More on Giuliano’s Law; calculating my longevity prospects

In yesterday’s post I proposed Giuliano’s Law of Anti Aging:

·        Starting now, every seven years will see the emergence of practical age-extension interventions (ones that have a potential of leading to extraordinary longevity) that double the power of the interventions available at the start of the 7 year period.  That is, on an average basis, the practical anti-aging interventions available at the end of a seven-year period will enable twice the number of years of life extension than did the interventions available at the start of the period.  Life extension is measured in years of life expectancy beyond those actuarially predicted for a given population. 

I then went on to calculate my longevity prospects in a quick-and-dirty manner to establish a point: Assuming the law is valid, with each additional year I manage to keep living in good health, if I keep up my anti-aging firewalls program and keep improving that program to reflect ongoing research, my probability of living another year in good health goes up instead of down despite my advancing chronological age.  My purpose here is to do the calculations a bit more carefully to establish the same point.  I consider three cases:

Case 1:  I discontinue my anti-aging firewalls program and go about living a normal life.

Although I am chronologically 79 I estimate that my physiological age is 72, reflecting the fact that I have been pursuing an anti-aging program for over a dozen years now and reflecting other factors such as appearance, relative health, energy, activity levels, etc.  Looking at the actuarial tables for age 72 this means my current life expectancy looking forward is 12 more years which would bring me to a chronological age of 91.  Of course this does not necessarily mean that I would live that long.  In the coming year I would face the probability of death from all causes that a 72 year-old would face.  I could actually live more or less than that.  If I managed to live 7 more years to chronological age of 86, at that time my life expectancy would be that of a 79 year-old, or 8 years looking forward.

Case 2: I continue pursuing my existing anti-aging firewall program keeping it exactly as it is now.

In this case my current life expectancy is the same 12 years as above from the actuarial table, plus another 7 years from pursuing the firewall program or a total of 19 years, which would bring me to a chronological age of 98.  If I managed to live to a chronological age of 86, I would not perceptively age from my current physiological age according to my estimation.  Every year I would face some probability of death from all causes, but a smaller probability than that an average 72 year-old faces because of the protective effects of the firewalls against many common diseases of aging.  The situation would be the same for the next 7-year period, etc.  Not so bad, and likely to get me to or beyond 100.  The same point I made in yesterday’s blog entry.

Case 3: I continue to follow all the relevant threads of anti-aging research, to update the Anti-Aging Firewalls Treatise weekly or more as I have been doing, and periodically update the firewalls and firewall program to reflect this emerging new knowledge.  Further, I incorporate new science-based anti-aging substances and procedures into the firewall program as they become available.

This is the most interesting case, the one where Giuliano’s law becomes relevant.  Right now my life expectancy would be the same as in Case 2.  But consider the situation 7 years from now assuming I am still alive then.  By then assuming Giuliano’s law, the anti-aging firewall program will have twice the efficacy of the program I am pursuing today.  Assuming the efficacy has increased somewhat uniformly over the 7 year period, my physiological age will have retreated somewhat, say 3 years to age 69.  My life expectancy then would be 14 years from the actuarial table plus another 14 years due to the firewall program or a total of 28 years.  So, from a chronological perspective at age 86 my life expectancy would be to live to age 114.  And at chronological age 86 I would still face a probability of death from all causes, but a far smaller probability than an average 69 year-old faces, again because of the protective effects of the firewalls.  Let’s jump out one more 7-year increment to chronological age 93.  By then the firewall program should have 4 times the efficacy of today’s program.  My physiological age should have retreated at least 15 more years back to 54 years of age.  My life expectancy would be 26 years from the actuarial table plus 28 years from the firewall program or a total of 53 years bringing me to chronological age 146. At chronological age 93 I would still face some probability of death from all causes, but a much smaller probability than an average 54 year-old would face. The projection will be that I will break the 122 year human age barrier.  Assuming of course I am not hit by lightening, run over by a taxi or hit by a speedboat  on one of my long swims out in Lake Winnipausakee.

The core assumptions of these scenarios are: 1. My physiological age is 7 years less than my chronological or actuarial age today because of my past anti-aging program participation, 2.  Today’s anti-aging firewalls program will add an average of 7 years to the life of a 79 year-old average male, and 3. Incorporating new knowledge as it is discovered, the life-extending efficacy of the firewalls program can be expected to approximately double every 7 year period (Giuliano’s Law).  Assumptions 1 and 2 are based both on theory and on my subjective sense of looking, acting, feeling and having health patterns of a considerably younger person, conservatively one 7 years younger.  I assume that the retardation of physiological aging due to having been on the anti-aging firewalls program is permanent, in my epigenome.  That is, if I stop the program I won’t lose those 7 years of youth in a few days.   I will provide an argument justifying Assumption 3, Giuliano’s Law, in a later blog post. The ultimate validity of these assumptions will be proven only over a long period of time.   I think I can wait.

About Vince Giuliano

Being a follower, connoisseur, and interpreter of longevity research is my latest career. I have been at this part-time for well over a decade, and in 2007 this became my mainline activity. In earlier reincarnations of my career. I was founding dean of a graduate school and a university professor at the State University of New York, a senior consultant working in a variety of fields at Arthur D. Little, Inc., Chief Scientist and C00 of Mirror Systems, a software company, and an international Internet consultant. I got off the ground with one of the earliest PhD's from Harvard in a field later to become known as computer science. Because there was no academic field of computer science at the time, to get through I had to qualify myself in hard sciences, so my studies focused heavily on quantum physics. In various ways I contributed to the Computer Revolution starting in the 1950s and the Internet Revolution starting in the late 1980s. I am now engaged in doing the same for The Longevity Revolution. I have published something like 200 books and papers as well as over 430 substantive.entries in this blog, and have enjoyed various periods of notoriety. If you do a Google search on Vincent E. Giuliano, most if not all of the entries on the first few pages that come up will be ones relating to me. I have a general writings site at and an extensive site of my art at Please note that I have recently changed my mailbox to
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to More on Giuliano’s Law; calculating my longevity prospects

  1. Res says:


    May you live long and prosper

    I wish you become even younger by turning the biological clock back (i hope the technology would improve in the meantime) and live like the Solarian lady in Foundation series for 600 years and more..

  2. admin says:

    I love your suggestion. Thank you. Right now, I am going for another 151 good years based on an intention I originally formulated in 1994 to live an addutuinal 166 years. If you would like to read about that original intention to live to age 230 years, you can go to my On Being and Creation essay which is at and search for The Cruncher Longevity Test. You might find the rest of the essay interesting too. When I get up over 100 I may indeed reformulate the intention upping the years. Vince

Leave a Reply