41–50 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I abstain from red meat, but I eat plenty of chicken and fish...
red meat is a good source of heme iron and vitamin b12. I agree with my coworker, a little steak a few days every month is good for you.
Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training will by far have the most impact in maximizing your natural lifespan. You shouldn't look at doing anything else until you've at minimum mastered all of the listed items above. Nothing else will have as much outsized impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A vegan/plant-based diet and now we're talking! I like this list a lot!
There's very little evidence that completely abstaining from meat (animal based protein) brings any meaningful advantages from the perspective of life span. In fact in general, it's far more difficult to build a complete diet eating vegan only. I of course do think there's a moral argument to a vegan lifestyle, and am a definitely a strong proponent on that end. Personally, I think a vegetarian diet strikes a better…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thus any approvals would require having a particular condition to get a prescription (or an unethical doctor), and this aren't immediately useful. That's not how any of this works (US specific to follow). FDA approval to market is a constraint on how the vendor markets a drug or device, not how a physician uses it. This is known as indications for use. So if I sell a drug approved for blood pressure, I can never sa…
Aware of what off label is, thank you, but I think you grossly misunderstand modern medicine if you think a doctor is going to prescribe a drug originally approved to treat cancer because you _hypothesize_ it might have some anti-aging properties. That's the whole issue with this list: none of these trials are testing the anti-aging hypothesis - it's just mentioning particular pathways -like Wnt (a core development p…
Of course not, but I didn't suggest that at all. In clinical practice they do this quite routinely if there is scientific evidence of efficacy; i.e. there are a number of papers and talks discussing why and how it works. There is a spectrum of course, from "huh, that's an interesting idea" to "came up in training as part of maintaining my board certification". I'm guessing most non-research clinicial staff will be well towards the later category before starting to use something off label. Many probably wait until they know other clinicians are using it - they also talk to each other a lot (hence KOL impact can be huge, here).
How do these papers come to exist? Not through FDA trials. The scientists involved aren't going to jump into a human trial based on nothing but a hunch, but if there is a reasonable hypothesis about it someone will try preclinical work etc. And if all of that looks good eventually someone will report results in humans used off label.
The point is this is a completely different pathway than an FDA clinical trial. I agree with you completely that premature clinical use of a drug would be unethical [1]. However, it is just wrong to suggest that the typical or only ethical path for this goes through an FDA PMA.
You seem to be objecting to something that is a very common part of the development of modern medicine, as if it is obviously wrong. It certainly has interesting questions around it, but seems to be a reasonable compromise between stifling innovation/development and enhanced risk to public/patients.
I'll note I don't have an opinion on whether or not any of this has been done for longevity applications to the point that a clinician could reasonably use it off label; I don't know enough about it. But it is certainly plausible that they could reach that standard at some point, without any of the vendors having it as an indication (at least initially, if it worked they would almost certainly pursue the indication in this particular case, unlike some).
[1] this use tends to be very much scaled to impact and prognosis anyway - so the longevity stuff specifically, would have a pretty high bar to meet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's very little evidence that completely abstaining from meat (animal based protein) brings any meaningful advantages from the perspective of life span. In fact in general, it's far more difficult to build a complete diet eating vegan only. I of course do think there's a moral argument to a vegan lifestyle, and am a definitely a strong proponent on that end. Personally, I think a vegetarian diet strikes a better…
I think you've got some homework to do :-) https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/lifespan/
That, however, doesn't preclude meat being beneficial as well. It's not an analog one is better than the other, and it doesn't mean you can't build a complete diet being vegan either. It's possible, in fact, to build a complete diet eating meat only as well if you really wanted to. Generally though, it's far more difficult, and you have to be pretty meticulous about what you eat in addition to probably having to supplement additional micronutrients into your diet to do so.
Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training will by far have the most impact in maximizing your natural lifespan. You shouldn't look at doing anything else until you've at minimum mastered all of the listed items above. Nothing else will have as much outsized impact.
Yes, but the problem is this is such a broad brush stroke.
For example, most people who are chronically stressed will generally never be able to obtain relief. There is a common joke about abs being made in the kitchen not in the weight room, and another one about not being able to outrun a poor diet. The truth is the best diet in the world, cardio and strength training will never overcome the damaging effects of cortisol as a result of chronic stress.
The same for proper sleep. Its not just about 6-8 hours, its about quality. If you aren't getting quality sleep, most people don't have a solution. Then when they look for solutions its generally a bombardment of sleep products (from beds, to pillows, to supplements) that are backed by million/billion dollar companies that are targeting you when you perform a search for information/help.
As to intermittent fasting, that has become a major fad since the Nobel Prize for Autophagy (with the most popular implementation being a 8/16 time restricted eating "fast"). In other words the goal is to trigger the body to begin consuming/recycling dead cells and other cellular waste; however, this typically isn't triggered by time restricted eating, but requires longer periods of fasting (usually kicking in around after 20-24 hours of fasting).
Finally "a complete diet", not only is there no general consensus what that is, you generally can't even have a conversation about diet without triggering a flame war. It doesn't matter if you are WFPB, keto, vegan, vegetarian, paleo, carnivore...not only will people oppose your diet, they will aggressively attack it. I remember I once mentioned "detoxing" and couldn't believe people referring to it as voodoo, and telling me there is no such thing as detoxing the body, but then when I ask them what the function of the liver and kidneys are, and they had no idea.
Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training will by far have the most impact in maximizing your natural lifespan. You shouldn't look at doing anything else until you've at minimum mastered all of the listed items above. Nothing else will have as much outsized impact.
bunch of research into metformin for anti-aging, which is very cheap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of these are new drugs. NMN, for example, is a supplement that you can buy now. It's a bit expensive but the price is dropping as it becomes more popular. Others mentioned include HGH, which has been around for decades. Only problem there is that it's a controlled substance so getting a prescription for anti-aging purposes may be difficult.
HGH is a wonder drug, but it's tricky. Not only for the expense factor, but like everything else, when you add exogenous hormones, your body stops producing them. So if you supplement with HGH for years or even months, your body stops making it and the ability to produce more may take a very long time to come back. It may never come back. Also, there are many types of tumors that have HGH receptors, and HGH has an ev…
Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training will by far have the most impact in maximizing your natural lifespan. You shouldn't look at doing anything else until you've at minimum mastered all of the listed items above. Nothing else will have as much outsized impact.
>Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training Yes, but the problem is this is such a broad brush stroke. For example, most people who are chronically stressed will generally never be able to obtain relief. There is a common joke about abs being made in the kitchen not in the wei…
Also, how did you go about detoxing, in your case?