaturalshilajit\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maximum life span. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maximum life span. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another dubious reference[edit]

Ref 19 "However, a theoretical study also suggested that the maximum human life expectancy at birth is limited by the human life characteristic value δ, which is around 104 years"

" Hypothesis: The living energy El, which is proportional to the quantity of a vital molecular unit that linearly decreases with time, is the energy to protect the chemical substance that is critical for life from being impaired by damaging energy (the magnitudes of challenges [4]) from other molecules or from itself. This hypothesis suggests that aging results from the imbalance between damaging energy and protecting energy for the critical chemical substance. The rate of senescence of the organism increases as the protecting energy decreases. "

Looks very dodgy to me. Mtpaley (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus edit on log-normal[edit]

The user User:Lognormal_theory has only one contribution in their wikipedia career, which was a vague, questionable, uncited paragraph to the Definition section of this article. I have removed it. This is the link to the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_life_span&diff=prev&oldid=912217051 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurrayScience (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maximum_life_span&oldid=1203928321"