Talk:Free-radical theory of aging

Less
I think less is more. --zwa 06:53, 23 June 2005


 * Do you really think it is better this way? I agree we should keep text to a minimum, but I think that was way too much! Consider reverting to the previous version and then split the article in some new articles, making referece to thses new pages in each section. A bit like this: English history. --Jotomicron | talk 11:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The previous version was http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag98/jan-interview98.html verbatim. I'll go through it again... Zwa 22:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinions on this new layout? I think I should find a few more references on the free radical/aging link. The problem is that theres a lot. And info on antioxidant therapy. Off the top of my head, I feel that large doses of antioxidants wouldnt help a lot, and may be detrimental, but I'll look into it... Zwa 23:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
"Harman's has the most consistent experimental support."

I think this theory is a pure nonsence. In my knowleadge all aging processes involve water...so water is per se the only cause of aging...Should I continue??? Or you have got it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.112.200 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover a free radical is the chunk of molecule lacking electron, but there are plenty of them in the water and only electrons absorbs any kind of energy, so and thermoenergy and light, and in the thermodynamical equilibrium we always have free electrons everywhere to neutralise these radicals so THEY CANNOT ACCUMULATE (but the damage done can, so the real causes are somewhere else, but not in the existance of free radicals)!!! Thus and cannot be the cause of ageing, it's a consequence of something we do not know. Of cause they affect overall metabolism, but not more than lack or abundance of Ca ions or vitamins or hormones or any other molecules. Some even are very positive fighting with unwanted contaminating molecules or organisms (an they are the real cause of our ageing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.112.200 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Radon and Free Radicals
4 pCi/l of airborne radon, the EPA action Guideline, results in the build-up of approximately 200 pCi of Radon Decay Products in the lungs. This in turn results in approximately 200,000,000 ion pair per second of which the vast majority are free radicals. There will be an additional quantity of radon in the blood stream also contributing to the number of free radicals.

Assuming that the 200,000,000 ion pair per second is correct, does any one have any idea of how this compares to naturally forming free radicals in the body. If interested I can supply calculations demonstrating how I arrived at these numbers.

Paul V. Jennemann mdradon@msn.com

Difficult Read
This article sounds more like a scientific paper than an encyclopedia article. It's difficult for someone without a medical background to completely comprehend what this article saying. I recommend that someone rewrite this article in a way so that it's able to be easily understood while retaining all that technical information. Solarusdude 21:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The references don't quite seem to match up. I think a and b in the Notes should be merged, but it probably needs someone to have a look at the article / abstract to get the correct reference notation.Gringer 13:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Argh, sorry. I just mis-interpreted the numbers. They all appear to link to the correct references. Gringer 13:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree this article is hard to read, but more because it is organized somewhat haphazardly. Mike Dilger 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedilger (talk • contribs)

citation needed
i work more on the german pages, so i wont make changes here. but the citation thats needed at "Evidence: A large body of comparative biochemical evidence suggests..." might be found within Pamela Larsons Paper on "Aging and resistance to oxidative damage in Caenorhabditis elegans" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol 90 1993. See notes 8 & 9. 77.132.183.16 (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism/counter evidence section
There have been many long-term experiments (on mice) that counter this theory (and thus the established industry). Please someone more knowledgeable add such section. --90.157.184.162 (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I came looking for Pro & Con information. I think there should be a formal section summarizing the Criticism/Counter Evidence. Unfortunately I can add nothing. Thanks. HalFonts (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

evidence
''In one laboratory, Phenybutylnitrone (PBN) was shown to produce about a 10% extension of maximum lifespan in experimental animals[10]. However, this finding has not been reproduced by other laboratories.''

If labs have tried to reproduce this study and it failed there should be a paper or something to cite. If no one has tried to repeat the study then I think this statement is misleading as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.235.183 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's time to add some medically reliable sources.
See these        for starters, but there must be many more. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agenda
The "evidence" section of this article seems to have an agenda. The sources sited are the exact same "sources" that Lifevantage protandum sellers quote in their sales pitch for protandum. These need to be seriously looked at as misleading as several details are overlooked. such as the mice trials only involving specific mice organs, which cannot be considered truth for a whole living mouse etc.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00Comm (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not MEDRS
References in the Evidence section are not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have just come across this article for the first time, I agree the evidence section is citing some very weak and unreliable sources. It needs re-writing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful that this theory and research field are receiving much industry or government funding in the past decade, as indicated by the dearth of quality papers or reviews. The article needs a major rewrite, but there are not enough reliable reviews (any in recent years?) to support new content. Zefr (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is still unreliable content including original research and outdated primary sources on the article, I agree there are no modern reviews or mainstream research being done into this. I would support merging and redirecting the article to Denham Harman, or re-writing this article and keeping as a short article or stub. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)