ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone and Men's Health Articles
LOH: Clinical evidence, biological aspects and evolutionary considerations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="madman" data-source="post: 209081" data-attributes="member: 13851"><p><strong>Fig. 2. <u>Aging as a trade-off between reproduction and repair</u>. According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, natural selection favors traits conferring enhanced fitness. The term “fitness” is often loosely defined but essentially refers to reproductive success, i.e. higher fitness (better adaptation to a given environment) equals enhanced reproductive success. However, the selection of traits conferring higher reproductive fitness will inevitably result in lower resource allocation into repair programs (maintenance) because organismal resources are finite. Consequently, prioritization of reproductive success limits lifespan (trade-off). Neither too much, nor too little investment into repair is favorable because both will result in reduced fitness: the former because of “overinvestment” of resources into repair programs, the latter due to premature death. Yet, indefinite survival would only be achieved if resources were placed sub-optimally. Since this strategy would culminate in impaired (reproductive) fitness, such traits will not be selected for. Hence, organisms do not exhibit these extensive repair programs, which may explain their finite lifespan (after Kirkwood & Cremer, 1982).</strong></p><p><strong>[ATTACH=full]16791[/ATTACH]</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="madman, post: 209081, member: 13851"] [B]Fig. 2. [U]Aging as a trade-off between reproduction and repair[/U]. According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, natural selection favors traits conferring enhanced fitness. The term “fitness” is often loosely defined but essentially refers to reproductive success, i.e. higher fitness (better adaptation to a given environment) equals enhanced reproductive success. However, the selection of traits conferring higher reproductive fitness will inevitably result in lower resource allocation into repair programs (maintenance) because organismal resources are finite. Consequently, prioritization of reproductive success limits lifespan (trade-off). Neither too much, nor too little investment into repair is favorable because both will result in reduced fitness: the former because of “overinvestment” of resources into repair programs, the latter due to premature death. Yet, indefinite survival would only be achieved if resources were placed sub-optimally. Since this strategy would culminate in impaired (reproductive) fitness, such traits will not be selected for. Hence, organisms do not exhibit these extensive repair programs, which may explain their finite lifespan (after Kirkwood & Cremer, 1982). [ATTACH type="full"]16791[/ATTACH][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone and Men's Health Articles
LOH: Clinical evidence, biological aspects and evolutionary considerations
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top