WEDNESDAY, Feb. 12, 2003 (HealthDayNews) -- Anti-aging researchers, who often claim the products and therapies of doctors specializing in anti-aging medicine are unproven, are shooting themselves in the foot.
That's the opinion of a gerontology expert who has analyzed this ongoing battle.
It's partly a "boundary" issue, says Bob Binstock, a professor of aging, health and society at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, whose analysis appears in the February issue of The Gerontologist.
Anti-aging researchers, who worked for years to obtain credibility -- and funding -- for their research, want to separate themselves from physicians whom they see as promoting quackery, Binstock says.
However, waging war on the anti-aging movement may be counterproductive, Binstock adds. Instead, the researchers should highlight the potential health benefits to be realized from research on the process of aging, such as the ability for longevity free of disability or dependence.
So far, the war's been less than positive.
Academic researchers, such as S. Jay Olshansky, professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and anti-aging medicine physicians such as Dr. Ronald Klatz, president of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, frequently square off in the press and sometimes in person at medical meetings.
In a nutshell, Olshansky fumes that products such as human growth hormone and other so-called anti-aging products pushed by some anti-aging doctors are without scientific basis. Klatz complains that Olshansky overlooks what he says is the commitment on the part of anti-aging physicians to health promotion and managing risk factors for chronic disease, as well as legitimate research conducted by them.
Last year, 51 leading anti-aging researchers, including Olshansky, signed an essay, "No Fountain of Youth," that appeared in Scientific American. It advised the public to avoid human growth hormone and DHEA (dehydroepiandosterone), as well as other products promoted as aging remedies.
Olshansky and two of his co-writers also appointed themselves to a committee to bestow annual "Silver Fleece Awards" to products and organizations that make untenable claims or lead the public astray about what's possible in the anti-aging arena. Klatz's academy got one.
Binstock isn't denying that some products on the market that claim to reverse aging are pure snake oil. However, he says the anti-aging researchers "would really be better off emphasizing the positive things they can accomplish." And the criticism also gives much publicity to the anti-aging medicine doctors, Binstock says.
Asked to comment on Binstock's analysis, Olshansky says, "I think it's a fantastic paper, the most scholarly piece I have seen on the issue of anti-aging medicine." He adds he intends to develop a more positive strategy. However, the Silver Fleece Awards will remain, since he sees them as providing a useful platform for discussing the issues.
However, Klatz wasn't as pleased with Binstock's article.
"I thought the paper was not balanced," he says. Anti-aging researchers overlook legitimate research that is also done by anti-aging medicine doctors, Klatz says.
"They don't attack anti-aging medicine on the basis of science or academics," Klatz adds. "It's purely a political argument. All they do is point a finger and say, 'Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.'"
More information
To read the paper written by anti-aging researchers in the Scientific American, click here. For information on the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, visit its Web site.
