Anti aging definitions and implications

By squire.mark on October 29th, 2007

As I have stated before (many times) all your statements about what is, or is not “antiaging” are based on the narrow technical definition of “aging” used within the science of gerontology, *not* the vernacular definition of “aging” which has been in our natural language far longer and which most people use. Thus, many of the arguments, even on this group are more of a semantic nature rather than a scientific dispute.
 From the point of view of the standard vernacular definition an intervention is “antiaging” if it changes the signs and symptoms characteristic of aged decline back to younger levels. This generally means that it also increases the health and well being, and/or extends the life of an elderly individual.
However, extending life span without any change in the signs and symptoms of aging (ie increased quality of life), would not likely be thought to be antiaging under this vernacular definition. To a certain extent that is what is currently being done with geriatric care - it is extending lifespan by a few months or years, but without any major change to the parameters of aged decline. I don’t think that anyone would call this antiaging.
EXTREME EXAMPLE: If the medical establishment had gone all out to hover over Jeanne Calment and keep her alive longer, even though this would have increased the species maximum lifespan for humans, would it really have been “antiaging” by *any* reasonable definition!