News at (http://longevity-science.org/)

  • Thread starter Leonid Gavrilov
  • Start date



L

Leonid Gavrilov

Guest
Greetings,

The following three our presentations at the 10th Congress of the International Association of
Biomedical Gerontology (September, 2003, Cambridge, UK) are now publicly available at
<http://longevity-science.org/>:

"Early-Life Programming of Aging and Longevity: The Idea of High Initial Damage Load (the HIDL
Hypothesis)" http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilov-HIDL.html

"Does Exceptional Human Longevity Come With High Cost of Infertility? Testing the Evolutionary
Theories of Aging" http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilova.html

"Reliability-Engineering Approach to the Problem of Biological Aging"
http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilov.html

Any comments and suggestions are welcome !

Kind regards,

-- Leonid Gavrilov Author of the book "The Biology of Life Span"
http://longevity-science.org/index.html#Book
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
> > "Does Exceptional Human Longevity Come With High Cost of Infertility? Testing the Evolutionary
> > Theories of Aging" http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilova.html
>
> I enjoyed this one - my thoughts:
>
> The paper says:
>
> ``What is really important is that the chances of being childless do not
> demonstrate any increase for long-lived women (lifespan 90+ years).''
>
> From the graph, it /does/ seem like there is an increase in the > 80 yo groups - though its
> significance is not clear.

*** The error bars provided at this graph indicate that there is no any statistical significance in
this small fluke.

> My other thought is that it would be nice to have data for other population areas.
>
> The idea that there is a trade-off between reproductive success and longevity is largely based on
> allocation of limited resources.
>
> Ladies in european aristocratic families may be relatively less likely to experience resource
> shortages as a result of expenditure on children - and so might avoid much of the resulting impact
> on their lifespans - by being better equipped financially than most members of the population.
>
> The other obvious bias in the sampling is the one towards females.

*** Please elaborate in more detail, where have you found an obvious bias towards females in
our study.

Thank you for your interest and useful comments !

Kind regards,

-- Leonid Gavrilov Author of the book "The Biology of Life Span"
http://longevity-science.org/index.html#Book
 
In sci.life-extension Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

>> > "Does Exceptional Human Longevity Come With High Cost of Infertility? Testing the Evolutionary
>> > Theories of Aging" http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilova.html
>>
>> I enjoyed this one - my thoughts:
>>
>> The paper says:
>>
>> ``What is really important is that the chances of being childless do not
>> demonstrate any increase for long-lived women (lifespan 90+ years).''
>>
>> From the graph, it /does/ seem like there is an increase in the > 80 yo groups - though its
>> significance is not clear.
>
> *** The error bars provided at this graph indicate that there is no any statistical significance
> in this small fluke.

A more conventional way of presenting such a result would be to write:

``What is really important is that the chances of being childless do not
demonstrate any significant increase for long-lived women [...]''

>> My other thought is that it would be nice to have data for other population areas.
>>
>> The idea that there is a trade-off between reproductive success and longevity is largely based on
>> allocation of limited resources.
>>
>> Ladies in european aristocratic families may be relatively less likely to experience resource
>> shortages as a result of expenditure on children - and so might avoid much of the resulting
>> impact on their lifespans - by being better equipped financially than most members of the
>> population.
>>
>> The other obvious bias in the sampling is the one towards females.
>
> *** Please elaborate in more detail, where have you found an obvious bias towards females in
> our study.

Only women were sampled:

``The dataset is comprised of 3,723 married women born in 1500-1875 and belonging to the upper
European nobility. Every case of childlessness was cross-checked using at least two different
sources. Data analyses were based on logistic regression model using childlessness as a dependent
(outcome) variable, and woman lifespan, calendar year of birth, age at marriage, husband's age at
marriage and husband's lifespan as dependent (predictor) variables. We found that woman's
exceptional longevity does not increase her chances to be infertile.''
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
Leonid Gavrilov wrote:

> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> >
> > > "Does Exceptional Human Longevity Come With High Cost of Infertility? Testing the Evolutionary
> > > Theories of Aging" http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilova.html
> >
> > I enjoyed this one - my thoughts:
> >
> > The paper says:
> >
> > ``What is really important is that the chances of being childless do not
> > demonstrate any increase for long-lived women (lifespan 90+ years).''
> >
> > From the graph, it /does/ seem like there is an increase in the > 80 yo groups - though its
> > significance is not clear.
>
> *** The error bars provided at this graph indicate that there is no any statistical significance
> in this small fluke.
>
> > My other thought is that it would be nice to have data for other population areas.
> >
> > The idea that there is a trade-off between reproductive success and longevity is largely based
> > on allocation of limited resources.
> >
> > Ladies in european aristocratic families may be relatively less likely to experience resource
> > shortages as a result of expenditure on children - and so might avoid much of the resulting
> > impact on their lifespans - by being better equipped financially than most members of the
> > population.
> >
> > The other obvious bias in the sampling is the one towards females.
>
> *** Please elaborate in more detail, where have you found an obvious bias towards females in
> our study.
>
> Thank you for your interest and useful comments !
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -- Leonid Gavrilov Author of the book "The Biology of Life Span"
> http://longevity-science.org/index.html#Book

Leonid..Tovarisch...no BIAS, per se, is meant above only the fact that ROYALTY by definition
NEEDS to procreate in order to maintain their "ROYAL line" ; SIC: The Brittish Royal Family
who's PRINCEs (males) have to select ladies from among the "PEASANTS" they govern. (Their
thoughts NOT mine) I personally could give an hoot in hadees if ANY ROYALTY ever existed as they
are as USELESS as breasts on a rain Barrell ( in my considered opinion). I am a Benjamin
Franklin fan! LOL! B-0b1
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In sci.life-extension Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> > Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
> >> > "Does Exceptional Human Longevity Come With High Cost of Infertility? Testing the
> >> > Evolutionary Theories of Aging" http://longevity-science.org/IABG-Gavrilova.html
> >>
> >> I enjoyed this one - my thoughts:
> >>
> >> The paper says:
> >>
> >> ``What is really important is that the chances of being childless do not
> >> demonstrate any increase for long-lived women (lifespan 90+ years).''
> >>
> >> From the graph, it /does/ seem like there is an increase in the > 80 yo groups - though its
> >> significance is not clear.
> >
> > *** The error bars provided at this graph indicate that there is no any statistical significance
> > in this small fluke.
>
> A more conventional way of presenting such a result would be to write:
>
> ``What is really important is that the chances of being childless do not
> demonstrate any significant increase for long-lived women [...]''

*** Yes, I agree, thank you!

> >> My other thought is that it would be nice to have data for other population areas.
> >>
> >> The idea that there is a trade-off between reproductive success and longevity is largely based
> >> on allocation of limited resources.
> >>
> >> Ladies in european aristocratic families may be relatively less likely to experience resource
> >> shortages as a result of expenditure on children - and so might avoid much of the resulting
> >> impact on their lifespans - by being better equipped financially than most members of the
> >> population.
> >>
> >> The other obvious bias in the sampling is the one towards females.
> >
> > *** Please elaborate in more detail, where have you found an obvious bias towards females in our
> > study.
>
> Only women were sampled:
>
> ``The dataset is comprised of 3,723 married women born in 1500-1875 and belonging to the upper
> European nobility. Every case of childlessness was cross-checked using at least two different
> sources. Data analyses were based on logistic regression model using childlessness as a dependent
> (outcome) variable, and woman lifespan, calendar year of birth, age at marriage, husband's age at
> marriage and husband's lifespan as dependent (predictor) variables. We found that woman's
> exceptional longevity does not increase her chances to be infertile.''

*** Please note that all women in this study had husbands (males), thus there is *NO* bias towards
females in our dataset.

I agree however that a similar analysis could done for males on possible links between their
longevity and infertility -- this work is in progress now.

Thank you for your interest and useful comments !

Kind regards,

-- Leonid Gavrilov Author of the book "The Biology of Life Span"
http://longevity-science.org/index.html#Book
 
In sci.life-extension Leonid Gavrilov <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> Only women were sampled:
>>
>> ``The dataset is comprised of 3,723 married women born in 1500-1875 and belonging to the upper
>> European nobility. Every case of childlessness was cross-checked using at least two different
>> sources. Data analyses were based on logistic regression model using childlessness as a dependent
>> (outcome) variable, and woman lifespan, calendar year of birth, age at marriage, husband's age at
>> marriage and husband's lifespan as dependent (predictor) variables. We found that woman's
>> exceptional longevity does not increase her chances to be infertile.''
>
>
> *** Please note that all women in this study had husbands (males), thus there is *NO* bias towards
> females in our dataset.

The number of childless males is not recorded, though.

You cannot assume the husband of a childless woman is also childless - since he may have had
children with a previous spouse, have affairs - or go on to sire children with another lady at a
later date.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
I'd phrase that finding, "...our analysis of the data found no correlation in these women between
childlessness and living to an advanced age."

Research results are best viewed in the light of "This is how it looks to us today. It is not a
Final Answer set in concrete."

But it sure is interesting. Cheers -- Martha Adams
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Martha H Adams rambled on about "Re: News at
<http://longevity-science.org/>." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>I'd phrase that finding, "...our analysis of the data found no correlation in these women between
>childlessness and living to an advanced age."
...
>But it sure is interesting. Cheers -- Martha Adams

Only if you are a female! :(
--
The lady doth protest too much, methinks -- Hamlet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back