Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - RAW-FOOD Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
RAW-FOOD Home RAW-FOOD Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Tue, 12 Aug 1997 09:02:04 -0400
Subject:
Re: Aging
From:
Dariusz ROZYCKI <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Jean-Louis Tu wrote:
> No matter how much supplements of antioxydants we take (to fight
> free-radical damage), the biological clocks are still ticking, and our
> maximum life-span will still be about 120 years (unless sciencists
> discover telomere treatments). But well before reaching that age,
> the dysfunctions of the body make it more and more vulnerable to
> injuries, viruses; blood supply is less efficient, arteries stiffen, etc.
> Modern medicine nevertheless allows us to survive at high expense, but
> certainly most of the Americans of 70+ years old wouldn't survive
> without modern comfort, hygiene and health care.

Has the "120" figure been pretty much the same throughout our history then?
What do we know about the life-spans of our ancestors?


ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV