Hormones against aging - Suzanne Somers

On aging.
A defense of anti-aging hormones - biological perspective.

The human body isn't supposed to age more than around 35 years - It's no wonder our bodies degenerate from the time we're 20 (for the record: Muscles go first, brain last, apparently). Even before menopause, a woman's body starts breaking down - Speaking purely about mechanical, biological efficiency, it's no kind of value judgment.
An example: Children born of 20-year-old women are some 16 times less likely to suffer from Down's Syndrome than those born of 40-year-old women. As we age, our genes are damaged through oxidation and other processes, and literally can't reproduce cells as well as earlier on.

Point: Our biological evolution hasn't caught up with our technological evolution, so people live more than twice as long as their bodies are supposed to support.
On top of that, modern humans often don't live exactly healthy lives - Less than clean air, unhealthy food (reminder: America has very, very few regulations on this point - restaurants can literally poison you), overpopulation (spreads contagion and causes stress), too much sitting around and not enough excercise (personally: I'm guilty as charged).

As for hormones. The idea of hormones to combat aging is basically preventing changing hormonal balances from further increasing your rate of aging.
So. Why not? Basically, you're artificially adding natural ho rmones to a biological system that's deteriorating because of the lack of said hormones. Sure, it's not natural, but if it works? And has few side effects? Who doesn't want to keep his/her mental health, physical strenght, agility, condition, and appearance instead of losing these things thanks to arbitrary biological imperfections?
It's not like we go get ourselves gored by wilderbeasts because it's *natural* to die at 27.

Heck, in 100 years I bet you'll be hard pressed to find a doctor who wouldn't go nuts if his middle aged patient got it in his/her head not to take something to stay strong and smart for as long as possible.

As for all the supplements: I'm willing to bet most of them are redundant, but then they shouldn't hurt.
< TVNewser Poll on MSNBC Slot | Could A 'Piracy Tax' Ever Work? >
 Display:

Even though she's like 70

 

She's doing something right

by Perry on 01/30/2009 07:02:49 PM EST

...But to me this seems to be an extension of the plastic surgery type of cosmetic thought. Just as I wouldn't go under the knife to change my nose, I am quite comfortable with the amount of control I have over my aging process. I feel no obligation to look or feel younger than I actually am. I am in no way against this type of medical research, but I can't quite comprehend why people would want to stay young forever. I'm looking forward to all the different ways I might have to live my life, I don't want to experience just youth. It seems a waste to me.

by Rhys Jenkins on 01/30/2009 08:05:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Suzanne goes too far, but I see nothing wrong with a health conscious person who eats healthy, exercises and takes some supplements (including some hormone therapy if it works).

I don't fear death, but I DO fear aging. Death to me is like sleep minus the dreams.

Aging is painful joints, less control over the bladder, less energy and more forgetfulness and the list goes on and on (not to mention Alzheimer's and other terrifying prospects). Nothing is GOOD about that list. As long as someone doesn't ultimately stress and disappoint themselves more in the long run, I'm all for it.

Having a higher level of energy (and sex drive and confidence and memory) means you can get much more out of the limited time you have on this earth. Just as you see no point in fighting aging, I see no point in romanticizing urinary incontinence, impotence and glaucoma.

But yes, some people do go way too far, only to find inevitable disappointment rather than acceptance. On that I'm sure we agree.

by Tom Hanc on 01/30/2009 08:20:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But any one of us could be struck down with a terrible illness at any time really. Becoming old and arthritic is not a particularly pleasant idea, I admit, I do not wish to glorify it. However, there's a difference between incontenence and substantial memory loss and just hitting the big 40 in most cases, the big 50 even given our standard of living in the west.

by Rhys Jenkins on 01/30/2009 08:35:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I appreciate the comment about plastic surgery, something I have given thought to.

I think there is a qualitative difference between plastic surgery and hormone therapy. Plastic surgery, for one thing, only goes skin deep, so to speak. The idea of plastic surgery is looking younger, while the idea of hormone treatments is to a greater extend actually BEING younger.
Given no side effects, said degeneration should become slower - and potentially this positively affects your strenght, energy levels, mind, and so on, additionally.
You could say the hormones work from the "inside" in that they use normal processes  of regeneration instead of imposing order from the outside.
Also, plastic surgery is often rather useless - Ending up with scars and worse unnatural effects hardly qualifies as improving one's looks.

Either way. My basic point isn't about cosmetics. Looking young is a fairly insignificant thing compared to questions of strenght and hability. Of course, I'm no expert on those particular hormones and I don't know their exact effects - all the more reason for them to be tried, I think.
Another thing entirely is, I don't think it looked like that much of a bother to apply the hormones, so why not. The real wonder is how that woman can swallow so many pills a day without going insane.

by Sorenzo on 02/01/2009 11:19:41 PM EST

 Display: