this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
189 points (91.3% liked)

science

20245 readers
506 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 70 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Oh thank god. I thought it was diet and exercise so this comes as a huge relief.

technically still diet

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

If you ever talk to anyone over the age of 100 every single one of them without fail, swears that the secrets to long life is brandy and cigarettes.

Either they're really on to something or they're trying to kill everyone else off.

[–] TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I looked into genetic factors of centurions out of curiousity before and it does largely seem to be nature rather than nurture. Centurions tend to have siblings that are also centurions, both of whom typically have overactive telomerase enzymes. Apparently some type of enzyme that prevents aging of cells. Theoretically, if those same people avoided alcohol and cigs their whole life, they would have lived even longer.

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh look, it's vice.com, so presumably these 'scientists' are from the University of Joe Rogan or U of Y(outube) or something.

They do link to the actual study, which does not throw up any immediately obvious signs to be cautious for me, but I also couldn't do the detailed work of deeper research myself. They reference a hypothesis that preceded the study, which they were trying to test with this. I don't know if this is a case of bias or even manipulation at work, but at least at a superficial glance, it doesn't immediately scream "total hacks doing unscientific things."

[–] jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Cant wait for this to be exploited by the rich and still be illegal for the poor

[–] bestagon@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe they learn some empathy

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Their brains are literally wired wrong. They will not learn empathy, but assume they are capable of more than they are.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

still need someone to explain me why a chemical that can make people happy has to be illegal.

if there are also very dangerous, I get it. but if the risk is taking a long nap and changing your mind. then why would the government care?

[–] jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The (US) government has a long history of outlawing useful, helpful or otherwise enjoyable things (MDMA, weed and psilocybin) while allowing more destructive things to proliferate (alcohol, opiates). Many governments worldwide still outlaw marijuana and some places will straight up execute people for it (singapore). Keeps the population in check and helped fuel conflict within the lower class to keep them from looking upward.

[–] burrito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Banning alcohol was already tried and it turned out to be a really bad idea.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

In contrast, the War on Drugs has gone just super great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Good news, they find a treatment regimen that when applied to mice cause them to have a health span several times longer than the average health span of a mouse.

Bad news, the treatment regimen when applied to humans causes them to have a health span several times longer than the average health span of a mouse.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Twist: It was all relative to the life span of a lab mouse, whos life is a living hell in nine out of ten cases.

Meaning... the results will only confirm that there are controlling substances that will allow a populace to endure literal torture, and enable the rich to literally take over the world NOT for efficacy but for sheer chemical complacency.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've partied with scientists so I'm not surprised

[–] CheerfulPassionFruit@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Scientists are just cool like that

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Please be a "yes," please be a "yes..."

Edit: WOO! It's a "looks that way in cell cultures so far!"🥳

[–] notabot@piefed.social 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I haven't gone looking forthe souce paper, but from the article it looks like seretonin was the actual compound that's having a beneficial effect, specifically serotonin outside the brain.

[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So how is a psychedelic pulling this off? The secret could be serotonin receptors found throughout the body, not just in the brain. When activated, they seem to trigger a cascade of effects that reduce stress, preserve DNA, and promote long-term cell health.

They're talking about psilocin's activity at serotonin receptors, I'm pretty sure

[–] notabot@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a bit ambiguous, so you could be right, but I took it to mean that activation of the receptors was that active mechanism, regardless of cause. Psilicin is just the compound they're focused on, and maybe it does activate them in some unique way that has this effect, but the summary didn't make that clear.

If there are alternative pathways to activate the receptors they may be better suited to thereputic use without the psycadelic side effects.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Sure just take the fun out of it why don't you

[–] Mastema@infosec.pub 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If you do happen to find it, please post a link. I'll go looking also.

Never mind. It was linked in the article.The paper in question.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Upside: live 50 years longer

Downside: spend it staring at your hands

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

My hands are fuckin awesome. Sign me up

better than my day to day

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 1 points 22 hours ago

At least then I wouldn't be doom scrolling I guess.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 9 points 22 hours ago (6 children)

See I've never understood why people obsess about living longer. All those extra years come at the end, which is the adult diaper, memory loosing, decrepit part of life. It doesn't stretch out the younger good parts, it just staves off death during the miserable part. Personally I'd rather just get it over with sooner with a nice, quick aneurysm in my sleep.

[–] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

i’ve never understood the western obsession with equating the pursuit for immortality with vanity. you tell me you hear you’re gonna die one day, lights out and that’s it no more you forever, and you don’t even have just a little thought in the back of your mind, constantly begging a solution to the inevitable?

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

I have the opposite little thought in the back of my mind. Knowing that my life will end one day gives me the energy to keep going. If I had to live forever, I would need a few 100 year naps or I'd go insane.

