If these all actually worked, I'd presume that there would have been a study on the miraculously healthy 80 year old mice. As it stands I have to assume that most of these mouse studies are fundamentally flawed to begin with and we simply don't check for adverse reactions/overlapping mechanisms/long-term maladies.

> If these all actually worked, I'd presume that there would have been a study on the miraculously healthy 80 year old mice.

That assumes the techniques compound additively, which is not necessarily the case. Even the best things for you, like water, become detrimental when you have too much. It may also be that some beneficial actions reduce the benefit of different ones.

Most medicines we take for granted were first tested on biological models like fruit flies, mouse, dogs, monkeys, pigs, before reaching humans.

Logic reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-XAXwIOC3po

I feel like it's once a week that HN surfaces some incredibly overhyped, low-on-the-hierarchy-of-evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence) study specifically related to anti-aging.

I wish there was some nuanced line for science journalists to not hyperbolize about nothingburger studies in dire need of replication while also making the science exciting, slow of a process as it is. Maybe every article includes a history of the that very specific and narrow sub-branch of the field? That would be really interesting to read, and to have a gauge on how far we've come.

The issue is mainly with HN users not bothering to read the submissions and just writing armchair commentary on either side of the debate.

The authors of this study have identified the upstream protein responsibile for the anti-ageing effects in mice, that this protein has anti-senescent effects on human cells, that this protein drops with age in humans, that it drops more in humans with age-related disease and that this protein could have a protective effect in multiple chronic diseases in humans based on mendelian randomization.

This implies a stronger therapeutic potential than just a "nothingburger study".

Lovely response. I do this kind of work (recent Nature paper below) and my main concern is demonstrating that effects are first replicated in multiple genomes of mice.

The Cell Metabolism paper is a study on one genetic background. Mendelian randomization helps but is a tricky suite of methods that makes strong assumptions. In vitro also great but gameable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42020758/