Are Anti-Aging Products a Waste of Money?
TUESDAY, May 28 (HealthScoutNews) -- Anti-aging products that promise to
turn back the clock do not deliver and may even be hazardous to your health,
says a renowned team of scientists.
"Don't waste your money on anti-aging products," says S. Jay Olshansky, a
professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at
Chicago and a senior research scientist at the university's Center on Aging.
Olshansky and 50 of his colleagues, all top researchers in the field of
human aging, recently drafted a position statement on the subject. In it,
they warn consumers that anti-aging products (such as growth hormone and
antioxidant supplements) and promises of longer and longer life spans via
such measures as caloric restriction are not proven to work for humans.
Olshansky also co-wrote an essay on the topic that accompanies the position
paper in the June issue of Scientific American.
Not unexpectedly, the paper drew fire from one of the leading proponents of
anti-aging medicine, who calls it a "100 percent political" attempt by
traditional doctors to wrest control of a growing industry.
In the paper and the essay, the scientists tackle a wide range of products,
but in an interview Olshansky singled out human growth hormone, melatonin
and dehydroepiandrosterone (better known as DHEA) as specific products to
avoid. Some anti-aging proponents contend that replacing these hormones as
their levels dwindle with age can keep people young.
Not only do these products not deliver what they tout, Olshansky says, but
"some of these products are likely to be dangerous. In animal models,
animals given growth hormone have shorter life spans. Short-term, the
animals appear younger, but they die sooner."
Likewise, he adds, nutritional supplements rich in antioxidant vitamins E
and C that purport to soak up free radicals, those renegade molecules that
damage cells and tissues, aren't proven. The vast majority of studies
showing that antioxidant intake is valuable for reducing the risk of cancer
and other ailments have been done with foods, not vitamins, Olshansky says.
In the essay, he and his two co-authors further state that "no one has
established that vitamin supplements containing antioxidants limit oxidative
damage in the body or influence aging."
While the public is bombarded with misleading anti-aging claims, Olshansky
and his colleagues say, serious biologists are studying the underlying
nature of aging to determine how to slow it down, improve the quality of
life and ward off disease.
"No product currently sold [for that purpose] has been demonstrated to
reverse aging," Olshansky says.
Some areas under study, including caloric restriction and genetic
manipulation, are viewed by the authors as worthy of more research.
The essay and the position paper have clearly outraged one of the more
outspoken advocates of anti-aging medicine.
Dr. Ronald Klatz is president of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
in Chicago, and he posts studies on his Web site finding favorable effects
for growth hormone and the use of megavitamins to fight disease.
"How can you be against anti-aging medicine?" asks Klatz, who says he plans
to submit a rebuttal to Scientific American. The decision to publish the
position paper, he says, "is 100 percent political. It's all about who will
control a trillion-dollar industry."
He defines anti-aging medicine as "any intervention or modality that has to
do with the early detection, prevention, treatment or reversal of
age-related diseases. We don't promise to reverse aging."
While critics focus on anti-aging products, Klatz says anti-aging medicine
is much more than that. It's committed to health promotion and advocates
nutrition monitoring, managing risk factors for disease and disease
screenings. According to Klatz, more than 10,000 physicians and scientists
worldwide belong to his academy, and anti-aging medicine has matured into a
prestigious medical field.
The only common ground Olshansky and Klatz seem to share is promotion of a
healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise and a sound diet.
"If there is a Fountain of Youth -- and by the way, there isn't -- the
closest you can come is exercise and, of course, a good diet," Olshansky
says. "Exercise has been shown to reduce blood pressure, increase muscle
mass, reduce body fat, improve mental acuity and improve skin elasticity."
If you're wondering how to spend the money you now spend on anti-aging
products, Olshansky has a few suggestions. "Arrange a meeting with a
registered dietitian. Buy a good pair of walking shoes. And get a massage."
What To Do
For the position statement by Olshansky and others, go to Scientific
American. For the other side's take, read this position paper from the
American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.
-And when they are proven 50+ years from now the proof will be in the people
who decided not to wait because they where unproven. The question with
something that theoritically should work isn't 'is it proven' the real question
is 'is it safe'. If its likely to work and is safe why not try it?
-I guess if you limit your scope to certain drugs and supplements, then that
statement could be true. However, if you include other drugs and supplements
known to be beneficial, then it is false.
EGCg by itself looks promising for extending average human life span. EGCg
as a food additive could reduce cancer by a very significant amount and
reduce national health care costs dramatically. Say you reduced the number
of cases of cancer by 50%. Think of the increase in life span that could
bring, along with the health care savings. Also, EGCg, may also be useful in
fighting obesity, which is another major cause of reduced life span and
increased health care expense.
ALT-711, is also know to have proven anti-aging benefits.