Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blueprint health protocol

protocol.bryanjohnson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 202 posts

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#121

Post by mewpmewp2 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #107
kubami wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if he was not doing anything, his score would be 1.1? Also, I don't think the point is doing fancy things. The people that beat him might just be doing "common sense" healthy things. Something which most people don't do. See SAD (Standard American Diet).

"Maybe" isn't exactly scientific; what he should've done was keep his existing lifestyle, have the same measurements taken, but not actually look at them because they would influence the measurements. Without a baseline, the numbers are meaningless. What if most people are under 1 but there's a few outliers that skew the numbers?

Although even then it could be 1 thing out of 100 things he does to actually be helpful, e.g. exercise.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#122

Post by hdarshane »

atemerev wrote: post #44
madspindel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's part of the hacker culture. Limitations in life span? Let's hack it!

My idea of doing this is bringing AGI sooner. Human body is an inelegant and unoptimized vehicle for intelligence.

>Human body is an inelegant and unoptimized vehicle for intelligence. Why do you think so? the impermanence of it? the gradual performance decrease? the biological/physical limitations that constraint it?

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#123

Post by stodor89 »

erispoe wrote: post #96
stodor89 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bryan Johnson is going all in, because (1) he wants to show what's possible and (2) he can afford it. He's dedicated his entire being to the cause. You and I don't need to. What we should do instead, is learn new and interesting stuff from his journey, and apply the 80/20 rule.

Learning is limited by the sample size of N=1.

Most of what I've learned and is worth knowing is from sample size of N=1. Doesn't make it that much less applicable.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#124

Post by bmikaili »

meindnoch wrote: post #119
bmikaili wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Livestock is given B12 supplements. B12 only occurs naturally in soil, where the concentrations are too low for even animals to bind. Prehistoric humans probably ate more dirt and had enough of it. This comment has a lot of sources compiled https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/7ujsaf/comment/dtlj7...

>B12 only occurs naturally in soil LOL. Patently false. B12 is produced by bacteria in herbivores' guts.

Sorry, cobalt only occurs in soil js what I meant. Do you have a comment on the point itself?

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#125

Post by seagullriffic »

drcross wrote: post #89
seagullriffic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oof. If we defeat aging, we'll have to contend with: * unbounded population increase * wealth and power directly proportional to age * dictators and other bad people not dying Not insurmountable but all of those big problems would require massive sociological shifts.

You're choosing to pick the negatives but the potential upsides (even excluding personal desires) are monumentally massive. How about not having 25% of the population walking around with an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex at any one time, that need 30 years of education before they have the wisdom to do anything halfway useful. How about government policies that operate with a decades long view instead of just one…

> choosing to pick the negatives

Yes of course there are positives. Don't worry, we have never let negative consequences hold back progress before.

But the blind optimism is staggering, and let's get philosophical: what's the ultimate good, objectively? (Subjectively obviously _I_ and _you_ think it's that we get to be around for longer.) But objectively, from a humanity standpoint, is it (1) the most people in existence, (2) the most people to ever have existed, (3) the most consciousness, (4) the most happiness? Etc.

If we start letting people live forever, over a long time, because of resources, fewer people will ultimately exist. We'll also have slower progress because old ideas will live longer. It's very hubristic to think we've peaked, and it's inevitable that the first live-forever generation will put the brakes on progress/change.

I'd say those downsides far outweigh the upsides you've proposed.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#126

Post by tashoecraft »

amval wrote: post #47
Ecstatify wrote: post #27

What is this guys agenda? Seems like he’s on the path to setup a cult.

To sell supplements, as evidenced by the ridiculously expensive olive oil that he sells on his website and the new line-up of upcoming supplements. There is no way for regular people to "follow his protocol". But you can have shots of expensive olive oil and reap most of the benefits!

You really think he’s going through all this effort to sell supplements?

The community found what is likely the source of the olive oil, and surprise, it’s being sold at just about cost.

He created a team and measured his biomarkers, then came up with a strategy to improve them. That’s what blueprint is. You likely shouldn’t copy him, as you are not him, but some of the things, like improving sleep, exercising, improving nutrition, can be followed by many.

He’s just a rich dude focused on improving his health. It’s nice he’s publicly documenting his results, but it’s not expected for you to follow everything.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#127

Post by epgui »

I know I’m going to get downvoted for going against the crowd, but as a biochemist my impression here is that there’s at least as much pseudoscience as there is science.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#128

Post by henryaj »

oldtownroad wrote: post #52
Shekelphile wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very weird lack of interest in slowing down or reversing aging in the scientific/medical community in general. To me it seems like it should be a top priority. Life is extremely short and extending our lives shouldn't be a terribly hard feat given there are plenty of biologically immortal and long lived organisms all over our planet.

We have so much lower hanging fruit to tackle first that doesn’t even require research: what’s the point in extending your miserable life a couple more miserable years? Adding a decade on to your life of extreme privilege is worthwhile, but for the majority of people on earth, simply getting them on to a nutritious diet would do far more for their quality of life and their lifespan than slowing down aging ever could.…

> Slowing down aging is like going to space: it’s a fun complicated problem for nerds to think about but it is utterly meaningless to the quality of 99% of lives on earth.

Except that aging is the causative factor behind Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, AMD, and a battery of other illnesses

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#129

Post by henryaj »

seagullriffic wrote: post #81
Shekelphile wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very weird lack of interest in slowing down or reversing aging in the scientific/medical community in general. To me it seems like it should be a top priority. Life is extremely short and extending our lives shouldn't be a terribly hard feat given there are plenty of biologically immortal and long lived organisms all over our planet.

Oof. If we defeat aging, we'll have to contend with: * unbounded population increase * wealth and power directly proportional to age * dictators and other bad people not dying Not insurmountable but all of those big problems would require massive sociological shifts.

> dictators and other bad people not dying

Equally true of trying to cure cancer, or infant mortality, or medicine generally - you're giving healthy years of life to good and bad people alike.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#130

Post by arisAlexis »

itsoktocry wrote: post #76
kkoncevicius wrote: post #34

I love what the guy is doing. It is a one-man experiment that would be very very hard to reproduce, or even get ethics approval and funding for, by a research lab. But on the other hand, I get a sense that the public side of his results are overblown. For example, my field is epigenetics, so I had a look at his "epigenetic clock" results. He uses "DunedinPACE" to track the rate of aging and his result is supposedly 0…

> Why not mention things like that along with all the optimism? The only people I see with extreme optimism are weird tech people. Most people I follow outside of that circle range from laughing at this to "kinda neat" (like you and me). Is anyone convinced this is "worth it", or that what he's doing is actually anti-aging anything?

Depends. Are you convinced major life extension is coming soon ?
Post reply on HN