Talk:Ageing/Archive 1

images
i couldn't help but notice that all of the photos on here are of women. maybe one of a man might be helpful. Joeyramoney 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats in a Name?
Why must you use such long names just to describe our elderly people. Most of the old people i know just like being called old people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chad wolfe (talk • contribs).

Evolution of ageing
Peter Medawar has written on this subject, but I think there are earlier sources, too. Absolutely must be included. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Which consensus is this based on? We had discussed this previously and come to the consensus that no action needed be taken. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll revert since you destroyed the edit history. I'm not convinced you're quite up to using the tools. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to merge: expand "biology" section
Especially with a view to evolution of ageing. Clearly, the question why ageing occurs at all must be covered by the article. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging age and senescence
Senescence is just at the first physical level expanded to the next psychological an social levels of "ageing". As psychiatrist, I act in task force with social workers too.

Takima 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merging them is a good idea, but ag(e)ing should be merged into senescence, not the other way around. BrianinStockholm 07:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * People are more likely to look up ageing than senescence and may get confused. I also like the principle of using anglosaxon short words where possible. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The subject of Ageing is a Gerontology issue, whereas the Senescence article deals more with Biogerontology. Because biogerontology is a subcategory of gerontology, ie, senescence is a subcategory of ageing, it makes more sense to merge senescence into ageing rather than the other way around. Senescence would be a section in the ageing article. Both articles are already of reasonable length, however, and are easily found, so I see no great urgency for this merger, although I do not greatly oppose it either. --Ben Best 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Benbest, senescence is a subtopic of ageing. Since both articles are already quite substantial, the best idea is to have a brief summary of the senescence article here with a link to the full length article. - SimonP 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As the saying goes, two are better than one. Do not merge either way (linking works just fine).

I agree that the 2 articles should be kept separate. Due to each article's substantial size, and due to the likelihood of the articles growing still larger. --Transhumanist 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

oppose merger these topics are huge and need expanding more. senescence is a natural sub article to aging. Anlace 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Need for section on Successful Aging
Since Rowe and Kahn (1987) have distinguished between successful aging and normal aging, should there not be a sub-heading for "Successful aging"?ACEO 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is successful aging?? Georgia guy 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction goes back to an article published by Rowe and Kahn, in 1987, in the journal "Science" (their 1997 publication was in "The Gerontologist"). The title of this paper implied an attempt to distinguish "normal" ageing - where people suffer the detrimental effects of ageing, especially extrinsic factors  - from "successful ageing" where extrinsic and detrimental factors play only a minimal function. ACEO 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now put in the Rowe and Kahn references. They occur at the end of the article. ACEO 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Claim at end of the article
The claim at the end of the article about usage of gold in India read rather as a tag-on after the section on successful ageing, so I have moved it to its own section. Can I please urge that some one finds a source for this claim and cites it? I have added how Aldwin and Gilmer prefer the term "optimal ageing" to successful ageing, and in my section on this, note some cultural variations in fear of death. This may go some way to rectification of an earlier concern about this article - that its views were not pancultural. ACEOREVIVED 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has, as yet, added a source citation for that claim, so I have categorised this article accordingly. ACEOREVIVED 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to some one who, during March 2007, removed that section on usage of gold in India. This was the unsourced claim that concerned me, so I wonder whether this can now be removed from the category of "Articles with unsourced statements from March 2007"? However, maybe people have noticed that other unsourced claims in this article. ACEOREVIVED 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a personal essay.
IMHO.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambig
I was expecting an article about the heat treatment "aging". Does anybody have an idea where to find it? SietskeEN 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maturity?
Where does the continuing process of wisdom development and maturation fit into the underlying developmental cycle? It seems to me that in human societies, the lessons of age are often highly valued. --NealMcB 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey I found this really cool equation for calculating how many days old you are that even includes leap years: [365y+(y/4)]+(-a+b) y is the amount of years old you are, a is the amount of days into the year to reach your birthday (negative), and b is the number of days into the year to reach the current date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.232.32 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

List of theories too brief
I think that the section on list of theories such as disengagement theories is far too list-like. More substantive notes are needed on these theories. ACEOREVIVED 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I have now extended the notes on disengagement and activity theories. However, there is a lot more literature on disengagement theory which could go here. Could some one with expertise in this area and the other theories listed here please extend the notes here? It seems a shame to have an important section here that reads as a list of bullet points. ACEOREVIVED 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Personality
There are a lot of data on personality changes with age, suggesting that, for example, psychoticism tends to decline with age. Do we need a sub-section on "Ageing and Personality"? ACEOREVIVED 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-rated health needs attention
There is a considerable literature on Self-Rated Health (SRH) in the elderly, and the journal "The Gerontologist" made this a special feature in one of their 2003 editions. Should this receive more attention in this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added reference to this topic in the section "Coping with demands of later life". I shall put the full references at the end when I have had time to check them. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC) The references to Bath, and to the other authors listed in this section, are now at the end of the article. Does any one consider this is enough to warrant its own section? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Making this article more comprehensive
This article, as the top of this page indicates, is part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology, but the study of aging is not simply the study of a biological phenomenon. Psychological and social aspects of aging should be considered in this article, and gerontology is certainly an interdisciplinary field. Can I suggest that perhaps some one ought to start "WikiProject Gerontology" in the interests of producing a comprehensive article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now made a plea at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology; we will need five to ten Wikipedians who are interested to make this viable, so can you please spread the word! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to Article by Lauren Epstein
I copy edited this article by adding spelling changes and grammar changes. I also noticed the difference between aging and ageing in the article and feel that the entire article should be changed so that is says aging the entire time.

Nonsensical redirect
This article is currently redirecting to itself. I'm not sure where the article has been moved to so I can't fix it myself. Anyone who is able to: please do. I'll look into this further myseslf later tonight. If I get anywehere I'll correct the problem, score this message out, and give an update of the situation below. SuperlativeHors (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed this, too, and alerted the two admins who performed a simultaneous redirect. Here's the amusing exchange that resolved the problem from the Admin board:


 * --Yamara ✉  12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, that's a good one. Glad to see everything's been sorted. Thanks SuperlativeHors (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference for personality and aging
A section on personality changes with age is needed in this article, and the following referece:

Rushton, J.P., Fulker, D.W., Neale, M.C., Nias, D.K et al. (1989) Ageing and the relation of aggression, altruism and assertivenss scales    to the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire" Personality and Individual Differences, 10 (2) 261-263

goes some way to providing a reference for how attributes associated with psychoticism may decline with age. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality
There is a profound amount of bullshit and speculative theories presented as fact in this article. Any cleanup by someone with a science degree would be much appreciated. I'll take a pass if I stumble upon some time... Thanks! --Xris0 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The demographic aspects need to be kept here, and the general biological aspects sent off to Senescence. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aging is not always 'old'
Here's another suggestion for those who would improve the article -- as it stands now, it speaks of aging as though only old people do it. When you think about it, though, given that all humans (and all life forms) age from the get-go, it would be far more illuminating for an image (or images) to show multiple stages of human life, from infancy to old age, and for the article to discuss the significance to all of these in a psychological/socialogical context. 71.58.111.148 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with that; I'm not sure about whoever created this article, but seeing how aging means the process of getting older, I've been doing it since before I was born! There are already pages on human development, however; I think the problem is just with this article's name. Just "aging" (or "ageing") is too broad a term; it needs to be more specific about what kind of aging it's referring to. 68.205.85.43 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Started a disambiguation page for aging (disambiguation). Not clear that humans is the overwhelmingly most frequent use for the term - think should change so disambiguation page is what Ageing/Aging points to, with this article moved to Ageing (Human). Zodon (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good news. The term is widely used in materials technology, such as hardening Al alloys as well as polymer degradation. The generic term applies to any material which changes with time. Human ageing is just one facet. Peterlewis (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Polymer degradation
Possible a great deal since skin and most tissue are polymeric, and is attacked by free radicals just like polymers. The term is also used to describe the degardation of polymers so the article needs a header. Peterlewis (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Peterlewis. I'm not stalking you (I was just looking at your history to see what subjects you're expert in) but where's the independent reputable source for connecting Polymer degradation to Ageing?  We have to have that, even for "See also" links, otherwise it is just WP:OR/WP:SYNTH etc. - Pointillist (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you aren't a stalker. The term is used widely in technology, and I will refer to it explicitly in polymer degradation. Peterlewis (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link Request
I would like to request to have an external link to our website www.ConcerningAging.com be added to this page. Our site is all about helping seniors and their loved ones make informed decisions about Eldercare and getting older. Thank you for your consideration. Clayton.65.248.184.124 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Need for telomeres to be referred to in article
The concept of telomeres has been big in the study of ageing, yet is not mentioned here. ACEOREVIVED 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned on the current article. But I recall reading some stuff that had refuted the theories about telomeres.  Unfortunately, I can't find it now.  Anyone want to take this on?  Cazort (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The scientific community is in unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that telomere length is strongly correlated with age. As to the hypothesis that telomere shortening is a primary cause of aging, there's some controversy, but certainly no clear "refutation."  The same goes for the hypothesis that lengthening telomeres could prevent or reverse aging: it's an unproven theory, but there's absolutely nothing in the literature that refutes it.  As it stands, both of the last two hypotheses look very plausible to a large number of scientists.  I could cite at least several dozen peer-reviewed publications in support of this: the question is how much space in the article we want to dedicate to the telomere theory of aging.  SierraSciSPA (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Aging Images
Aging is not a subject bias to elderly humans, it is a process of life for the young and the old of not just humans but all life around us. I propose different images, if possible, which would perhaps show the process of aging from a zygote (or more reasonable a baby) to a toddler, to a teen, to an adult, to an elderly person. This would take away the article's bias view that aging somehow is only applied to the elderly. Perhaps aging fruit as well or plants of some type.

If my suggestion is in anyway in err then I do apologize. But please let me know why it is so. DiscoElf (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In biology, physical growth, the biological process that leads to maturity and adulthood, is distinguished from biological aging, the accumulation of tissue dammage that leads to disability and death in old age. --Green06 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, it's possible to undergo development and aging at the same time, as seen in children with progeria.  SierraSciSPA (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Somethings" redirects
Per the discussion on Twentysomething (term), I am redirecting the various "somethings" to Dividing the lifespan. Vicenarian (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling consistency
I count, not including references 81 instances of "aging" and 13 instances of "ageing". For article named "ageing", we have an awful lot more "aging"'s. We should either make all instances into "ageing" or move the article and change them all to "aging". May I suggest we follow the way of:
 * 1) Aging of Europe
 * 2) Aging of Japan
 * 3) Aging Research Centre
 * 4) Alliance for Aging Research
 * 5) Anti-aging
 * 6) Memory and aging
 * 7) Rejuvenation (aging)
 * 8) Rejuvenation (aging)
 * 9) Memory and aging
 * 10) Aging of wine
 * 11) Aging (material science)
 * 12) Aging (file system)
 * 13) Aging (task scheduling)

And just move this article to Aging?--Loodog (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to sort out the English spelling problem at a global level. Personally I favour/favor a Standardised/Standardized English emerging by consensus which will reunit all variants of the language. In this particular case I'd say "aging" has won. Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before moving please see Manual_of_Style. The page when created used 'Ageing' and should stay that way -- Paul foord (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Except there is nothing on that guideline that suggests articles should stay with their current spelling by fiat. In fact, everything I can find on that page says the opposite, including
 * "Spell a name consistently in the title and within the article"
 * "Consistency within articles"


