The genetics of ageing

Methuselah decoded

A new test can forecast extreme longevity

See article

Readers' comments



Having had a look at my page of comments to find another article, I was taken aback by the number of “recommends” of my two explanations why scales cannot be added, multiplied, averaged and so on.

I thought this be common knowledge.

I was even more surprised to notice that a point of view opposed to mine, had even more recommendations than my reply.

So this is polemic, which makes me as flabbergasted as the first time I visited Tennessee some fifty years ago (yes, I am that old) and realized they jammed radio broadcasts from neighbouring states that mentioned Evolution.

Incidentally do they still do that? Although I’ve been recently often to the States, a place and people I love, it’s been quite some time since I last went to Tennessee.

I subscribe to the scientific principle that it matters little WHO is right; it only matters WHAT is right.

So, ladies and gentlemen, be reassured: I will not call “armchair” science to those who will eventually hold a different opinion from mine.

Let me try to put in a nutshell what I, not a total stranger to research, know about the latest fashions on this matter.

By the ninety fifties it was already established common science that the Fahrenheit, Réaumur and Celsius temperature scales could not be object to mathematical operations for the simple reason they did not represent quantities, just convenient scales. They have a most indirect link to levels of energy (in those days people thought only of its kinetic component) at the subatomic borderline. Although everybody was certain that 200ºF corresponded to higher level of energy than 100ºF, only someone who had paid no attention whatever to the Thermodynamics lecture imagined that a 200ºF hot material had double the energy of a cooler piece of matter at 100ºF.

Scales cannot be added, divided and on and on…

Thus, practically all scientists (MSc Engineering even more than any others) used the Kelvin temperature measurement based on the principle that starting at absolute zero (-273.15º Centigrade), this being the temperature of absolute vacuum to be found in outer space, it would be proportional to the level of energies held by the subject matter.

Additions, multiplications, integrations became common place. As a semantic difference (say what you like, researchers love semantics…) Kelvin units of measurements were called units instead of degrees pertaining to non-mathematical scales like Fahrenheit or centigrade.

This seems to be the accepted Truth today.

But is it true?

I believe I’m far from alone in doubting it. When Lord Kelvin thought of his brilliant construct, humankind thought outer space was the absolute vacuum; we now know it isn’t. Absolute vacuum and absolute zero are almost certainly “limits” in the mathematical sense. Kelvin units are Celsius degrees with OºC displaced to -273.16ºC (the .01 difference takes into account the water freezing process). As far as I am aware, nobody has yet proved that, say, 200K corresponds to double the energy of 100K and even worse, there is any direct constant numerical correlation between K units and energy levels at the subatomic level of materials.

Finally, dimensional analysis either makes K units to be energy units (force times distance) or that constant R in the Perfect Gases (I prefer Perfect to Ideal) Equation to be dimensionally energy per temperature.

Both alternatives seem weird.

We may come to have to rethink our belief that Kelvin units can be mathematically operated.

As I am particular fond of practical mental constructs (when you can’t visualize something you’d better doubt it) and like a bit of humour in my science I suggest the following mental experiment.

Earth has approximately 6 billion inhabitants. Their average temperature is 310K (I compensate those running a fever with those enjoying a British Summer). If everybody on this Earth held hands (admittedly a difficult task...) and Kelvin units were addable we would reach a temperature of 1.86 trillion Kelvin more than one hundred thousand times the Sun’s inner core temperature.

Careful now, if you hold your girl or boy friend’s hand: if you start a chain you may blow the Earth into a supernova!


Long healthy life is simple:

Don't get fat
Get out of breath for 15 mins every day
Smoke less than 20 cigarettes a day
Drink a couple of glasses of alcoholic beverage of your choice every day
Eat a bit of everything you fancy, but a decent proportion of the stuff you don't
Learn something new every week
Have a happy marriage with 2 or 3 kids
Get a dog

Easy and the years will fly by in the most enjoyable manner.

Bill Sardi

I find none of the commmentaries worth reading.

Examples of some single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) would be the mutation for the gulonolactone oxidase gene, which renders humans unable to synthesize vitamin C as most other animals. Antidote: supplemental vitamin C

Asians have a SNP for haptoglobin, resulting in loss of some control of iron, which then results in lower vitamin C levels. Antidote: supplemental vitamin C

Dark-skinned individuals are genetically programmed for melanin in skin, rendering them less able to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight exposure. Antidote: supplemental vitamin D

Some Europeans and others cannot adequately metabolize folic acid (vitamin B9). Antidote: supplemental folic acid

No genetic tests are needed since these groups are so large as to mandate universal vitamin supplementation.

With this said, the real action in the field of longevity is not in SNPs but in epigenetics, where the protein-making activity of genes is influenced by diet, temperature, radiation, etc. Single small molecules can mimic the effects of a limited-calorie diet, leading to the idea of an anti-aging pill. Research is underway.


to nschomer

Thank you very having politely put in its proper place my armchair science.

Now let me say that the Law of Perfect Gases was normally written as PV=RT but, of course, younger scientists prefer to show off other notations. As you are certainly aware perfect gases don't even exist and are an abstraction that allow us to think.

Unfortunately, the widest used gaseous material we poor unscientific engineers have to deal with, steam or water vapour, that moves most things from thermal or nuclear power stations, huge ships or any industry using heat (80% of all manufacturing???) doesn't even obey PV=RT in any even loose approximation.

It is well known that the only way to integrate temperatures is to use the Kelvin scale departing from absolute zero (-273º,15C) and the amount of energy (calling it just kinetic may be not quite up to modern thinking), being a measurable quantity, can be fully subject to any mathematical operation from humble sums to complex integrations.