Like if I die and "wake up" in the afterlife and I gotta keep existing. Fuck that. Send my energy back to the source and let it just vibrate.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 points 14 hours ago

Nope.

Why beg for something that is impossible and likely to add to my pain later in life? I see no reason to hold onto that dream or to beg for it.

I don't understand what is worth sticking around indefinitely for either when it's the fact that the present is slipping by so quickly for so many. You don't get it back for living longer.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

More years usually = more healthy years, that's how you end up with more years. Chronic disease wears bodies out faster, not more slowly. I'd rather get it over later, and yes with something quick.

Sure there will come a time when I am uncomfortable every day but at near 60 still do yoga, eat well, sex every day, nothing hurts, very good quality of life. Didn't expect it but I have it for now.

[–] lefaucet@slrpnk.net 3 points 13 hours ago

Sex every day? U lucky bastid

[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

This misconception is why I and many others prefer the precise wording: gaining healthy(ish) years.

You don't die of 'old age'. You die of disease(s), which become more and more likely as you accrue damage throughout your life. You can't really extend the period someone stays alive with end stage dementia or cancer. If anything, you can only prevent, halt, or slow the development of the diseases. And that's what's meant by longevity/extending life.

Granted, you'll still accumulate non fatal issues. But I'd argue you can lead a meaningful life with knee pain and far sightedness.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

But I'd argue you can lead a meaningful life with knee pain and far sightedness.

My back started hurting at 25, I hadn't even had a job yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 17 hours ago

They're talking about stretching out the whole ageing process. So if you live longer you also grow old more slowly.

Rats average lifespan is 3 years, but that doesn't mean they are really healthy, and then just drop dead, they go through the ageing process at a hyper-accelerated rate. Equally if humans had a lifespan of 120 years the old age part would move to around the 100 years mark, you wouldn't start getting old at 60 and then just be geriatric for the next 60 years.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago

Enough quality of life to continue shitposting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Who the fuck wants to live longer?

[–] TerranFenrir@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Me. I want to see more sunrises.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

i want to outlive the last fascist

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You don't have to live longer, just make it happen sooner

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago

that's where the workouts enter the picture

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

When I see this regime and the new plane trump is going to get I am not reminded of the abandoned Soviet shuttle and realize that no "great" things last and one day his plane will be sitting in a warehouse falling apart and gathering dust

collapsed inline media

[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 12 points 2 days ago

Slowing cell aging could mean better health for longer, even if you don't die (much) later.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

should really source the science paper, it came from then a site like vice.

[–] potpotato@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

To evaluate the impact of psilocybin on longevity in vivo, aged (19 month) female mice were treated with vehicle [vehicle is what the psilocybin was suspended in for injection] or psilocybin [actually vehicle + psilocybin] once/month for 10 months; mice were initially given a low-dose (5 mg/kg) for the first treatment followed monthly high-dose (15 mg/kg) treatment for a total of 10 treatments. We elected to utilize 19-month old mice, which is roughly equivalent to 60–65 human years, in order to evaluate its therapeutic potential as a clinically-relevant anti-aging intervention.

Within 30 min post-treatment, mice exhibited increased head-twitch response, which is a well-established behavioral indicator of hallucinogenic impacts of psilocybin in mice. Both psilocybin and vehicle groups exhibited some loss in body weight from the start to end of the treatment protocol, however weight loss was not significantly different in vehicle vs. psilocybin-treated mice. Notably, psilocybin treated mice demonstrated significantly higher survival (80%), compared to vehicle (50%).

Although not quantitatively measured, psilocybin-treated mice exhibited phenotypic improvements in overall fur quality, including hair growth and reductions in white hair compared to vehicle-treated mice.

In summary, we provide the first experimental evidence demonstrating that psilocybin treatment can enhance survival in aged mice.

So, caveats:

  • This is the first study; while further studies may show a similar result, we won't know for sure until they are completed. This could be a fluke. This was neither a double blind nor a placebo study; it is possible things like researcher impacts could influence the outcomes.
  • This was neither a double blind nor a placebo study; it is possible things like researcher impacts could influence the outcomes.
  • Typical doses for psilocybin are 0.2–0.4 mg/kg in therapeutic settings, 4mg/kg for microdosing, to up to 20 mg/kg to be legitimately tripping; like the mice, if you use this regimen you will need to set aside a day to be tripping once a month, and after 10 months take a heroic dose and have a really big trip. Not impossible to arrange for many people, but this is not a regimen you can do while completely going about your regular day-to-day.

TLDR: Promising results in an under studies area. More studies are required to confirm results. Following this regimen will cause a non-trivial disruption in your monthly routine.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

Well, I’m definitely going to stop then.

load more comments
view more: next ›