 * Thanks Paul, we now have more reason to move the article.--Louiedog (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And just to throw in a appeal to google to boot, "aging" is 5X more abundant than "ageing".--Louiedog (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ageing → aging &mdash; Statements above. Consistency within articles (see above) and greater prevalence of "aging" than "ageing" per above in this article before global spelling swaps were done. Google also has 5X as many "aging"'s as "ageing"'s.Louiedog (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, when you google search for "ageing", some of the results returned are actually for "aging", when the opposite is not true when you google "aging".--Louiedog (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. "Ageing" is standard in British English, and Wikipedia doesn't give preference to any particular dialect. YeshuaDavid •  Talk  • 18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Without an actual reason to move it, it's really got to stay put. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Skinsmoke (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:ENGVAR. Black Kite 13:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - WP:ENGVAR. --Louiedog (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per WP:RETAIN, as the article was created using ageing it stays in British English. The policy is very clear on this: the article stays in whichever variety of English the article was created in.
 * Comment, as per below, article was originally created as aging (life cycle), so it should be kept in "aging".--Louiedog (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:RETAIN would support a move considering the existing variety being more numerous for "aging":
 * 1) Aging of Europe
 * 2) Aging of Japan
 * 3) Aging Research Centre
 * 4) Alliance for Aging Research
 * 5) Anti-aging
 * 6) Memory and aging
 * 7) Rejuvenation (aging)
 * 8) Rejuvenation (aging)
 * 9) Memory and aging
 * 10) Aging of wine
 * 11) Aging (material science)
 * 12) Aging (file system)
 * 13) Aging (task scheduling)
 * --Louiedog (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:RETAIN don't you understand? It is quite clear: If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.  None of your list above has the least bit of relevance to WP:RETAIN. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to me to retain consistency within the entire encyclopedia than arbitrarily keep whatever was originally created against the grain.--Louiedog (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially when the outside source commenting on this article eschews the spelling it uses.
 * AND, article was moved from aging (life cycle) which renders everyone's adherence to WP:RETAIN the equivalent of now agreeing to the move.--Louiedog (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article originally used ageing. - SimonP (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ageing&diff=52493929&oldid=51510529. It originally used "aging (life cycle).--Louiedog (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ageing&diff=50933742&oldid=50933631. That was my reverting a move from a month earlier. - SimonP (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Much ado about an "e"? Seriously? Simply not necessary and contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ENGVAR. The spirit of ENGVAR is the avoidance of conflicts over variations in English, recognizing that there are far more important things to be done than argue about whether it should be "color" or "colour" or "traveling" or "travelling." The V-Man  (Said · Done) 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the rule has little grounding anyway when this article seems to naturally fill up with "aging"'s. But, if we are going by the rule, it gets moved anyway.  Since everyone here gives no reasons other than guideline following, it seems these are the only terms anyone will play on.--Louiedog (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that it's not a problem. Either spelling works and is easily understood; redirects handle anyone typing a different spelling.  I don't care what the rules say; until it's a problem, arguing about UK/US spelling differences is WP:LAME.  Less time defending regional spellings and more time working on the article content, please. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then don't argue with a common sense change and we'll waste less time on it.--Louiedog (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: Your argument is I shouldn't argue because it's not an issue, but you want to change it because not only is it an issue, it's such a clear and obvious issue that it falls under the heading of "common sense". Do I have that right?  If you don't agree with me, fine, but you don't get to then take my argument and have it both ways.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never asserted this is not a serious issue. I was taking your idea about this being a silly thing to argue about and applying it logically, negating your need to argue seriously about it.  Since you're bothering to argue with me, you're not following through on your own point.  Either you take the stand that it's worth arguing about and we'll discuss it or you take the stand that it's not worth arguing about, in which case, you accede because the only thing that matters is moving on.--Louiedog (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose article was created on 31 March 2002 apparently as 'Ageing', at 06:47, 13 August 2002 'Ageing (also spelt aging)' was put in the lede -- Paul foord (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Years old?
This seems to be a deviation in topic from the rest of the article, but anyway. The reference seems to be down at the moment, but I've found it in the Internet Archive.

The use of "years old" here in describing the East Asian system seems to me to warrant a not in source, as that page doesn't state that they use this phrasing or even the equivalent in local languages (as opposed to something that translates as "in one's second year", for example). Unless there's some newer version of the page that IA hasn't picked up. Meanwhile, can anyone find a reliable source indicating what phrasing is actually used?

I've a recollection of hearing/reading somewhere that in India, age is based on birthdays as here in the West, but rounded up instead of down. Am I right? Moreover, does age increment over there at the beginning of your birthday, the end, or the actual time of day you were born? (When you have your 10th birthday, are you celebrating the completion of your 10th year, as you would be over here, or the beginning of it?) -- Smjg (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Data is plural, datum is singular
I see that on May 5, an anonymous user had changed my section under "Nonbiological theories" to make "there are data" read as "there is data". Can some one please tell this user that s/he needs a lesson in English and in Latin - "datum" is the singular and "data" is the plural, so the correct English would be "there are data". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)-


 * In common English usage, "data" is typically singular, and using it as a plural will look wrong to the majority of readers who are not prescriptive linguists or academics. This is far from the only case where a Latin word is "misused" in English, and since so many others have become accepted as correct, it's about time this one did too.174.20.230.54 (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Data" has become singular over the course of the last 30 years. "Datum" is a rarely used word these days. ("Agenda" has suffered the same fate.) Darmot and gilad (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Prevention and Reversal
I am considering writing a section on the prevention and reversal of biological aging since there are now a lot of drugs which have been shown to be effective in mouse/rat/worm models, although not currently licensed for human use. Would this be appropriate? Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And now I've done it. Darmot and gilad (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You know you can't reverse the aging process, you can slow it down but a article called "prevention and reversal" makes wikipedia sound even more like it's run by crackpots. -Craigboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.38.84 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The cited scientific literature says you're wrong. Darmot and gilad (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting section but likely to grow hugely and need reorganising. Would probably be easier to maintain as a separate article - but what to call it ? Anti-aging therapy, Anti-aging research, Anti-aging approaches ? Rod57 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently seems to be organised chronologically. Could we sort/group by things found effective in humans, in primates, in mammals/rodents, in insects, in worms, or only in-vitro/cells ? Rod57 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Exercise and Ageing
How does exercise affect the rate at which the body ages? Does exercise slow down, speed up, or have no effect on ageing? Would people who regularly exercise or intensively exercise look older than if they did no exercise at all? Exercise causes stress to the body, and stress increases the rate at which the body ages. Wsmss (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rats did the macarena
Are we really to believe that rats got up and did the macarena just because they were given a supplement? I mean come on... "In 2002, a team led by Professor Bruce Ames at UC Berkeley discovered that feeding aged rats a combination of acetyl-L-carnitine and alpha-lipoic acid (both substances are already approved for human use and sold in health food stores) produced a rejuvenating effect.[44] Ames said, "With these two supplements together, these old rats got up and did the macarena. The brain looks better, they are full of energy - everything we looked at looks like a young animal." UC Berkeley has patented the use of these supplements in combination and a company, Juvenon, has been established to market the treatment."

I guess that's Wikipedia for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.131.149 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a quote from a Prof. We are documenting what he said, not whether what he said is accurate or not. Clearly rats are not bipedal and therefore could not actually perform the dance in question. Darmot and gilad (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free file problem
File:Jeanne-Calment-1996.jpg was removed from this article because it either does not have a Non-free use rationale or there are problems with the existing rationale. Please see Non-free content criteria for the applicable policy and Non-free use rationale guideline for how to fix the problem. If further input or help is needed, questions can be directed towards Media copyright questions, the help desk or my talk page. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dividing ages by decade
Notice that this article has a "dividing ages by decade" section. Those from 10 to 109 are decades, but the one of 110 and older, in the case of Jeanne Calment, is not. Anyone able to give this section a better description?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

subjective descendophobia
I'd vote to delete the sentence about subjective descendophobia being a sign of senescence. Senescence means lots of things, but descendophobia seems like one of the least important to me. Does the community agree? Derekt75 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, correct
''Indeed, ageing is not an unavoidable property of life. Instead, it is the result of a genetic program.''

Indeed is too strong and absolutely unbased. What about Akerman's "On evolutionary origin of aging" (Aging cell, 2007, 6, pp235-244), in which there's a statement of unavoidable, intrinsic property of all organism to age due to un-simmetrical cell divisions even in bacterial cells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.134.161 (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, "it is the result of a genetic program" is a bold, misleading and unsubstantiated statement. Of course, genomic and epigenomic alterations occur as an organism ages chronologically, but our understanding of tissue regeneration, the longevity of adult stem cells (which exceeds the Hayflick Limit), and the myriad of systems that may contribute to aging (methylation of gene promoter regions, deacetylation of histones, changes in chromatin structure, ROS, production of soluble serum factors, etc) are barriers to making a claim that "aging is the result of ..." Rather, I suggest that "factors that contribute to aging include ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srigita (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, publication of Doron Melamed et al, in Blood jpurnal: "Collectively, our results suggest that immunosenescence in the B-lineage is not irreversible, and that depletion of the long-lived B cells in old mice rejuvenates the B-lineage and enhances immune competence."

"B cell depletion reactivates B lymphopoiesis in the BM and rejuvenates the B lineage in aging", January 12, 2011; DOI 10.1182/blood-2010-09-307983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.162.216 (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Would Suggest Major Rewrite and Conceptual Overhaul
This is perhaps one of the hottest topics in biological science. There is just a ton of fascinating work going on in aging that is not unfortunately represented or even minimally discussed or referenced. I don't really have the time unfortunately to pitch in and help with a re-write myself (I certainly would like to contribute), but could suggest some good sources. Unfortunately, there is much more discussion about the spelling of aging vs ageing than about these underrepresented sources.

First would have to come an acknowledgment that despite a lot of study the ultimate basis for aging remains a mystery. However, increasing and convergent evidence suggests that aging appears to be due to the 'wages' of metabolism (which generates oxidative stress) and organism defense (inflammation). There is also evidence that glycation of proteins and insulin resistance both may play a central role in aging as well. Not surprisingly, these four factors (oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance, and glycation) appear all deeply interactive. For example, glycation of proteins produces advanced glycation end products (acronym: AGE!) which interestingly promote inflammation through receptors for advanced glycation end products. Inflammatory signaling, particularly up-regulation of nuclear factor kappa B, promotes insulin resistance, and inflammation of course generates more oxidative stress (the immune system overwhelms invaders in part by oxidative stress), and oxidative stress itself appears to up-regulate inflammatory signaling.

One might think of these four factors as the "four Horsemen of Aging" and also of the diseases of aging. For reviews, I would consult for example the work of Leonard Guarente (MIT) who just wrote a great piece on the mitochondria and aging, as well as the work of Douglas Wallace (also an expert on the mitochondria -- out at University of California at Irvine) and I might try to get the recent executive summary by the Kronos Longevity Institute, which offers a great basic overview that is not too technical. I would also consult the work of Stig Bengmark, in Great Britain, who has written on inflammatory signaling and diet, including very interesting work on the protective effects of curcuminoids. There is tons of interesting work on resveratrol as a partial calorie restriction mimetic (providing some but probably not all of the benefits of calorie restriction). This is just a very partial list obviously.

Although the piece references some of the recent theoretical work on 'mis-repair' as a cause of aging, it does not link this to the central process responsible for agreat deal of misrepair, namely inflammation. For example the interesting work on NF kappa B referenced in the piece is relevant, as this is a transcription factor implicated in inflammatory signaling, and in long term relationships for example between diseases of aging and inflammation.

