ALTHOUGH FEDERAL FUNDING for gerontology research became available in 1974 with creation of the National Institute on Aging (NIA) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), scientific interest in the subject was restricted to relatively few investigators, and aging received minimal attention from the general public. The children of the post-WWII baby boom who had become a dominant influence on public interest and opinion were only in their twenties and more focused upon social and political issues than on understanding the mechanisms or consequences of aging. They were still invincible in their youth—immortal for a time. But even from that perspective, some of the older members of the baby boom generation recognized, in their parents and elders, the inevitability of their own mortality and at the same time a potential market for commercial exploitation. As a result, two California, nonscientist entrepreneurs, Sandy Shaw and Durk Pearson, emerged briefly during the 1980s to steward the first popular longevity movement with publication of their book, Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach.1 They received a considerable amount of publicity from the media, but the movement’s popularity was not sustained by any single, specific, and potentially sensational scientific research paper that could make participation in it practical for everyone and, thus, relevant to the common person. Consequently, after receiving a flurry of attention for a year or two, the concept of interventions into aging slipped back into obscurity for the populace, where it remained hidden until circumstances became favorable for recurrence of a sustained movement. Those circumstances included two primary events. The first was that the dominant population had progressed from youth into middle-age. The second was that data from a landmark study had been published to suggest that there existed a practical and simple way to preserve youth or, at least, semblance of it during aging. Adding to the importance of this report was the fact that the clinical trial from which the data emerged was legitimized by a federally funded grant in which the NIA provided $2 million for exploring hormone replacement in people 60 and over. Furthermore, it was directed by a respected scientist and physician. The paper published in 1990 reported results of a study evaluating the effects of recombinant human growth hormone (rGH) administration in a group of elderly men whose ages exceeded 60 years.2 Twelve healthy men ranging in ages from 61 to 81 years were given subcutaneous injections of rGH three times per week for 6 consecutive months. Subjects were selected for participation in the study using a primary inclusion criterion of plasma IGF-1 concentrations of ,350 U/L. Dosage of rGH was adjusted to increase IGF-1 into a youthful concentration range of 500–1,500 U/L, which resulted in a statistically significant decrease (14.4%) in adipose tissue mass, with concomitant increases in lean body mass (8.8%) and