Hormonal Ageing

[nickyhansard]

Just spit balling here from a person that has little education on the subject.

 

I'm not actually sure how the mechanisms of the beginnings of adolescents/ageing works

 

But have there been studies/tests/conclusions/theories on what happens if those hormones released in adolescents are suppressed to childhood levels (I don't just mean testosterone or estrogen or DHT or growth hormone. I mean ALL of them, including ones I didn't list. Much more comprehensive repression than for example a loss of testicular function before adolescents)

 

Would the suppression influence the life expectancy?

 

I know it sounds silly because as far as I understand ageing is due to the damage our DNA occurs and the way it affects the way cells function but I thought perhaps the DNA repair system system (which I'm assuming is much better in childhood) might take it's cues from actual physical development (not just of body parts that should be affected by adrogenic hormones).

 

Are children's cells more resilient to radiation damage or better able to repair cellular DNA damage?

 

Does the underlying mechanisms allow the tricking of the DNA repair system to remain that of a child or is it 100%, definitely reliant on cellular/biological age?

 

Sure it won't result in a complete halting of age but would the DNA repair mechanisms not down regulate and the cells functionally longer lasting?

 

I've never seen a a person under 16 with 'skin' damage (patchy spots, wrinkles etc.) things that I've read are due to androgenic hormones and DNA damage - I'm sure there are exceptions out there but I've seen plenty of people in their early 20's who do.

 

It seems strange that this DNA damage only takes a few years to be apparent after puberty but never seems apparent for the first 0-16 years of life. Seems to suggest that the affects of puberty weaken the DNA repair system or it could simply be the visual affects of hormones but you would think their would be more skin damaged 12-20 years old (due to their extreme levels of hormones).

 

Males who haven't developed can be given hormones to kickstart puberty and once started they develop normally without any further intervention, even if they are years late starting puberty they quickly catch up to their peers. To do so their is a very complex and chaotic hormonal balance that has to happen, perhaps suggesting that parts of the ageing system may have actually been paused (it seems logically that if it were purely based on cellular age/DNA that the person would not catch up in development and it would be an incomplete puberty).

Edited February 7, 2016 by nickyhansard

[Sirona]

Ageing is very complex and there are many theories and the most commonly accepted would probably be the free radical, mitochondrial, inflammation and immunological theories. There are others like the evolutionary theory also. I suppose each theory works together rather than singularly to explain the physiological changes which occur in the ageing process.

 

To answer some of your questions, children are actually less, not more resilient to radiation cell damage. You have seen children under 16 with skin damage, however, not in the form of wrinkles or spots; children burn a lot easier than adults and UVA/UVB is skin damage.

 

Although hormones like estrogen/progesterone, DHEA, human growth hormones do decline as you get older, hormone therapy/supplements is ineffective and largely publicised because we see aging as a disease which needs to be cured. They have no evidence based treatments available.

[nickyhansard]

I would assume that the children have less protection from radiation damage but are better able to repair the damage that occurs e.g. If children are so susceptible to damage it would be likely they would have wrinkles. Perhaps not.

 

Also it's not so much about replacing hormones in later age, because you are by-passing a large portion of the mechanisms that allow the hormonal system to create a homeostasis. I'm suggesting blocking the hormones (even other proteins or what have you that increase/decline after throughout puberty) to the point that a hormonal profile or any other test would read the same as pre-puberty (I imagine this would be disastrous for a person who has already been through puberty, probably leading to many health issues, those hormones are required to maintain a healthy adult body).

Edited February 8, 2016 by nickyhansard

[Sirona]

It seems like you're suggesting that the primary cause of aging is changes in hormones, however, even if you were to suppress hormones at puberty, the teenagers are still going to age. Telomeres will still continue to divide and get shorter which will be the onset of illness and disease.

 

Like I said before, there are many theories of aging and finding a way to repair each cell would be very complicated and isn't just as simple as suppressing hormones. There is also the evolutionary factor too. Not to mention it doesn't make a lot of economic, environmental and ethical sense to slow the aging process.

[nickyhansard]

I was mostly suggesting that the durability of the telomeres may be influenced by the stalling of any noticeable affects caused by puberty - not just exclusive to changes made by the sex hormones.

 

I've read somewhere (it was a long time ago) that the efficiency/durability of the telomeres can be influenced by factors outside of biological age - I may be wrong but if it is true, it might seem logical that pre-pubescents may actually be superior in repairing the telomeres through some mechanism because they never (exceptions exist) display affects of ageing, while barely 5 years after puberty it is quite common to see these signs.

 

To break it down

 

1: Perhaps the ability of telomeres to repair/resist/recover from damage is affected by external factors rather, than 100% being a factor of biological age.

 

2: The first 0-15 years of age people almost never have visible (e.g. yellow skin, patchy skin, yellow eyes, wrinkles etc.) and invisible (like metabolic syndrome, cancer, IBS, blood pressure, diabetes etc.) signs of ageing, while plenty of people around their 20's start displaying these signs of ageing (based on personal experience).

 

3: Perhaps those first 0-15 years of age the telomeres are better able to protect from damage through some type of mechanism. (it makes logical sense that evolution would try to prevent weakening of our DNA until after the chance to reproduce has occurred).

 

4: Perhaps blocking that part of development (puberty) will allow those cues for whichever mechanism is benefiting the telomeres to continue.

 

It might be totally of base but I don't think based on the evidence that it can be dismissed out of hand simply because the direct cause of ageing is the telomeres.

 

It makes perfect economic and environmental sense, pre-pubescent humans are much smaller, require less food/water and generally they are in better health. Considering calorie restriction has increased the lifeapan of some animals by close to 50%, it's not entirely without precedent - calorie restriction does seem to mimic what would likely happen if puberty were stalled.

 

This is entirely theoretical, no less different to talking about how a nuclear warhead works or what size meteor would destroy Earth...

 

I'm not suggesting this is a practical course of action for humans but if it were true it would probably be very insightful to people who study ageing.

Edited February 14, 2016 by nickyhansard