Additionally, the piece does not adequately address the evidence that the mitochondria, as a cellular compartment where oxidative stress is typically the highest, are perhaps a nexus for age-related change, even though the precise molecular details have yet to be worked out in terms of what happens over the long-term. Directly related to this, there is simply not an adequate treatment of calorie restriction (which appears to have a hugely protective effect in terms of slowing mitochondrial degradation), as calorie restriction is clearly the gold standard for reducing aging and diseases of aging. I believe that there is now enough evidence to conclude that least in a preliminary fashion, that the protective effects of calorie restriction extend into primates and humans, in other words that these are totally conserved phylogenetically. as just a small example of the deficiencies on this point, the discussion of recent findings that rapamycin extends lifespan in rodents omits reference to the evidence that blocking TOR (target of rapamycin) signaling is a calorie restriction mimetic. No one reading the discussion however would have any sense that there is any relationship between the referenced rapamycin work and basic calorie restriction work, despite the fact that almost the entire field agrees that calorie restriction is intimately related to the effects of TOR. In other words, the discussion of all these issues is fragmented, incomplete, and needs a conceptual overhaul and a lot of tightening up.

The piece does not address how aging mechanisms lead potentially into the diseases of aging, as age-related damage (or increasing misrepair) eventually drive organ systems and tissues past a threshold where they can sustain adequate physiologic function. Lastly, there is little summary of other interventions that can slow aging and diseases of aging, particularly those related to lifestyle. There is enormous evidence for example that aging in Okinowa is significantly delayed relative to aging in the United States. Some of this is probably related calorie restriction (Okinawans eat roughly 30 to 40% less than Americans in terms of total calories), some of it to exercise, some of it to a higher ingestion of protective phytochemicals (they eat lots of soy and vegetables), and some of it probably to a more supportive social milieu (chronic stress probably increases inflammation and probably deteriorates aging organisms faster).

In general, I would say that this topic is very, very important, particularly in the context of our health care system breaking down as our culture is creating a virtual tsunami of diseases of aging in an aging population. Calorie restriction mimetics (again a very hot topic) may be one of the most important ways of mitigating some of this, particularly since Americans seem incredibly reluctant to give up our sedentary, high calorie, and overstressed, sleep-deprived lifestyles.

67.110.143.19 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) DFWatt, Harvard Medical School


 * I kindly and respectfully suggest you stop making speeches here on this talk page, and instead, be bold and edit the article! :-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The senescence section is just poor. It is poorly written, inaccurate, and confusing. I appreciate the response to this initial comment ("be bold and edit the page") and would be happy to do so after I finish my review article on Aging and the Cancer Stem Cell Hypothesis. However, in the meantime, I suggest that there are major problems to this page. (Srigita (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

eg - Rando, Thomas A. and Howard Y. Chang (2012). "Aging, Rejuvenation, and Epigenetic Reprogramming: Resetting the Aging Clock." Cell 148(1): 46-57. "The underlying cause of aging remains one of the central mysteries of biology. Recent studies in several different systems suggest that not only may the rate of aging be modified by environmental and genetic factors, but also that the aging clock can be reversed, restoring characteristics of youthfulness to aged cells and tissues. This Review focuses on the emerging biology of rejuvenation through the lens of epigenetic reprogramming. By defining youthfulness and senescence as epigenetic states, a framework for asking new questions about the aging process emerges." (Srigita (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Need for a section on dementia
This article needs a section on dementia as a possible side-effect of ageing. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of article (as opposed to title)
SimonP wrote: "The rule is that the first spelling used should be used throughout, and ageing was the original spelling." For the record, that is not the rule, it is one of several rules. Another is the one I cited: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." Throquzum violated the rule I cited, and provoked conflict. However, as I recall, you were the actual author of the first non-stub version, so I think your wishes should be respected, if it really matters to you that much. I reverted the changes for the simple reason that it is indeed a violation of policy, and did indeed seem likely to be provocative. But, again, I feel original non-stub authors should have a larger "vote" in these matters than others, even if that's just my feeling, not policy. Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The spelling was ageing until an anon IP changed it to aging in May. Since then it has alternated between the two forms every few days. - SimonP 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see that. The spelling should remain ageing throughoutt; sorry for my hastiness. --Cultural Freedom talk 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I only switched it back after seeing the original spelling throughout had been changed. This left the unusual situation of the title contradicting the entire article. -Throquzum 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. I was in mindless bot-mode, and had recently immersed myself in Wikipolicy readings, without having synthesized it all very well... :) --Cultural Freedom talk 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: how about we make two separate Wikipedia's for British English and American English? ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would really mess things up, with different consensus in both leading to very different Wikipedia's. Both Wikipedia's together would be less valuable than this one big international one. There is a good reason why many of us non-native speakers prefer to work on the English Wikipedia rather than on our local ones. The English one is so much better, more elaborate, more revised, etc etc.  Lova Falk     talk   15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

More than 1/5 of the world's population uses American English. Since American English is used by the majority, spelling used in the English Wikipedia should conform to American English, with British English cited as an alternate spelling. Also, wikipedia is based in the United States, where American English is the norm.66.230.106.8 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings on how you think "Aging" should be spelled, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, change the spellings of the names of books, article names, and institutions. I have reverted all of the spellings of the books and institution and study names to their original titles. Only three sources (one British study and two British beginner books) used the spelling "ageing". Furthermore, all of these articles:

Aging movement control, Aging brain, Aging of Europe, Biomarkers of aging, Memory and aging, Population aging, Software aging, Stem cell theory of aging, Senescence,

Use aging as their spelling. So for the purposes of continuity between all these articles and the spellings of all the institutions and the overwhelming majority of studies and quotations, within the article I have changed the spelling to aging. I don't care what the title is, but for the sake of continuity this is the easiest and least drastic change.

To whoever changed the name of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, The National Institute on Aging, and Neurobiology of Aging (journal), and many others, stop trying to change reality to reflect your petty regional English.

Thank you,

Kyle112 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Aging (foto of something in Germany)
There's a foto labeled "Sign outside a modern anti-ageing clinic in Germany." But the sign shows labels of a lot of ordenary medical practices: dentist, orthopedics, physiotherapy, gynecologist, eye specialist, dermantologist and at the very right bottom sign only very small: "laser therapy, peelings, anti-aging, dermatologic products". At the left side are even signs like "hairdresser, cosmetics, photographer; carpets; furs". So the picture is not specific "anti-aging". Maybe the big red letter "A" is misleading. It has nothing to do with anti-aging, but that A-sign is a common logo for Pharmacy (german: Apotheke). 79.214.207.32 (talk) nativ german —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Article originally used "Aging" Why was it changed just to use British spelling?
This diff clearly shows the article was moved to change to commonwealth spelling. As far as I am aware this goes directly against the Manual of style on regional varieties of English. Should it not be moved back? Colincbn (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RETAIN
 * WP:ENGVAR


 * Actually I am now confused as to what that diff means. It seems the article was created in 2002 as Ageing which means we keep the current title. But what is that diff about then? Colincbn (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has bounced between a number of different names, as folk have periodically moved it to the spelling without an 'e'. The move you linked to was simply a reversion of this move. The original version did use ageing, so policy is that that spelling should remain. - SimonP (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for the clarification. Colincbn (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Aging is an American English way of spelling it, American English is derived from British English, which was first and therefor more "proper" and correct. Everything on English Wikipedia should be spelled British English. It only makes sense.


 * Being first makes it neither more 'proper' nor more 'correct'. 68.9.207.126 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * True, British English is indeed more conservative in many instances, but there are aspects of the language that American English has retained while British English has lost; e.g., the word “gotten” or full stops at the end of the abbreviations Mr, Mrs and Dr. RP only emerged in the mid XIX century, and American English might even sound closer to Shakespeare's English than modern-day British English. The English Wikipedia uses both American and UK/Commonwealth spelling. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the English of Beowulf was first, and came before what is spoken in England today, must we forgo creating an encyclopedia of modern English as it is and instead be forced make one in the language the historically used to be spoken by the British?  If we have to do that, can we be allowed to have an encyclopedia for the rest of us of English as it is today?

Infobox disease
No-one else has commented on the above, so I will. That was a risqué move to make, but as anyone with basic knowledge in pathology knows, this is entirely a matter of terminology, and if there is a disease database applying this sort of terminology to the condition, you have your permission. The editor used MeSH Descriptor Data, but ICD-10 R54 and ICD-9 797 can also be utilized. Besides a picture of an aged person, one may attach an image comparing healthy cells versus senescent cells, modeling on the disease infobox for progeria (see example on the right). However, there is a little problem: aging as a disease is limited to the biological aspect, whereas this article discusses also micro- and macro-social aspects of aging, so it may be best to move the infobox to the senescence article, perhaps in turn moving the lead picture in that article to this article. EIN  ( talk ) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling
I find it bad practice to have a page named with impropper spelling. Perhaps this could be moved to Aging (life cycle) instead? A simple redirect can then be used on this title so the links on other pages won't be broken. (Lady Serena 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Ageing is a perfectly valid spelling in Commonwealth English. - SimonP 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * it's an american website. anyway, more people use the american spelling than the commonwealth spelling. i'm moving it.Joeyramoney 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you people really love to complain, don't you?! The current setup is fine, with redirects and that, so it doesn't matter how you spell it. Both spellings seem perfectly valid to me. It's not really a question of whether "more people" use one spelling, making that the right one, is it?!Crunchysaviour 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Impropper" spelling, Ms Serena? SpNeo 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the American was joking. Both spellings are of course correct, but, unlike other differences between Commonwealth and American English, this is one where the American spelling is much more widely used. Having the article about humor being called "humour" (even though it was originally spelled "humor...") is fine. But this article should be "Aging." Foreigners will get confused by all the articles and books with the "aging" spelling. WikiFair1 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is quite clear, all varieties of English are equally acceptable. Ageing is no less common than any other Commonwealth English spelling. A Google search shows that the aging/ageing ratio is similar to the the humor/humour ration, for instance. - SimonP 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? The "aging" / "ageing" spelling ratio is, precisely, 217,000,000 to 35,100,000, i.e., about 7 to 1. How did you conduct your Google search? You obviously did it incorrectly. Again: this will be confusing (not "confuseing") to the many non-native speakers who are using (not "useing") Wikipedia to try to learn about both aging and English. Noah Webster had some flaky proposals. "Aging" wasn't one of them. WikiFair1 08:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And humor/humour is 256,000,000 to 64,000,000, licorice/liquorice is 5,200,000 to 1,500,000, yogurt/yoghurt is 4,700,000 to 17,400,000. International English

