Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach

Criticism

Prominent aging researchers expressed mostly negative opinions of the book.

Leonard Hayflick deemed it "a glib, superficial overview of the field,“ adding that he "would be very unhappy to learn that there were substantial numbers of people depending on its contents for guidance.” But at the same time, Denham Harman, to whom the book was dedicated and whose free radical theory of aging was favored by Pearson and Shaw, opined, "I think basically the book is sound," and added "It’s nice to see a book on aging on the best-seller lists."

Roy Walford wrote, "gerontology has always been the happy hunting ground for faddists, charlatans, pseudoscientific fringe characters, and just misinformed enthusiasts with 'ready cures' for aging. ... Pearson and Shaw are among this long list of enthusiasts. ... Most of the Pearson/Shaw book relies on this lower-order category of evidence, and upon the testimonial posturing of Pearson and Shaw themselves." (At one time Walford was a partner in a company, Gerontix, selling supplements to combat aging and improve health.)

References

References

1. See ''Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion'', by Brian S. Alexander, New York: Basic Books, 2003, {{ISBN. 0-7382-0761-6, pp. 5–6.
2. Bishop, Katherine. (1992-06-11). "FDA fears smart drugs could pose stupid risks". [[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]] newspaper.
3. Fiely, Dennis. (1993-09-16). "'Biochemical bad boys' - Possible causes of disease, free radicals, may have met their match". Columbus Dispatch.
4. (October 4, 1982). "Two Fitness Faddists Have a No. 1 Best-Seller, but Are They Stretching Life Spans or Truth?".
5. Walford, Roy. (2000). "Beyond the 120 Year Diet: How to Double Your Vital Years". Four Walls Eight Windows.