What cannot be mathematically dealt with are scales that are not physical measurements, just symbols of situations. Ever wondered why numbers in temperature scales are called degrees whereas Kelvin units are not? Even this distinction is being increasingly questioned because Kelvin does not really measure quantities of energy, either. Again it just represents symbols of physical states but so far it has not been challenged. It probably will be soon.

Good old Messrs Daniel Farenheit, René Réaumur and Anders Celsius had the wisdom just to number two extreme points (melting and boiling water) leaving intermediate degrees corresponding to what was presumed to be the linear expansion of measuring liquids (mercury being one of the favourites). Although this linearity is no longer taken for granted, these freedom from intermediate constraints allows us to average temperatures: whether 50º C is the average between freezing and boiling water (it is not) is immaterial because it certainly is the average between 0ºC and 100ºC and does not correspond to any definite physical situation (except perhaps to what my unfortunately late wife used to say was my explosion point when faced with pompous ignorance).

However, nothing of this makes temperatures addable: if you mix half a pint of warm bitter with another half a pint of cold lager you still get a full pint at the numerical average of the two temperatures. You don't get half a pint at the sum of the two temperatures, the cold and the warm. Sorry for the "Briticisms" if you are not an inhabitant of these blessed islands.

Incidentally, one of the best ways to recognise a well balanced scientific mind is to see arguments without adjectives. If you see emotions other than light hearted irony, you may be sure the science shown off is hollow.

Under these circumstances, you will forgive me if I choose not to take up this matter again with you whatever your reply, preferably none.


Your armchair science on the subject of temperature is quite wrong. First of all, temperature is indeed a quantitative measurement - it measures the amount of kinetic energy the particles making up a medium contain. You can indeed "perform arithmetic or mathematical operation" on temperatures, as most with a grade school science education have been exposed to in the ideal gas law (pV = nRT), though some operations are much easier if you use the Kelvin scale, as 0 actually means 0 kinetic energy in that case.
I'm not sure how your lack of scientific expertise relates to the article at hand, just thought I would counter-rant for a second.

Bestefar Dann

Degenerative diseases aside, Maximum Life Span across many species relates to a ball park number about the total number of beats of our hearts.

Within a species, healthy hearts beat slower, efficiently. A mouse or a man, our total number of heart beats will be in the same ball park count.

Methuselah must have had a very slow heart beat to live more than 900 years.

Discounting the car wrecks, within a species we can inherit a BMW set of quality genes that can keep our organic systems of the -car- on the road for a half million miles, or a Yugo set of genes that will probably not make 80 k miles before a major system failure.

Hugh Jigo

Back in Methuselah's day, life spans were getting close to a thousand years. Then the flood. After that, life expectancy dropped off immediately by 80% and stabilised at only 10% of pre-flood longevity. Did having Noah as our common ancestor wreck our DNA or could we all be living for a millennium if we could restore the environment to pre-flood conditions?


Research for longevity is based on fear of death. In Capitalist countries everything is ensured precisely for security needs. It is materialism. I would suggest researchers spend less on longevity and more on helping people afflicted with diseases. Millions in Africa die at an early age every year for lack of medicine and health care.


I just wonder if quality of life is part of the study. I bet those people who live past 100 don't really enjoy their accomplishment.


Most all would agree that if a person sits at home and eats thousands of calories daily and smokes that they would not live as long an active, healthy eater. So, lifestyles and environmental factors are definitely the determining issues. This article repeats the known and accepted, though some people sometimes need a friendly reminder.


You characterize "clean living: exercise, moderation and a healthy diet" as dismal prescriptions, but they seem to me to offer the best prospects for a life that is as enjoyable as it is long.

Morning me agrees. Unfortunately night me is the problem, and he rarely cares for morning me :(

Gurinder Shahi

It seems to me that our focus should be on discovering how best to maximize the extent to which we lead healthy, happy and productive lives rather than on longevity alone as an end in itself...


What I'm going to write seems to have nothing to do with the article.

It has and very much so.

I keep maintaining that studies in qualitative indexes are measured in numbers are flawed from the start.

Nothing stops a sensible researcher to ascribe figures to qualitative traits: the human mind is used to compare figures so it's easier to compare those than non-numeric scales.

The problem is that you cannot then add, subtract, multiply or average those scales as practically all these studies do.


Think of temperatures: they are qualitative conditions measured by clever but artificial numeric indexes. You cannot perform arithmetic or mathematical operation on them.

Doubts again?

Get two buckets, both with a gallon of water. In one the water is at 50º F, in the other at 100º F.

Now mix them up. Do you get one gallon of water at 150º F or two gallons at 75º F?

All of you and I know it's the second.

For the simple reason that gallons of water are addable, temperatures are not.

It's long past the time for the scientific community stop using indexed qualitative scales in studies. They are as scientific as an Earth centered universe.

No wonder the researchers found thirty centenarians who didn't conform to their research. With other scales and coefficients you would obtain any conclusion you fancied...


Age research is by far the most dangerous scientific research in the World today. Each generation depends on the previous generation dying to make space and resources available for them. Who would not exchange another year aged 25 for two at 99 ? Increasing longevity will make us less happy, less adaptable, less open to new ideas and poorer. We have retirement ages for a reason. Imagine what will happen to pension payments and annuity returns if someone sells a drug that activates these longevity-related biochemical pathways for the relatively ignorant and health-desperate citizens of the USA ?


Reminds me of an onion article where a 115 year old women recommended that people looking for the secret to a long life "extrapolate the bell curve"

Al Lutter

It seems there is no deep scientific conclusion on this study...just demonstrating what everybody knows (or should knows): healthy life is all.





Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