terms are generally less popular than American English, but Wikipedia has a longstanding rule that we don't pick the most popular spelling. Instead we use the first spelling used for the article. If we adopted your system, Wikipedia would use nothing but American English. Also it should be noted that most people in the world are taught International English, so if anything this spelling benefits ESL learners. - SimonP 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) My point about the ratio wasn't an argument, I was correcting your research. (And my question wasn't rhetorical: how did you conduct your Google search?) I agree using the most popular spelling in general is a bad idea. 2) "International English" doesn't mean British or Commonwealth English. 3) Most people in the world are actually taught American English (Mexico and most of South America, most of Eastern Europe, most of China -- though not Hong Kong -- all of Japan). The "ageing" spelling harms ESL users, since A) it's one of the Commonwealth spellings that is particularly inconsistent with other -ing spellings. (Plenty of American spellings are illogical as well, though, to be sure!) B) it is the spelling used by most of the research community, even many people in England, such as Aubrey de Grey. And just look at the errors in the reference section (which I'm now going to correct, though someone will likely change them back). Names of books are incorrectly spelled with the "ageing" spelling. This will make it hard for people to track down the references. WikiFair1 07:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on the link to this article only cause of the misspelled title. Umm Idk, that breaks one of the few spelling conventions there are, plus it looks completely stupid. And I'm from Europe for that matter. 354d 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your wrong with that, American English is only really taugh in the United States and some parts of South America. There is a reason Commonwealth English is also called International English. Almost all the countries with a huge number of ESL learners, such as those in South Asia, Africa, and Western Europe are all taught British English. Also please understand there was nothing wrong with my Google searches. I did not say aging and ageing are equal, I stated that they are only as unequal as any International/American spellings. - SimonP 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not wrong. Do some research. British English is taught lots of places, American English is also taught lots of places. In part because of China and Japan, the total number of ESL learners who are taught American English is higher. About "International English" -- that sometimes refers to American English, sometimes to British English, sometimes to something else entirely. In any event, I gather you have no interest in improving Wikipedia, but would rather promote your favorite variety of English. WikiFair1 05:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Try to cut down on the personal attacks, WikiFair. And I'm not going to take sides in this debate, but I'd just like to comment that 'aging' is the spelling I, personally, use (I'm Canadian). CameoAppearance 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to point up the fact that, to linguists,
 * 1. "International English" *never* means British English or American English. It means "English as a global communication language."
 * 2. "Commonweath English" doesn't mean really much.
 * As for the spelling thing, do as you please, I frankly don't give a damn. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you read Pam Peters's "Cambridge Guide to English Usage."
 * JackLumber. 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)—— TWIMC, humour/humor, licorice/liquorice, and yogurt/yoghurt have VERY, _*VERY*_, VERY, V_E_R_Y different backgrounds _*and*_ distributions.  See American and British English spelling differences.   JackLumber.

The Manual of Styling (Spelling) lists either way for both British and American. So just simply leave it as it is, and avoid hassle.Shaizakopf 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all good and fine... But Ageing looks ridiculous. Make it Aging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh.norlander (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm going to assume that you're not trolling. "Aging" looks wrong to me. To me it sounds like "hag-ing". Just realise that there's two ways to spell this word and neither is right nor wrong. They just are. Spelling difference discussions are a scourge of Wikipedia. They sap productivity due to ignorance. --Monotonehell 10:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um you're wrong Agging sounds like hag-ing, but Aging def sounds like ayjing. 354d 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this is five years after the above comment but I'm going to say this anyway: the above is a stupid comment - it's not a case of being right or wrong, it's what a person is used to. And as a Brit, Aging definitely reads as hag-ing, or perhaps more like a-ging with a 'hard' "g". 85.210.147.81 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on the link to this article only cause of the misspelled title. Umm Idk, that breaks one of the few spelling conventions there are, plus it looks completely stupid. And I'm from Europe for that matter. 354d 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So what, not everyone in Europe speaks English as a first language. What country are you from? 85.210.147.81 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm from Norway and "Ageing" looks very wrong to me. So wrong, in fact, that I went here to make this comment. I absolutely feel that the title must be changed to "Aging" as it is obviously the most common spelling, and for the sake of consistency with other articles. 46.9.252.224 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it not ironic to have some complain about "impropper (sic.) spelling? ! ACEOREVIVED 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I said this in the other section, but to stop vandalism in these edit wars I think this needs to be said here as well:

Regardless of your feelings on how you think "Aging" should be spelled, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, change the spellings of the names of books, article names, and institutions. I have reverted all of the spellings of the books and institution and study names to their original titles. Only three sources (one British study and two British beginner books) used the spelling "ageing". Furthermore, all of these articles:

Aging movement control, Aging brain, Aging of Europe, Biomarkers of aging, Memory and aging, Population aging, Software aging, Stem cell theory of aging, Senescence,

Use aging as their spelling. So for the purposes of continuity between all these articles and the spellings of all the institutions and the overwhelming majority of studies and quotations, within the article I have changed the spelling to aging. I don't care what the title is, but for the sake of continuity this is the easiest and least drastic change. I understand someone with a bone to pick will likely revert these spelling changes, but we can ALL agree not to change the names of books, studies, and institutions, and not to change the spelling when it involves quotes from written sources.

To whoever changed the name of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, The National Institute on Aging, and Neurobiology of Aging (journal), and many others, stop trying to change reality to reflect your petty regional English.

Thank you,

Kyle112 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Aging is the preferred spelling, by about 117 to 24.
Google smackdown, Aug. 18, 2013:

Aging - About 117,000,000 results (0.25 seconds)

Ageing - About 24,300,000 results (0.42 seconds)

The article should begin with the preferred spelling, but acknowledge the uncommon variant:


 * Aging (spelled ageing in British English) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 August 2013


 * See the MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN guidelines. "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." —  Reatlas  (talk)  15:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs copy editing or permission for blockquote
Telomere length is maintained in immortal cells (e.g. germ cells and keratinocyte stem cells, but not other skin cell types) by the telomerase enzyme. In the laboratory, mortal cell lines can be immortalised by the activation of their telomerase gene, present in all cells but active in few cell types. Cancerous cells must become immortal to multiply without limit. This important step towards carcinogenesis implies, in 85% of cancers, the reactivation of their telomerase gene by mutation. Since this mutation is rare, the telomere "clock" is seen by some as a protective mechanism against cancer. Research has shown that the clock must be located in the nucleus of each cell and there have been reports that the longevity clock might be located in genes on either the first or fourth chromosome of the twenty-three pairs of human chromosomes. dolfrog (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Content from "Prevention and reversal" section
I've just removed a large amount of poorly-sourced content from the "Prevention and reversal" section; per WP:MEDRS, much better sources are required for medical content, preferably academic review articles. Primary sources, press releases, and most news organizations are not acceptable for most purposes. I have copied the extra content here in case anyone can find anything useful to build from.

The topic is an important one, and plenty of suitable information exists, so I may get to it in the near future. In the meantime, the section still contains information cited to a Nature News article (though IMO this is borderline) and a review on mTOR.  Sunrise    (talk)  06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation (TM technique) may have beneficial age-related effects.

In 2002, a team led by Professor Bruce Ames at UC Berkeley discovered that feeding aged rats a combination of acetyl-L-carnitine and alpha-lipoic acid (both substances are already approved for human use and sold in health food stores) produced a rejuvenating effect. Ames said, "With these two supplements together, these old rats got up and did the macarena. The brain looks better, they are full of energy – everything we looked at looks like a young animal." UC Berkeley has patented the use of these supplements in combination and a company, Juvenon, has been established to market the treatment.

In 2007, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies identified a critical gene in nematode worms that specifically links eating fewer calories with living longer. Professor Andrew Dillin and colleagues showed that the gene pha-4 regulates the longevity response to calorie restriction. In the same year Dr Howard Chang of the Stanford University School of Medicine was able to rejuvenate the skin of two-year-old mice to resemble that of newborns by blocking the activity of the gene NF-kappa-B.

In 2008, a team at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center genetically engineered mice to produce ten times the normal level of the telomerase enzyme. The mice lived 26% longer than normal.

Also in 2008, a team led by Professor Michael O Thorner at the University of Virginia discovered that the drug MK-677 restored 20% of muscle mass lost due to ageing in humans aged 60 to 81. The subjects' growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels increased to that typical of healthy young adults.

In 2009, a drug called rapamycin, discovered in the 1970s in the soil of Easter Island in the South Pacific, was found to extend the life expectancy of 20-month-old mice by up to 38%. Rapamycin is approved for human use and is generally used to suppress the immune system and prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. It is thought to mimic the effect of calorie restriction. Dr Arlan Richardson of the Barshop Institute said, "I never thought we would find an anti-ageing pill in my lifetime; however, rapamycin shows a great deal of promise to do just that." Professor Randy Strong of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio said, "We believe this is the first convincing evidence that the ageing process can be slowed and lifespan can be extended by a drug therapy starting at an advanced age." Also in 2009, the British Journal of Nutrition reported a study at Tufts University in Boston which showed that brain function and motor skills in aged rats could be improved by adding walnuts to their diet. The human equivalent would be to eat seven to nine walnuts per day.

Another drug already approved for human use (for the treatment of diabetes), metformin has been shown to increase mouse lifespan by about five percent when treatment is started in middle age.

In September 2009, researchers at UC Berkeley discovered they could restore youthful repair capability to muscle tissue taken from men aged 68 to 74 by in vitro treatment with mitogen-activated protein kinase. This protein was found to be essential for the production of the stem cells necessary to repair muscle after exercise and is present at reduced levels in aged individuals.

In December 2013 a study, published in the journal Cell, detailed work carried out by researchers in: Australia - (University of NSW), in Portugal - (Center for Neurosciences and Cell Biology; University of Coimbra; and University of Aveiro) and in the USA - (Harvard University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and National Institutes of Health). Researchers reversed the ageing process in the muscles of mice, making two-year-old mice appear to be six months old. Research has shown that declining NAD+ during aging causes pseudohypoxia and that raising nuclear NAD+ in old mice reverses pseudohypoxia and metabolic dysfunction, thus reversing the aging process. The study involved injecting NAD into the mice. This reversed pseudohypoxia and metabolic dysfunction and thus the ageing process. It has been reported that human trials will begin in 2014.


 * Also, if anyone here has a good knowledge of the literature - I don't mind doing the work of incorporating information to start rebuilding the section if you cite some good reviews I can use. :-) (I have access through most paywalls.) I also note for future reference that high-quality reviews like and  are not currently used anywhere in the article.   Sunrise    (talk)  07:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article scope
Is there a reason why the scope of this article is defined in the hatnote as human aging? A top-level article like this one should be about the general biological concept, and indeed much of the article is already about the general concept. Of course, this doesn't mean that the article on the general concept wouldn't discuss human aging in detail - probably not much less than is already in the article, except probably in the humanities-focused sections - but the scope hatnote seems out of place. (In the absence of discussion I'll remove the hatnote in the next few days, or if necessary we can run a WP:RFC.)  Sunrise    (talk)  20:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

why AGE-ing instead of AG-ing?
i thought i remembered reading that Wikipedia's policy was to give precedence to U.S. spellings and vocabulary (such as elevator instead of lift)? or am i thinking of some other Wiki?

Same question regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ageing

Computer glitch, sorry if this double-posts.

--70.17.201.54 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No preference for any variety of English, per WP:ENGVAR; you're probably thinking of WP:COMMONALITY.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Older
I am perplexed as to how the word "older" does not make an appearance until the second paragraph. And the first sentence is not how most people would define aging. It should say something like "the process of growing older", but I don't feel like being bold. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first sentence is supported by a "new proposal for a definition"-type source, which is not the best. "Growing older" is almost a synonym for aging though, so I think further description would need to be added as well.  Sunrise    (talk)  17:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

EXPLANATION OF EDITS

 * Addition of the Section Communication in Aging

Hello everyone in the aging group, Krystal and I have made the final edits to the actual wikipedia page. We included the citations and added pictures. We ended up changing quite a bit of grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and formatting after submitting it. Hannah and becky were unable to participate in summarizing of all the information from the books, the formatting of the page, and putting it in the wikipedia page. Thank-you for whoever added the one citation on the other sandbox, we used in our section.

Rationale for edits:discuss them in more detail.

Conclusion: Krystal and I believe that what we have done to the wikipedia page for aging in communication has benefited the overall quality of the page. It helps one develop a better understanding of aging and the communication barriers that accompany it.

