Book: Lifespan by David A. Sinclair

A Harvard scientist attempts to unravel the complexity of aging but somehow manages to keep it complex for the reader. Ironically.

Focus brings you clarity on something. Same focus under a powerful microscope brings you clarity on life formation itself in the form of cells and genes. The yeast cells live for a few weeks and in those few ones they tell us much about human life spanning over years. Fermentation isn’t the only thing that the study of yeast has given us, leading to eating for good health or drinking for good mood; they pack more surprises when it comes to learning about aging and longevity. Ironically, the theories born out of yeast mean a life of torture and jail for mice or monkeys, the other beings who are lit for the torch of human inquiry.

Among the few books that I ordered this new year, one happens to be about longevity. It’s ‘Lifespan’ by  David A. Sinclair of Harvard University which is presented in three parts spanning over 310 pages. Theme of the book is why we age and why we don’t have to, which piqued my curiosity and I chose to return to blogging after almost a year with this book. (The past year carried landmark events in my personal and professional life; reading, my first love, was all I did.) Returning to the topic now. 

The book posits a novel idea about why we age which isn’t based in biology or genetics. Rather it is inspired by Claude Shannon’s communication theory who is considered as the father of the information age. This too got me excited because apart from genes, bits is the other area which I would cover at some point in order to knit the fundamental building blocks of human civilization.  Moreover, this is another attempt to explain the mystery of life based on information theory of some kind. In my previous article titled ‘Emotions under fresh light’, Karl Deisseroth also posited a theory of information to explain the difficulties that people with autism face.

Lessons from the book: The Information Theory of Aging

There are two types of information in our genome: digital and analog. Our DNA carries the digital format (four digits) of information which is the most efficient form of storage and our epigenome (traits that are heritable and not transferred by genetic means) carries the analog information which is effective in passing along information through traversities of nature but loses its quality with the time. Like a DVD player which encodes digital information (like DNA) for perfect reproduction but inevitably this DVD also acquires scratches which affect the transmission of the encoded information. The intact information of DVD is DNA and the inevitable scratches are the eroded epigenome quality which actually gives us diseases and susceptibility to aging. Basically, our DNA damages over the years and it's the consequence of not repairing this damage that we slowly age and die. Absurdly, this book labels aging as a ‘disease’ in the attempt. Did you know that there is no gene for aging in the human genome which provides the basis for the idea that aging is unnatural and perhaps an infliction. 

David’s work and his teams aim to address this scratching aspect of DVD to mitigate aging and provide longer health spans. The book suggests that researchers have found Sirtuin genes which can help with DNA damage. Some activators are also mentioned like  mTOR and AMPK which potentially help in gene treatment, as per this book. The author has not spent much effort in elaborating these in plain english which makes this short book a long read. That’s all there is to this 310 page book worth sharing.

What of the book?

Nothing substantial. I won’t recommend reading it. The only intriguing part is the initial 2-3 chapters which posits the Information Theory of Aging and builds interest about succeeding chapters; however, the other 75% of this book is a deadly dip from curiosity peak. Here is a top scientist sharing an exciting topic but fails to engage a normal reader because this book feels more of a selling pitch rather than a valuable read. It goes on and on about scientific advancements which might probably help humans to counter aging but nothing certain nonetheless. It fails to provide a critical view in adjudging those theories because all things rosy is the theme. Scientific views from other members of the fraternity are not presented but plenty can be found online elsewhere.

If nature has not given any gene for aging but instead makes sure that one would definitely age given the inescapable environmental factors, maybe nature doesn’t need a gene for aging at all. It’s nature after all, way more patient and smarter even though not perfect as it doesn’t meet our needs to stay longer on this planet. The irritating part is that till two-thirds into the book there is just what science has done or who has done. All feels too rosy to believe because many times the author himself says that, ‘ you would call me crazy to this…’ The book is hell bent on making people believe that aging is something of an error. The last part of the book confused me as to whether it’s a genetic science based book or a history book or a statistics book or health policy guide because it touched all of those to again make the case that government spending should be on aging more than individual diseases. It asks that until regulatory authorities label aging as a disease, we won’t make any meaningful progress. No nation considers aging as a disease.

Labelling aging as a disease, in my view, undermines the evolutionary construct of human progress whether religious or spiritual or personal which empowers humans to live for great values and virtues which for many makes the inevitability of death a lesser concern in the face of grand visions that transcends life itself. Not dying can’t be a goal but living holistically is a great one. A healthy and fit body would help with that. I believe in the afterlife and a lot do too. So, this life is just a journey through the many that have come before, whether here or on some other plane. Some chapters on practically increasing healthy life or youth could have been worth it because that’s a desire most people relish. This book fails here too. 

At the end, on one page, the author shares what he consumes in a day, which is basically supplements, while virtuously declining to provide any endorsement for supplements. Funny! It is a high hope invoking book only concerned about showing what science is doing to understand aging, which is good, but not offering anything to improve life on a daily basis gravely limits the limited scope of this book. Afterall, the book mentions that it’s pertinent to add youth to age, not just years. Despite this, there is nothing of value in the book to add youth to our lives. Which makes me wonder about the actual intent of the author who clearly isn’t concerned about demystifying the phenomenon but definitely tries to create a selling point. As mentioned in the book, the author is a serious entrepreneur. Even a paramount authority like the National Institute of Health, USA  has published an article in 2023 critically reviewing the science endorsed in the book. Trust me, it’s not a supportive piece at all. Few such reviews can be found online.

At the end

Let me tell you that if you do wish to read something about getting older, which is inevitable, in a healthier way, which this book wishes for everyone but fails to advise, you may consider reading ‘Outlive’ by Peter Attia. I read this book in December 2023 and it definitely feels a greater book now having read this one. There are proper ways chapter wise in Peter’s book to actually enhance fitness which endorses a novel vision of how medical science needs to consider its approach towards human health by zooming out from ‘curing symptom-disease based approach’ to tackling health at the deeper level . 

Even if this book by a Harvard Scientist had focussed on teaching complex science of aging in a wonderful manner, this would have been an enriching book in some sense. After-all, it is the researchers and top scientists on whom we can rely to unravel for us what we can’t do ourselves.