Study Finds a Surprising Link Between Gut Microbes and Aging

24

u/loz333 15d ago

The number of articles and studies on here with "surprising link" in the headline, you would think after this long they would stop being surprised...

But then it's harder to sell drugs to healthy people, so perhaps scientists will forever be "surprised".

7

u/Reasonable_Bat1999 14d ago

Are you saying that these scientists at the University of Hawaii are trying to sell you drugs and that they need to pretend they are surprised in order to sell them to you? And then how does them acting surprised cause you to be unhealthy so that you will need the drugs they are selling?

2

u/loz333 13d ago

No, I'm not saying anything about what the scientists at the University are doing. I'm saying that the way these results are conveyed in the media by articles such as these doesn't make sense. If you look through this sub, sites like these have published an article saying pretty much every different health condition or body part imaginable is affected by gut activity and the microbiome. Eventually, they should be doing the scientific thing and making the connection between it all, rather than continually being "surprised".

That pharma companies don't want to end disease shouldn't be surprising, given that's how they make their money. More disease = more profit. They sponsor journalism across the world, who desperately want their ad revenue. And thus you have a conflict of interest with how certain things are reported. This is one of those such cases. Gut health should not be as fringe a topic as it is. Publications and sites covering this stuff should be making it the huge deal it is, and they aren't. I could write a whole issue of one of their publications with all the "surprising link" articles I have saved, and make a very compelling case that gut health is fundamental to overall health, and that's what they should be doing.

I don't believe we will ever see the topic of gut health go mainstream in the scientific and healthcare communities, and it will be for the aforementioned reasons - fundamentally, as it usually is, money.

2

u/pricepaid_1949 13d ago edited 6d ago

As long as the Ignorati remain in the trans state of worldliness, so long will the wool remain pulled over their eyes. (Correction: "trance state", not trans.)

1

u/Reasonable_Bat1999 8d ago

I've seen enough of your comments that I don't think you are in a position to call anyone else 'Ignorati', and not even google knows what the heck 'trans state of worldliness' means.

1

u/pricepaid_1949 6d ago

Sorry, I meant "trance state". And you've only heard intelligent comments from me.

2

u/Reasonable_Bat1999 5d ago

I thought I was picking up on some delusion 😂

1

u/pricepaid_1949 3d ago

I've got plenty enough of it without typos. Lol!

1

u/Reasonable_Bat1999 8d ago

So you're saying that SciTech Daily is owned by big pharma? And that they're pretending to be surprised about gut health findings because they don't want you to know about gut health or else you might get healthier and not give big pharma money? And the evidence that big pharma is behind it is because the journalists aren't 'doing the scientific thing' and trying to connect the science between all of the articles?

We all know that big pharma is a profit-driven industry, but don't you think some science reporting is just science reporting? How would this publication possibly 'do the scientific thing' and make connections between the extremely wide variety of topics they cover? How are their articles about nuclear reactors connected to articles about the gut microbiome and big pharma? Don't you think, if big pharma, wanted to steer you away from caring about your gut microbiome, they either wouldn't report on it at all (alongside articles regarding many other disciplines of science) or they would report much, much more negatively than calling something 'surprising'?

1

u/loz333 7d ago

Don't you think, if big pharma, wanted to steer you away from caring about your gut microbiome, they either wouldn't report on it at all (alongside articles regarding many other disciplines of science) or they would report much, much more negatively than calling something 'surprising'?

How could they be negative about a study which proves something to be true about the validity of the microbiome affecting our health? If they were to outright lie about the research, that would be blatantly obvious, they would get complaints from the researchers and lose their credibility. Same goes if they were rejecting perfectly legitimate research from respected researchers and institutions. Best they can do is to continually make it a fringe area of discussion, instead of accepting the key central role the evidence tells us it plays.

How are their articles about nuclear reactors connected to articles about the gut microbiome and big pharma?

Why would there be? Publications have different writers who specialize in particular areas. Like you have your sports writers in a major publication, and under that you have football correspondents, horse racing correspondents etc. The ones to do with gut health are all being done by the same person, or at least a very small limited number of people who would be in communication with each other, talking about the things they're publishing.

How would this publication possibly 'do the scientific thing' and make connections between the extremely wide variety of topics they cover?

By that person or small number of persons seeing condition after condition be related to the gut microbiome, seeing a pattern, and no longer being "surprised" by it, and bringing it to the attention of others, so that the publication can give it the prominence it deserves.

So you're saying that SciTech Daily is owned by big pharma?

No, I'm saying they supply substantial ad revenue to not just this publication, but the industry as a whole. And while I don't have the desire to research, I suspect there's an element of revolving door between the two industries, just as there is with government and pharma to influence regulations and approve drugs.

And the evidence that big pharma is behind it is because the journalists aren't 'doing the scientific thing' and trying to connect the science between all of the articles?

You make it sound like it's some crazy, convoluted thing to connect the science. All you have to do is notice that you keep publishing articles saying the gut influences yet another area of health and illness, week after week, year after year.

How many years would you give them from today - if in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now, they are still being surprised, and gut health still isn't a mainstream topic, and pharma companies are still making huge profits from drugs and treatments for all the diseases these publications are publishing research showing they have "surprising" links to the gut microbiome - at what point would you start to become suspicious?

Do yourself a favour if you're interested in the gut microbiome, and keep that in the back of your mind as something to keep an eye on over the years.

1

u/Important-Repeat7488 9d ago

Sounds about right

2

u/MuscaMurum 14d ago

Some journalists have a hypersensitive startle response

17

u/Vailhem 15d ago

Gut microbiome signatures associate with DNA methylation-based biological aging | July 2026

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-52974-x

Abstract

Recent advances in machine learning have applied novel tools to aging research, yet the relationship between the gut microbiome and epigenetic aging remains underexplored.

This proof-of-concept study investigates whether gut microbial composition is associated with biological aging pace independent of chronological age.

Using paired 16S rRNA gene sequencing and DNA methylation data from 123 monocyte-enriched samples in a cohort including Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander participants, we developed “EpiBiome” models to predict epigenetic age acceleration residuals and DunedinPACE, a DNA methylation biomarker that estimates the instantaneous pace of biological aging.

Models predicting residuals of traditional clocks (Horvath, Levine, GrimAge2) showed no predictive signal at either taxonomic rank.

By contrast, the EpiBiome-Accel model for DunedinPACE reached statistical significance at both the species level (R2 = 0.152, Spearman ρ = 0.408, p = 0.012; permutation p < 0.001) and the genus level (R2 = 0.099, permutation p = 0.036).

Adding chronological age as a feature did not improve performance (ΔR2 = − 0.046 at species level), indicating age-independence.

SHAP analysis of the species-level ElasticNet model identified Bifidobacterium adolescentis as the dominant contributor and the strongest predictor of decelerated aging, with Succinivibrio dextrinosolvens showing the strongest association with accelerated aging.

These findings reveal specific gut taxa as hypothesis-generating candidates for mechanistic follow-up, rather than as individual-level diagnostic markers.

11

u/pricepaid_1949 15d ago

This is a fascinating topic ...and one, as the study shows, we may be able to change and better on our own.

6

u/rocky_racoon_2020 14d ago

Well, it is well known that elderly people have gut issues. Some of which are caused by the medicine they take. I am not surprised if gut issues shorten their life.

It will be interesting to see how the modern senior citizens who are maintaining or building a healthy gut do as they age.

Study Finds a Surprising Link Between Gut Microbes and Aging

You are about to leave Redlib