I hope that you enjoy reading our addition to the page Professor McCleary- LynnMcCleary Brittany Trojek 17:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Kv13hu (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The sandbox that the students (from the course indicated in the banner on this talk page) used to do their research and practice editing before copying edits to this page is located at User:Hw13na/aging. The talk page for their sandbox has discussion about their sources. LynnMcCleary (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Review of the new section added
 * Hi everyone! I would like to congratulate you on adding new information on the “Ageing” article page. I must say that you did a really great job on putting all of your information together and the way you put your information flowed really well such that there were some introductions in each subsection and you integrated an information about presbysusis on the “Hearing Loss” subsection which relates to hearing loss. Also, the new added information you did followed the Five Pillars especially that most of the information were written in a neutral point of view. The wikilinks, or internal links, were used properly and I like that it links certain terms to another page. Also, I noticed some aspects that I would like to give you suggestions on.
 * Here are some of my suggestions:
 * 1)	I noticed that the first letter of the caption on the first picture under the “Aging in Communication” is not capitalized, and captions normally starts with a capital letter according to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Capital letters.
 * 2)	Also, I think it is a great idea that the subsection called “Healthy Ageing” is shown in the contents box. However, it would be more convenient for readers if the “Strategies for Communicating with Aging Individuals” subsection can be seen in the contents box also.
 * 3)	Most of your information followed the core content policies of Wikipedia in some degree. For example, the information you added were written in neutral point of view and most of your information had proper citations. However, when it comes to one of the core content policies, some of the strategies under “Strategies for Communicating with Aging Individuals” do not have citations and it does not follow verifiability. Citing information follows one of the core content policies of Wikipedia and it would show that such information is not based on personal opinions or advice but based on reliable source.--Klausa (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Review of edits made
 * Hi everyone, I have been assigned this page to review for our class wikipedia project. I want to start off by saying great job! You guys really added a lot of valuable content with respect to aging and communication. The information was focused and neutral and I think it was very relevant. I also like the addition of pictures. They were good as they were very relevant and had nice concise descriptions. Your information all looks verifiable with good citations. Below are some of my comments and or suggestions;


 * 1. There were a few articles missing in the first bullet under the hearing loss subsection so I made some copy edits.
 * 2. As per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style bullet points are discouraged if the text can be read easily as plain paragraphs which in this case I think it could be. I think the hearing loss and visual impairment information could be written in paragraphs but I think the way you bulleted the strategies portion works best for that part.
 * 3. I agree with the previous reviewer on your sandbox talk page that adding the subsections to the contents box would be useful for readers looking for specific information.
 * 4. Under the strategies section I am wondering if it would be a good idea to expand slightly on the bullet regarding open-ended questions as not everyone might know what those are. We know because of our readings in class but a brief sentence regarding this might be helpful for other readers. Or you could add an example question to illustrate this.


 * I really liked how you added a summary of what further edits you thought were needed. Great idea!kr13al 15:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kr13al (talk • contribs)


 * Hey ladies! First I want to congratulate you for your hard work and for adding a much needed section to this article. The information that you added is very relevant and is a big part of the aging process. I do agree that your section would benefit from a few more barriers but the ones that you girls decided to add are the most prevalent and I think that you did great with the time that we were given. But great starting ideas for the next editors that come along. I think that all of the good article criteria was met; well-written (good sentence structure and sounds professional), verifiable (used good secondary sources and added the proper citations), broad (nothing that doesn’t apply to the population in general), neutral (all facts nothing controversial), stable (nothing that looks suspicious) and illustrated (nice addition of pictures) I have a few suggestions for your section:


 * 1) The first picture of the group could say the elderly instead of just elderly.
 * 2) If possible I think that it would be a good idea to add links to the subsections of the aging in communication in your contents box. Like the society section where it has 8.1 etc. This way people can preview what is in your section and if they needed to look at just hearing loss they could get there easily.
 * 3) I really like how you girls referenced other wiki pages for the readers understanding.
 * 4) I like the pictures that you added to your section. They give a good visual reference of what you are talking about. However, I find the placement of photos is a bit awkward and it makes it hard to read. I know you were probably trying to spice it up and make it more visually interesting but I was having a hard time following the sections.
 * 5) Although it is nice to see what is important on this topic as you have shown by bullet points it isn’t really constant with the rest of the article. The information is basically in paragraph form, if a few connecting sentences are added I think that the bullet points could be removed and great paragraphs could easily be made. Except for the strategies at the end of the section, I think it is best in a bullet list for easier reading and understanding. Maybe add an example of an open ended question for better understanding.
 * 6) Not sure if this is valid but not everyone will know the anatomy of the ear in the sentence: “Presbycusis, the alteration of hearing sensitivity associated with normal hearing loss, is caused by the decreased amount of hair cells in the cochlea of the inner ear.[62]” and “Macular degeneration is a common of vision loss problem in elderly people.”--Sarah Greer 16:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg13bc (talk • contribs)

Hello everyone! I wanted to start off by saying congratulation, it’s now official you’re all Wikipedia editors! I strongly believe that information that you guys added really improved the quality of this article. Furthermore, I wanted to applaud you guys for keeping a neutral tone in your added section of this article because as we know, this is an important aspect of Wikipedia. Additionally, it seems as if the information that was added is verifiable and is in a broad manner, which is important so that it can apply to the general population. Reading through your added section, I found that it was very stable, meaning that I didn’t question the quality of your information. Lastly, I found that the pictures that were added were quite appropriate and well matched to the information that you guys added.

Here are a few comments and suggestions for your section on aging and communication:


 * 1.	I think it would be much more effective if you guys made the healthy aging and the barriers to communication in aging in the form of paragraphs rather than in bullet point.
 * 2.	Again, your Hearing loss and Visual impairment section, I believe it would be more effective to have these in small paragraph forms rather than in bullet points.
 * 3.	For your last section on Strategies for Communication with Aging individuals, I believe that you were right to use the bullet point format for this, this section is very concise and to the point.
 * 4.	The pictures that you added in my opinion embellished the article, as they were very relevant and a good way for people to visually make the connection to your information. However, I think that the article would visually look better if you put the "displays of elderly people in communication" on the right side of the page because I find that it looks sort of awkward on that side since all the other pictures on the same side.
 * 5.	Personally, I know when I don’t see content boxes specifically on Wikipedia pages; I often get discouraged and move on to the next source because I don’t always feel like searching through the entire article to read about one aspect. I believe that adding a content box would be key edit to aiding individuals in the navigation of this page.
 * 6.	I think it was extremely effective that you guys added some links to other pages to allow people to get more information on a particular subject.
 * 7.	I’m very impressed with the fact that you guys took it one step further and discussed possible future edits for this article, I think that’s a great way to stay involved in the discussion of the edits of this article.
 * 8.	Lastly, I wanted to point out that you guys did a very good job with keeping your section clear and well written. Although I did notice a few discrepancies such as:
 * "Be honest if you do not understand what is being said" should be "Be honest if you don't understand what is being said"
 * "Mechanical problems including translation of ideas into linguistic representations, the expression of linguistic representations, the perception of linguistic stimuli and the derivation of an idea from a given unit of disclosure, have the greatest affect on the communication ability of older adults" could maybe be simplified by saying "Communication problems of elderly adults can be greatly impacted by mechanical problems such as: the translation of ideas into linguistic representation or expression, the perception of linguistic stimuli or the derivation of an idea from a given unit of disclosure".

Once again congrats, and keep up the good work and remember that these are just suggestions, change only what you want :) Sb10ok (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and for reading through what i wrote. I really appreciate what you have said and i have made the changes that i believed fit the article. I think your comments about taking out the bullet points was valid and made more sense then what i had.

Brittany Trojek 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to review our article, after reading over your comments and suggestions I think a few edits can be made. I agree with you all saying we should link more headings into the content box as well as formatting the bullets into paragraphs. I am going to add some edits about the ear and eye specifics to make it more clear. I am looking over brittany's edits from your suggestions and it looks like she has incorporated most of your ideas. Thanks again for the comments ! Kv13hu (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing our article and providing us with feedback. After reading through the suggestions made, I agree with many of the comments and therefore I have made some edits to the structure of our edit and I reworded the sentence that caused some confusion in the hearing loss section.

Bt13zs (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Adjustments
Hi, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Just to let you know that I've made a number of changes to your section (details are in the edit summaries), e.g. to follow typical style and content guidelines. I may make more changes in the near future. I imagine that you're probably being graded soon, so please let me know if you have any questions or concerns - I'm happy to talk to your professor if necessary. No need to panic, no matter what the reason. :-) Cheers,  Sunrise    (talk)  22:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thank you very much for taking a look at the page and making some edits. I looked at the edit summary and i think your edits have significantly improved the section. May i ask why you took out the strategies for communicating with aging individuals? Did you think it did not fit with the article?  This is not a big concern, as i do not find it overly important but i was just curious.  I agree that we used to many subheadings, its alot easier to follow along with now.

Thanks again for your edits. Brittany Trojek 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Sunrise Thank you for reviewing the page making the edits you did to it. I am wondering the same as Brittany about the strategies, just for future knowledge but I definitely see why your edits were made and learned how we could have improved. Thanks again! Kv13hu (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you to everyone who put the time and effort into this article with edits and suggestions :) Hw13na (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Great, I'm glad you like the changes. :-) The reason I took out the strategies section was that we try to avoid having Wikipedia look like a how-to guide or instruction manual (if you're interested, the specific policy is at WP:NOTHOWTO). This is an issue of how the material is presented, so there's nothing wrong with the information itself - it could definitely be useful if it were reformulated in a descriptive passage. That said, it's probably also too detailed for a general article like this one, so it might fit better in one of the articles dealing with specific aspects of aging - I see that we don't have a standalone article on communication in aging, but I'd be happy to help out if you're interested in making one at any point (or indeed if you return to Wikipedia in the future for any reason!)  Sunrise    (talk)  05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Sunrise   , I am these students' professor. I want to add my thanks for your thoughtful explanations to the students. I know this enhanced their learning. Please don't delay any of your planned edits on account of the course. I'm grading based on the edits the students made and I can easily see all of their past contributions through my course page. I like the idea of starting an article on communication in aging. If it's still needed next year when I teach this course again, I will make it an assignment. LynnMcCleary (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Sunrise    & LynnMcCleary i think making a new page on specifics of aging  is a great idea and i hope that some students next year get the chance! Thanks again for your edits and i will definitely ask for help if i decide to make this page on my own in the future :)

Brittany Trojek 16:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, and I'm glad to be of help. Best of luck with the rest of the course! Cheers,  Sunrise    (talk)  07:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional comment Feb 2015: If you're still around, just to let you know that I've split the article into two parts, so if you're wondering where the communication section is, most of it is now at Aging and society. :-) I also left a summary of the material in this article, which is currently in the "Effects of aging" section.   Sunrise    (talk)  06:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'''Thanks Sunrise, sounds great 76.68.42.166 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Image's Caption
The image under "effects of aging" has an image with this poor caption: "Comparison of a normal aged brain (left) and the brain of a person with Alzheimer's disease (right). Characteristics that separate the two are pointed out." The caption should describe the characteristics that separate the two instead of referring to the image if not because the words are too small to be read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.16.220 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It is important to be more specific about the research that is being conducted in ageing, In particular in mammals. In particular the mouse line that has the longest lived laboratory mouse, carries a mutation in the growth hormone receptor gene (GHR-/- mice) which make them unresponsive to growth hormone induced signaling. discussing this mouse line is important because aside from their increased life span phenotype, they are also resistant to diabetes and cancer. Therefore, they are the perfect example for the connection between life span and health span.

Sd504111 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination)
There is an ongoing discussion that implicates some editorial policy questions. Your input would help. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Message for Wikigoodnews
Wikigoodnews - in the lead you have inserted the claim


 * the existence of animals that do not show signs of aging (negligible senescence).

However, neither this article nor the negligible senescence article makes any referenced mention of signs of ageing in senescent animals to contrast with their negligibly senescent counterparts. The only item mentioned is a generalised and unsourced claim that


 * Negligibly senescent organisms do not have measurable reductions in their reproductive capability with age, or measurable functional decline with age. Death rates in negligibly senescent organisms do not increase with age as they do in senescent organisms.

For example, what are the normal signs of ageing in fish, and which of these signs are not present in the rockfish? You need to provide a referenced list of piscine "signs of ageing" which are absent in rockfish etc., before making your (unfounded?) claim in the lead.

Meanwhile I am deleting your unsupported claim from the lead, but I am sure you will be able to come up with a referenced list of "signs of ageing". And then we can resurrect your statement on negligible senescence. Agreed? 86.154.101.81 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing information
It is important to be more specific about the research that is being conducted in ageing, In particular in mammals. There are many mouse models that are being investigated and have an extension in their half life (Snell, Ames, lit/lit, GHR-/- mice). Discussing these mouse lines is important because mice are the most used animal model for transnational medicine. Furthermore, aside from the increased life span phenotype that these mouse models show, some of them also show health benefits such as resistance to diabetes and cancer. Therefore, talking about long lived mouse models could be the perfect connection between life span and health span.

This article has a considerable amount of “unnamed groups of people, animals and research.” Often one can find the words “many” and “much” when referring to research or animal examples. Naming the specific studies and species, can add valuable information to the article and help the reader to understand the topic, as well as provide specific words and names for future research on the area. Sd504111 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sd504111. I agree with your general point that we need to be specific in this article and replace vague words (“many” and “much”) with specific numbers and percentages. I disagree however with your suggestion of naming laboratory mouse strains, because "Snell", "lit/lit" etc is meaningless jargon to many readers (sorry, to 92 percent of readers) and would discourage young readers or laymen from reading the article. And if we lose young readers, we lose the next generation of eager gerontology researchers. As a compromise, I suggest you add the mouse strain as a footnote where you feel it is helpful to the specialist.86.154.102.252 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Message for Doc James: correct BMJ quote
Hi Doc. I am reverting your recent edit because it implies that only 20 minutes of exercise per day is sufficient for a healthy life. This is a serious misreading of the quoted BMJ paper. This is what Kyu et al. (2016) actually say:


 * The continuous risk curves for each of the five outcomes are shown in figures 2-6. Higher levels of total physical activity were associated with lower risk of all outcomes. Major gains occurred at lower levels of activity, and the decrease in risk was minimal at levels higher than 3000-4000 MET minutes/week. (A person can achieve (NOT ARCHIVE!) 3000 MET minutes/week by incorporating different types of physical activity into the daily routine—for example, climbing stairs 10 minutes, vacuuming 15 minutes, gardening 20 minutes, running 20 minutes, and walking or cycling for transportation 25 minutes on a daily basis would together achieve about 3000 MET minutes a week).

I am guessing you picked up the incorrect version from the Exercise article, which I corrected earlier today. 86.154.102.103 (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks you are indeed correct. My apologies. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. Can you please enlarge the Alzheimer brain picture by a factor of two? I do not know how to do it. Thanks. 86.154.102.103 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Message for Plomkg22345: cognitive decline
Hi Plomkg22345. You are erroneously changing the quote from the Salthouse 2009 paper (they conclude that aspects of age-related cognitive decline begin in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s. I am copying the full abstract below. In brief, they start off by saying that the validity of the cognitive decline has been questioned by previous research because of discrepancies, but that they have identified the source of the discrepancies and hence feel they can arrive at their definitive conclusion. Got it? 86.170.123.90 (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cross-sectional comparisons have consistently revealed that increased age is associated with lower levels of cognitive performance, even in the range from 18 to 60 years of age. However, the validity of cross-sectional comparisons of cognitive functioning in young and middle-aged adults has been questioned because of the discrepant age trends found in longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses. The results of the current project suggest that a major factor contributing to the discrepancy is the masking of age-related declines in longitudinal comparisons by large positive effects associated with prior test experience. Results from three methods of estimating retest effects in this project, together with results from studies comparing non-human animals raised in constant environments and from studies examining neurobiological variables not susceptible to retest effects, converge on a conclusion that some aspects of age-related cognitive decline begin in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s.

the ref states Although there have been many reports over the last 100 years of age-related differences in cognitive functioning, there is still considerable controversy about the age at which cognitive decline begins. This lack of consensus is unfortunate because the question is important for both practical and theoretical reasons. For example, the age at which cognitive decline begins is relevant to the optimum time to implement interventions designed to prevent or reverse age-related declines. Many interventions currently target adults 60 years of age and older. However, if people start to decline when they are in their 20s and 30s, a large amount of change will likely have already occurred by the time they are in their 60s and 70s. This may affect the likelihood that interventions at that age will be successful because the changes might have accumulated to such an extent that they may be difficult to overcome. from that it suggest that most people think it occurs at 60 but it is debatable (Plmokg22345 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

it should state it may decline as early since it is debated at what age it dose decline(Plmokg22345 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * Yes, but you are quoting from their introduction. Read the rest of their paper. Let me explain again: they are first setting out what the problem is: that cognitive decline has been unclear due to discrepancies (between longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies). Then, they identify and use methods to avoid these methodological discrepancies. As a result, they arrive at their definitive conclusion that some aspects of age-related cognitive decline begin in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s. Clear now?86.170.123.90 (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

it is still debatable and should be reflected as such by stating it may decline(Plmokg22345 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * If you think it is debatable, then cite a reference which says it is debatable. Ideally a reference which proves Salthouse 2009 wrong. I suggest you do a PubMed search whether any such reference exists.86.170.123.90 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

the ref itself states it is. Although there have been many reports over the last 100 years of age-related differences in cognitive functioning, there is still considerable controversy about the age at which cognitive decline begins. This lack of consensus is unfortunate because the question is important for both practical and theoretical reasons. For example, the age at which cognitive decline begins is relevant to the optimum time to implement interventions designed to prevent or reverse age-related declines. Many interventions currently target adults 60 years of age and older. However, if people start to decline when they are in their 20s and 30s, a large amount of change will likely have already occurred by the time they are in their 60s and 70s. This may affect the likelihood that interventions at that age will be successful because the changes might have accumulated to such an extent that they may be difficult to overcome. going by that it suggest that other people think it starts at different times (Plmokg22345 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

just because the paper says what it dose not mean that others are going to agree since the paper says Although there have been many reports over the last 100 years of age-related differences in cognitive functioning, there is still considerable controversy about the age at which cognitive decline begins(Plmokg22345 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * You may well be right that others will disagree with Salthouse's conclusion (and I do not have a strong view myself). But you must find and cite appropriate references for your disagreement, and not take a short cut by misquoting Salthouse 2009. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

your statement dose not make sense the ref states it itself you are misrepresenting the source (Plmokg22345 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * I have literally quoted Salthouse's conclusion that some aspects of age-related cognitive decline begin in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s. You must not manipulate a quote. If you disagree with Salthouse's statement, then quote something else or somebody else to support your view. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

you typed Aspects of age-related cognitive decline begins in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s you did not say it came from Salthouse you should have said Salthouse came to the conclusion that Aspects of age-related cognitive decline begins in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s but other opinions may differ and it is not manipulating the source salthouse thinks it can begin as early as 20's others differ (Plmokg22345 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * In the Wiki article I quoted Salthouse's conclusion literally and to emphasise that it is a quote I put the Salthouse conclusion in quotation marks. Therefore I have been trying to stop you from manipulating Salthouse's quoted conclusion. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I repeat you did not say it is his opinion you said  Aspects of age-related cognitive decline begins in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s it should say at the very least say Salthouse came to the conclusion that Aspects of age-related cognitive decline begins in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s but other opinions may differ you did not say who you were quoting if you are going to  put something in quotation marks then also mention the person you are   (Plmokg22345 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * No problem, I will now highlight that the quote is from Salthouse 2009. And you still have to find a reference that contradicts Salthouse's conclusion. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not delete cognitive ref he listed my issue was that in the ref it stats Although there have been many reports over the last 100 years of age-related differences in cognitive functioning, there is still considerable controversy about the age at which cognitive decline begins implying that people have different views on it example and that what he typed Aspects of age-related cognitive decline begins in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s should have been typed either as Salthouse came to the conclusion that Aspects of age-related cognitive decline begins in healthy educated adults when they are in their 20s and 30s but other opinions may differ or  cognitive may decline in adults when they are in their 20s and 30s (Plmokg22345 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC))
 * in following WP MEDRS you should use all available sources Identifying reliable sources (medicine)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Message for Plomkg22345: Presbyopia
Hi again. For explaining presbyopia, I have replaced your respiratory disease handbook reference with an academic overview published in an ophthalmology journal, and I have corrected your text. Three reasons:

1. Respiratory diseases are not really relevant for eye diseases.

2. Your text was imprecise as concerns age. 3. Your text failed to convey to the reader that presbyopia is a lifelong process which starts in teenagers and only becomes apparent once the focal length of the eye exceeds 40cm, which is the typical reading distance. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

this is no up for debate this ref https://books.google.com/books?id=fVZPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&dq=presbyopia+might+develop+as+you+get+older&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl9uvbqYfPAhXK1x4KHV8pD6g4ChDoAQhEMAU#v=onepage&q=presbyopia%20might%20develop%20as%20you%20get%20older&f=false is credible and way more updated than https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1039697/ from 1981 do not remove sources without good reason(Plmokg22345 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * Compromise: I have added your respiratory handbook for now. Does it specify average age for detecting presbyopia? ("Older adults" is not a useful statement.) 86.170.123.90 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

presbyopia is something that may or not occur for everyone I can list dozens of texbooks that will say it may not develop and the ref states prevalent in older adults age 65. also saying becomes apparent in British adults in their late 40s, but at earlier ages in warmer climates. Presbyopia can occur in adults as early as 40 or sooner but is much more common in older adults is redundant  (Plmokg22345 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC))


 * You will not find a textbook which claims that "presbyopia is something that may or not occur for everyone". Presbyopia inevitably progresses with age, see the Weale reference. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=FmlaIs9R2t8C&pg=PA156&dq=Presbyopia+never+occur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj97-e16ofPAhWFlB4KHbVHDn4Q6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * The NIH says age over 35 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

the ref states Anyone over the age of 35 is at risk for developing presbyopia and I can find reviews that say otherwise regardless I am fine with the edits made by Jytdog(Plmokg22345 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

WP:SYNunsourced 1
Claims here that early forms of life were nearly immortal are unsourced; there is an argument being made here via [{WP:SYN]] that human cells are capable of immortality - moved whole section here per PRESERVE:

Human beings and members of other species, especially animals, necessarily experience ageing and mortality. Fungi, too, can age. In contrast, many species can be considered immortal: for example, bacteria fission to produce daughter cells, strawberry plants grow runners to produce clones of themselves, and animals in the genus Hydra have a regenerative ability with which they avoid dying of old age.
 * Ageing versus immortality

Early life forms on Earth, starting at least 3.7 billion years ago, were single-celled organisms. Such single-celled organisms (prokaryotes, protozoans, algae) multiply by fissioning into daughter cells, thus do not age and are innately immortal.

Ageing and mortality of the individual organism became possible with the evolution of sexual reproduction, which occurred with the emergence of the fungal/animal kingdoms approximately a billion years ago, and with the evolution of flowering plants 160 million years ago. The sexual organism could henceforth pass on some of its genetic material to produce new individuals and itself could become disposable with regards to the survival of its species. This classic biological idea has however been perturbed recently by the discovery that the bacterium E. coli may split into distinguishable daughter cells, which opens the theoretical possibility of "age classes" among bacteria.

Even within humans and other mortal species, there are cells with the potential for immortality: cancer cells which have lost the ability to die when maintained in cell culture such as the HeLa cell line, and specific stem cells such as germ cells (producing ova and spermatozoa). In artificial cloning, adult cells can be rejuvenated back to embryonic status and then used to grow a new tissue or animal without ageing. Normal human cells however die after about 50 cell divisions in laboratory culture (the Hayflick Limit, discovered by Leonard Hayflick in 1961).

After a period of near perfect renewal (in humans, between 20 and 35 years of age), ageing is characterised by the declining ability to respond to stress, increasing homeostatic imbalance and the increased risk of disease. This currently irreversible series of changes inevitably ends in death.

--Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made a start by inserting a neat reference which covers both Hayflick senescence and immortalised human cells. Should we mention SV40 infection as a major laboratory method for immortalising cells? 86.154.103.109 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I think I have misunderstood Jytdog's complaint: he seems to take offence at the word "arguably", so I have removed it. 86.154.103.109 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Filled in the missing evolutionary references, both the classic Williams 1957 paper and also newer research. 81.131.172.252 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Presbyopia: Ages of onset. Tropics compared to temperate regions
One editor here (Plmokg22345) is persistently misquoting the sources on presbyopia, presumably because she is reading only the abstracts and does not have access to the full publications. To avoid further medically irresponsible vandalism, here is the relevant passage from the Weale 2003 review (relevant statement in bold):


 * Presbyopia is  eminently  suitable  as  a  subject  for  epidemiological inquiry because its rate of development appears to vary with geographical latitude. Rambo drew attention to  the  geographical  variation  in  the  ages  at  which various populations sought help from opticians. The matter was further elaborated by Miranda and by Weale who  implicated  temperature.  Later  it  was noted  that  the  age  of  onset  of  symptoms  (AO) in the  high  Andes  was  similar  to  that  in  the  United Kingdom, whereas it was 9 years earlier in the Bolivian plains,  at much the same  geographical latitude as the locus in the Bolivian Andes. In point of fact, contrary to a recent view, the (negative) correlation  between  latitude  and  AO  was  non-significant, whereas that with temperature showed p<0.001, or less as shown in Table 17. Kragha and Hofstetter compared  Canadian  and  Puerto  Rican  subjects  between  45  and  60  years  old,  that  is,  ages  at  which differences in the decline of accommodative power would not be expected to be at their maximum, but established nevertheless that, at 45 years, the former need  a  weaker  “add”  than  do  the  latter.  Again, Wharton and Yolton who studied near-equatorial (rural)  populations  in  Central  America  produced data  pointing  to  50%  of  their  population  needing “adds” in their early 30s. A Nigerian study of a population aged 18–49 years found that one-third were presbyopic: this points to an  AO of the condition in the 30s rather than in the 40s. Similar results were obtained in Zaire and Uganda. What seems to be happening was made quite clear in  one  of  the  earliest  relevant  reports: in  India, the  slope S of  the  plot  Accommodative  Amplitude vs. Age is steeper than in temperate regions, namely, accommodative  failure  occurs  faster.

As concerns the Truscott 2009 review, here again the relevant passage marked in bold:


 * Abstract: All people will be presbyopic by age 50, and we now understand something of the basis for this condition. It turns out to be a direct consequence of two features; first the design of the transparent lens and the way it must change shape to enable focussing by the human eye, and second the instability of proteins over a very long time period. The incremental changes that take place in the lens to render the central region inflexible by middle age and, as a consequence the person presbyopic, may also promote the subsequent development of cataract. Based on the most recent data, heat-induced denaturation of proteins in the lens appears to be a worthy topic for future investigation. Understanding such processes may allow us to glimpse the origin both of presbyopia and age-related nuclear cataract. Introduction: Presbyopia is the inability to focus on objects that are close to the eye. It has been appreciated for many years that whilst most people require reading glasses by age 45–50, the loss of focussing ability is a gradual process that takes place over several decades.

'''In summary, Plmokg22345 seems to be making random edits without reading the medical sources. I propose that Plmokg22345 mend her ways or be blocked from medical Wikipedia articles, as her editing currently is a danger to the public.''' 86.170.123.24 (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

first I am a guy second nowhere in the ref dose say if they live near the equator you are stating things that are not in the ref. I also do not appreciate being called a vandal and your comments make me think you are 86.170.123.90 link the full pub alongside the abstract to avoid confusion (Plmokg22345 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC))
 * It says "near-equatorial" above in bold. This shows again you are not reading the sources. Your inaccurate medical editing is a source of danger to the public. I have asked Doc James to mediate. 86.170.123.24 (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

as I also stated link the full pub alongside the abstract to avoid confusion it dose not say In either http://www.surveyophthalmol.com/article/S0039-6257(03)00086-9/abstract or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14499819 what you stated so I thought you were putting in something that was not there the ref states Limitations in existing studies of the epidemiological aspects of refraction are attributed to both technical and statistical procedures. Early influences of ocular parameters on refraction are identified accordingly as prematurity and may or may not be involved. Attention is paid to familial and genetic influences, and infants and toddlers are examined as a group separate from schoolchildren and teenagers, who are likely to have experienced significant periods of near work. The effects of sex and geographical distribution are considered both for younger and older age ranges. Special attention is paid to anisometropia, which is shown-apparently for the first time-to increase appreciably among presbyopes. The connection between refractive errors and ocular pathologies is reviewed, and possible means of preventing early onset myopia are examined. Presbyopia is addressed with reference to its geographical distribution and hypothetical links to accommodation insufficiency. it did not say '''most people require reading glasses by age 45–50 or if they live near the equator so I thought you were putting in something that was not in the ref same thing for https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18675268 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014483508002078 it did not say. since you can not view full article without a account if you cannot find a full free version you should mark the ref with |subscription=yes  to avoid confusion (Plmokg22345 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC))
 * The NIH source says people over the age of 35 and all people eventually. It does not mention the equator thus I agree with Plmok's removal of this here . Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Plomkg22345 blocked indefinitely
I see that Plomkg22345 (sockpuppet Unkownzero) has been blocked indefinitely as of today. The above sections can therefore be archived. 86.154.101.55 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Methylation
User: 86.154.101.108 this:

DNA methylation: The strong effect of age on DNA methylation levels has been known since the late 1960s. Horvath hypothesised that DNA methylation age measures the cumulative effect of an epigenetic maintenance system but details are unknown. DNA methylation age of blood predicts all-cause mortality in later life. Furthermore, prematurely aged mice can be rejuvenated and their lives extended by 30% by partially "resetting" the methylation pattern in their cells (a full reset leads to undesirable immortal cancer cells). This resetting into a juvenile state was experimentally achieved by activating the four Yamanaka DNA transcription factors – Sox2, Oct4, Klf4 and c-Myc (which have previously been routinely used for producing young animals from cloned adult skin cells).

is a great idea but please use reviews per WP:SCIRS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. Also in this edit note you wrote: "Resurrected DNA methylation as an important candidate biological mechanism for aging. This section"Biological Basis of Ageing" deals with plants, fungi, whales, worms, mice and men and is thus a biological section, NOT a medical section." However, two of these refs are about humans, and no authoritative source here says that the mechanism actually applies to all forms of life, so your edit note is unsourced WP:OR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried resurrecting Jytdog's wholesale deletion because DNA methylation is an important candidate biological mechanism for aging. The section "Biological Basis of Ageing" deals with plants, fungi, whales, worms, mice and men and is thus a biological section, NOT a medical section.
 * Instead of discussing, Jytdog has immediately accused me of edit-warring and threatened to block me. I see that Jytdog has a history of this kind of behaviour. Can an expert please advise/mediate? Thanks.86.154.101.108 (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * i've combined this with the section i opened already. There are some very good recent reviews, some even open access. See   for example.  Here is  search with plenty of useful results, where i found that. Jytdog (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Bold closure of discussion, per WP:SNOW. This has no chance of success, per policy of WP:TITLEVAR. Both spellings have been established as correct. (non-admin closure) TheMagikCow (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC) TheMagikCow (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ageing → Aging – "Ageing" is an incorrect spelling; you must drop the final E when you add ING 2602:302:D124:A0E0:9D27:830C:1E04:6AD0 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Both spellings are correct:, . Notably, the WHO uses ageing. This article uses British English, where ageing is preferred (see MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN). clpo13(talk) 23:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose see The Hindu March 2016 Understanding the economy of ageing, this article is written in international English. (see MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN). per clpo13 In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is nothing wrong with the spelling.  - GB fan 10:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose British English spelling is legit. Per MOS, changing it here would require broad consensus. "Aging" is already a redirect term to this page, so there's no danger that someone searching "aging" would be stymied. David in DC (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR – There should be no page moves that merely change the English variety. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons stated above, especially TITLEVAR. (For what it's worth, I'm American.) — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Presbyopia again.
The current content is: People over 35 years old are at risk for developing presbyopia. Presbyopia is apparent in people over 35 years.

This is supported by the source and if you review the history you will see this was intensely negotiated. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Newly introduced errors in Ageing Effects section
As Jytdog has pointed out above, several errors have been introduced through recent edits. GBfan has requested me to discuss them here. The editor clearly has not read the references and does not have an understanding of percentages.

1. To most readers who are 35 years old, it is clearly nonsense to say that presbyopia is apparent at age 35 in people. And the reference does not say that. It is only in exceptional circumstances (hot climates) that presbyopia can start so early. The "apparent" stage (need for reading glasses) is normally reached at ages 45-50 as stated on the reference. So this edit needs to be reverted.

2. Also the reference does not say that "53 percent of 60-64 year olds have osteoarthritis, 20 percent of which is disabling". If you read the reference, you will see that the 20 percent refers to the whole age cohort of 60-64 years, not to the 53 percent subset. Hence this edit is arithmetically incorrect and needs to be reverted.

3. More nonsense: "Cataracts are evident by age 80 and half of Americans have had such surgery".

4. The list of ageing effects is a timeline, starting with teenagers (loss of high-frequency hearing), through middle age (e.g. menopause in women) ending with old people (e.g. development of eye cataracts). Now, in the recent edits, I am concerned that the timeline has been watered down. We do NOT want to give the impression that hearing loss, menopause, cataracts and death are by definition ageing processes. They can be caused at an early age through explosions, nuclear radiation, acute ovarian failure, and poisoning, respectively, and in such cases nobody would say this is "ageing". Medical conditions are considered ageing only if they occur within a normal ageing timeframe. For these reasons I suggest changing the title to "Timeline of ageing effects". Or perhaps "Timeline of human ageing". Opinions? 86.158.154.52 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Problems fixed. This section can now be archived. 86.170.122.170 (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Spelling...not exactly what you are thinking
Okay, the page name and usage on this page is "ageing", but what about the "See also" links? Currently they are a mixture of "ageing" and "aging", but the spelling shown is not always the spelling the actual article is at. Should we make all the spellings agree with this page's usage (via piping or redirects) or should we link to the articles as they are actually spelled? --Khajidha (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the term should consistently be 'ageing' within the article, including internal links. As the articles can reasonably be looked for using 'ageing', I think it's reasonable to create the redirects and link to them. PriceDL (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could see it going either way, so I wanted to ask before doing anything.--Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree to keeping the spelling consistent, including the links. The spelling question bubbles up regularly and consistency will help to minimise queries and back-and-forth edits.86.170.122.170 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Effects of ageing
This material does not claim that no-one over 25 can hear the tone. It simply says that teenagers start to lose their higher frequency response, and that most over 25 cannot hear the tone. I don't have access to the cited source so I cannot confirm that it supports the specific claim wrt the 17.4kHz tone. User:Jonnnyboy99's statement that he or she can hear the tone and therefore the claim is invalid is not correct. Aside from the fact that this is unverifiable WP:OR (we don't know that Jonnnyboy99 is over 25 or that he or she can hear the tone), it still does not invalidate the original claim. Since this exact edit has been the subject of edit warring, blocks, and protection before, I'm going to restore this material with a contested fact tag until someone can verify this with the original source. Meters (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It has already been restored without the disputed tag. Given the socking history on this one I'll just leave it as it and report the account. Meters (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I do have access to the source and can confirm it does not support any of the text relating to the sound file. The most relevant part of the conclusion I can find would be According to our data, the ability to detect some sound should be expected at frequencies up to 18 kHz in subjects younger than 40 years old, up to 14 kHz in the 40 – 49 years old group, and up to 11.2 kHz in those older than 50 years. but there's nothing at all which remotely supports the text "Teenagers begin to lose the ability to hear high-pitched sounds. By the age of 25, most adults cannot hear this 10-second audio clip at a frequency of 17.4 kHz".
 * The paper does have a significant amount of data presented which is broken down into different age groups, and there is some data presented in the results section which discusses different thresholds for different age groups, but those age groups are formed 5-19 years and then in 10 year intervals (20-29 years, 30-39 years etc) so it wouldn't be possible to make specific assertions regarding teenagers starting to lose the ability, given pre-teen and teenagers are combined into one age group. There's certainly nothing at all about 25 year olds and the 17.4kHz frequency (again, that's unsurprising as the age group runs from 20-29 and 25 year olds aren't discussed outwith this age group).
 * I personally don't see what's wrong with re-writing the text to take account of the conclusions of the paper.
 * Finally, it's worth pointing out that the cited paper isn't specifically reviewing hearing loss by age. The stated intent of the authors is "to establish new standards for potential international adoption" and does so by comparing various existing datasets and reviewing how closely they resemble/correlate with each other, and how they relate to the fresh study conducted for this paper. There's quite likely, surely, to be more relevant papers which do directly review hearing loss relating to ageing. Nick (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Any accurate claims can be integrated into the article (as suggested, with more to the point sources). I don't see much point in keeping the sound file at all. Meters (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This file was uploaded in 2015 by Sanmiittai as an update of a file originally uploaded by Moonrivers for use in The Mosquito. Ips recently added it to Presbycusis, Hearing range, Ageing with identical improperly sourced claims. See ,, and. Meters (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ageing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429170735/http://www.imminst.org/cureaging/ to http://www.imminst.org/cureaging/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ageing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218035718/http://www.scienceagainstaging.org/ENG/index_ENG.html to http://www.scienceagainstaging.org/ENG/index_ENG.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oldest animal: 15,000 years for Antarctic sponge
There is a recent BBC review which offers an update on exceptionally old organisms. In particular, Antarctic sponges at 15,000 years are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. 86.170.123.75 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is another old deep-ocean-dwelling animal, this time in the Gulf of Mexico (cold-seep tubeworm found in the Gulf of Mexico, Escarpia laminata, 100-200 years, with some individuals over 300 years). The source contains a review of long-lived animals. The authors suggest longevity is temperature-dependent. 86.158.154.15 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ageing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160911082609/http://bewell.stanford.edu/features/social-ties-good-health to https://bewell.stanford.edu/features/social-ties-good-health

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Loneliness, stress, blood clotting and premature ageing
For the Ageing Prevention section, here is a useful review/meta-analysis which shows that loneliness carries a higher mortality risk than smoking. In a nutshell, social isolation activates the ‘fight or flight’ stress signal which increases levels of protein fibrinogen (for blood clotting) in anticipation of injury and blood loss. The permanently elevated level of blood clotting protein then causes stroke and heart attack. 86.170.121.153 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Implemented. 81.131.173.58 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bristlecone pine cells
I deleted " (however Hayflick states that the bristlecone pine has no cells older than 30 years)". This article discussing Hayflick may be the source, but Hayflick specifically says living cells, not no cells, and has a younger age for the trees. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Guardian article: strategies for life extension
The Guardian (London, 6 Oct 2018) summarises current research strategies for living longer, focussing especially on removal of senescent cells from the body that are believed to cause inflammation. Other strategies mentioned are metformin, rapamycin, NAD-plus, cellular rejuvenation back to stem cell stage, and of course lifestyle. Can a scientist please find reputable review articles for these subjects and work them into the article where necessary (some of the points are already mentioned)? Thanks. 86.180.158.120 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Section “Physical basis” into the article “Ageing”
Dear Colleagues, I would like to ask you to discuss the possibility of introducing the section “Physical basis”
 * Dear Gladderstock, I am not persuaded by the merits of your suggested thermodynamics paragraph below ("Physical basis"). The thermodynamics theory fails to explain why some organisms age (animals, fungi), while others do not (bacteria, perennial plants). Indeed the thermodynamics theory, as presented, does not even seem to be aware of this basic biological distinction. But perhaps I am doing the authors an injustice - please defend them if you can.86.180.157.149 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For example -

Physical basis
Thermodynamics of aging of living beings (or the thermodynamic theory of aging) studies the phenomenon of aging of objects of the living world from the standpoint of hierarchical thermodynamics. The thermodynamic theory of aging is part of a general theory of the origin of life, its evolution and aging. The foundations of the theory were laid by G. P. Gladyshev on the basis of the extended theory of J. W. Gibbs, applicable to supramolecular natural systems close to an equilibrium state. The theory describes aging from the standpoint of ontogenesis, which, in terms of hierarchical thermodynamics, repeats phylogenesis. Within the framework of applicability, the theory, like classical thermodynamics, cannot be refuted. Aging is accompanied by a desire to minimize the Gibbs specific free energy of formation of the supramolecular structures of the body, due to changes in its chemical composition and structure. These changes, due to the spontaneous guiding action of the second law, occur against the background of involuntary (non-spontaneous) processes initiated by the environment. The aging of the body proceeds in the same way as the aging of a wick of a burning candle or a sorbent of a non-stationary chromatographic column. In this connection, the thermodynamic theory of aging is sometimes called the chromatographic theory of aging. Thermodynamics of aging contributed to the emergence of new branches of science, such as thermodynamic dietetics. The use of the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation and its analogue made it possible on a quantitative basis to make predictions concerning anti-aging diets and indicators determining the gerontological value of food products and cosmetics. Thus, in the monographs and articles of the author of the thermodynamic theory, the quantitatively substantiated statements are presented: “Diets that include thermodynamically evolutionarily young products of plant and animal origin contribute to longevity and improve the quality of human life. The exponent of evolutionary youth of a natural food product is determined by its chemical composition and supramolecular structure. The chemical composition and supramolecular structure of the product, in turn, depend on its ontogenetic and phylogenetic ages, as well as the habitat of the organism - the source of this product. An important quantitative characteristic of the ‘gerontological utility of a natural food product is the value of the Gibbs specific function of the formation of its supramolecular structure.” In accordance with theory, the food of cold regions has an increased value. Gladderstock (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2, 2019, Group 6b Goals
The Group Goals: is to 1) Verify the validity of sources . 2) Expand on the relevance of certain sections. 3) Revise paragraphs for clarity. Tnguyen26 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitions section is not a Definitions section
The Definitions section, recently added on 20 April 2020, starts off with a definition, but then goes on with causal explanations of ageing, some of which are not sourced, and many of which are repetitive. Furthermore the language is not neutral. I am therefore deleting those passages not amounting to a definition of ageing.31.4.156.64 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Section "Aging versus Immortality": is time right?
Hi, it says: «the emergence of the fungal/animal kingdoms approximately a billion years ago». Is that number correct?

Regards.

riveravaldez (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Lead Seems like a Content Paragraph.
The lead for this article seems to be insufficient in summarizing/introducing the topics that will be discussed in the article. And some parts of it get a little too specific for a general overview. I believe it needs to be revised.Stephenhogenson (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to "Aging"
Google Ngram: "Aging" outnumbers "Ageing" 4:1 LordParsifal (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's because the article is written in British that it's titled "Ageing." See the top of the talk page. A student pointed out to me that I had changed spelling in the article when I should be using British spelling. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Daisylicona (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I noticed that at the beginning of the article different topics about aging are introduced but no true description on what this wiki page will include. Adding a summary in the intro can help the readers know what to expect from this wiki page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tnguyen26, Allydiiorio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Perkinshk, Cabbagecat2111. Peer reviewers: Random from the burgh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Problematic Definitions section
I am pasting below the Definitions section, which I find unhelpful. This section seems to confuse age determination (a human endeavour, for example in legal cases where it is necessary to determine the age of a child refugee) with ageing (a biological process). Furthermore the section vaguely speculates on the factors to arrive at a definition of ageing, but it does not actually provide any definition of ageing. So what is the point of the section? Others may disagree with me, so I am placing the section here for further discussion, improvement and potential reinstatement: 31.4.158.94 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Definition There are multiple ways to define ageing. Functional age measures age by capability and takes into account social, psychological, and physiological age. Chronological age is based on the calendar year, from an individual's birth date to death date.

Mortality can be used to define biological ageing, an organism's increased rate of death as it progresses throughout its life cycle. The processes and performance decline and bodily structure changes typical to chronological age.

Another way to define ageing is through two types of functional definitions:


 * The first describes how varying types of deteriorative changes that accumulate in the life of a post-maturation organism can leave it vulnerable, leading to a decreased ability of the organism to survive.
 * The second is a senescence-based definition; this describes age-related changes in an organism that increase its mortality rate over time by negatively affecting its vitality and functional performance.

An important distinction to make is that biological ageing is not the same thing as the accumulation of diseases related to old age; disease is a blanket term used to describe a process within an organism that causes a decrease in its functional ability.

Please update with new 'Hallmarks of aging' paper and solve article scope overlaps
The authors of the hallmarks of aging have put out an update, please add info on/from it to the article. It's featured in 2023 in science like so:

"In a paywalled review, the authors of a heavily cited paper on the hallmarks of aging update the set of proposed hallmarks after a decade (3 Jan). On the same day, a review with overlapping authors merge or link various hallmarks of cancer with those of aging."

It seems like some updates were already made on the longevitywiki but not here for some reason: https://en.longevitywiki.org/wiki/Hallmarks_of_aging

I already slightly edited the hallmarks of aging article.

Second issue: the article's scope overlaps with multiple other articles and some of its contents somewhat duplicate content elsewhere (/ may be outdated or incomplete).

Aging->Senescence↳Biomarkers of aging ↳Aging hallmarks ↳Life extension

What do you think about this? For now, I think the article is missing some contents and should link to the more detailed section with wikilinks. There also is/was a merger proposal at Talk:Hallmarks of aging. Currently, the content is somewhat dispersed and not very well organized, in-sync, well-findable and complete.

I recently added some content to Senescence which also seem notable to briefly include here too and there probably is some additional missing content, mainly info Healthspan and Aging clocks/measurement in that article and content from Life extension. At least for now I don't want to also update this article as well, please make some edits and/or comment.

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)