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

Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

scienceblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#141

Post by JPLeRouzic »

nikolay wrote: post #118
bob1029 wrote: post #20

> Fast for short intervals regularly, and longer fasts as they feel good to you. You can effectively do this every day if you just eat once per day. When I was properly obese, this technique resulted in rapid weight loss. Zero exercise was required to see results, which was good at the time because the not eating part was about all I could handle. Being in a fasted state is as close as you can get to actually reversi…

Autophagy sounds like a great idea... if you completely ignore the Hayflick limit - non-cancerous human cells don't divine indefinitely!

> "human cells don't divine indefinitely!"

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#142

Post by florbnit »

IceHegel wrote: post #58

There's a fascinating tension with anti-aging drugs, which is that your preference would obviously be to take them as early as possible, so you spend more time at a younger age as opposed to just prolonging the last years of your life, where you'll be stuck in a nursing home anyway. But taking experimental drugs while you're young is also much higher risk, and you might see people sacrificing their 20s for the sake o…

There's also a fascinating tension with physical exercise, which is that your preference would obviously be do it as early as possible, so you spend more time at a younger age as opposed to just prolonging the last years of your life, where you'll be stuck in a nursing home anyway.

But doing exercise while you're young is also much higher risk, and you might see people sacrificing their 20s for the sake of their 70s in a way they end up regretting, even if there aren't any injuries.

That said, even with risk of injuries it feels like a no brainer to be active and to be active from an early age.

Also I don’t think people should wait until their late 50ies to make sure they get enough vitamin c to “avoid sacrificing their 20ies”

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#143

Post by nerdsniper »

joemazerino wrote: post #119
impure-aqua wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the prescription options, estradiol is probably the most common and easily available, between hormonal birth control and HRT. It is also likely the most easy to study, as we have 60-70 years of usage that is not correlated with prevalence of other diseases that might skew life expectancy (like metformin etc.), and quite high-quality medical records by virtue of it being vended on a prescription basis. Despite this…

Estradiol should not be supplemented for men.

Helps this masculine man. Low E2 is one of the most awful experiences.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#144

Post by FollowingTheDao »

daedrdev wrote: post #108
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exenatide was a very small population base. The approval for weight loss means this drug is being taken by millions of more people which leads to a larger sample size. The larger the sample size the more negative effects will be revealed. I’ll just leave this here for the future m. I have no evidence other than common sense that it is ridiculous to think that injecting a hormone randomly in your body does not lead to…

The majority is gaining literal years of healthy lifespan. It would take a lot of damage to even approach this gain for the average person. Like we used to do very invasive and impactful gastric surgery to try and get weight loss and nobody batted an eye, no?

> The majority is gaining literal years of healthy lifespan

You’re saying this like it’s true already. Let’s give it 10 years.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#145

Post by malfist »

oskarkk wrote: post #134
malfist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this guy is not a scientist. He's an enthusiasts aping scientific process. Look at how he talks about the "10-20% flexibility". Hypothesis assumed true, no supporting evidence. Same with his idea of being young longer. No evidence supports this, yet his comments proceed as if it's a gospel truth

First time I hear about him, but it looks like he is a scientist: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josh-Mitteldorf > Look at how he talks about the "10-20% flexibility". Hypothesis assumed true, no supporting evidence. He started that part with "Here’s my perspective:", so for me it sounded more like his personal opinion/hypothesis, not a scientific consensus (and that hypothesis wasn't the topic of the article,…

That makes this even worse, he should know better. I took a look at his publications and they're nuts. He's actually published claiming that covid vaccinations increase the spread of covid.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#146

Post by IAmBroom »

chasil wrote: post #87
IceHegel wrote: post #58

There's a fascinating tension with anti-aging drugs, which is that your preference would obviously be to take them as early as possible, so you spend more time at a younger age as opposed to just prolonging the last years of your life, where you'll be stuck in a nursing home anyway. But taking experimental drugs while you're young is also much higher risk, and you might see people sacrificing their 20s for the sake o…

Taurine and Vitamin E are readily available and seem prudent. For melatonin, tryptophan plus niacin would maximize the serotonin pathway (note this is dangerous when used with SSRIs). How many of these are easily available? I had no idea that royal jelly is sold as a supplement.

> I had no idea that royal jelly is sold as a supplement.

Given that actual honey on the shelf is often mere sugar water, and people buy chakra-alignment crystals online, what about the idea surprises you?

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#147

Post by rscho »

dur-randir wrote: post #131
the__alchemist wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What side effects cause people taking Metformin to discontinue it? I'm taking, but haven't noticed any, but... you don't notice your baseline, I suppose!

Shitty shits. Literally. As for metabolic acidoses, rates are extremely low ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26773926/ ), so it's almost a non-concern.

~1/10.000 patient-years is a non-concern ?! I hope you're not an epidemiologist.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#148

Post by clickety_clack »

schappim wrote: post #76
AntiqueFig wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t smoke, keep your weight down, move often, sleep properly, keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, and go easy on the booze. And UVs, don't forget UVs.

As in UV light?

Maybe it’s the clockwork orange protocol: lots of milk and Ultra Violence.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#149

Post by the__alchemist »

rscho wrote: post #147
dur-randir wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shitty shits. Literally. As for metabolic acidoses, rates are extremely low ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26773926/ ), so it's almost a non-concern.

~1/10.000 patient-years is a non-concern ?! I hope you're not an epidemiologist.

I think this depends on the context. For your epidemiologist perspective, or looking at populations, that's a big rate! (Given how much metformin is taken) Would be easy to find people who suffer from it.

From the perspective of "Should I be worried about side effects from taking this drug / should I not take this because it might give me this effect", I think this falls under "be aware of symptoms and stop or weigh the costs if you get it, but you're probably fine".

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#150

Post by catigula »

iammjm wrote: post #137
catigula wrote: post #19

A lot of people in the comments are talking about the "problem" of death and approaches to take, but really, the only thing you can do is philosophically make your peace. Anything else at this point is yelling into infinity.

There is a difference between dying at 40 and dying at 80. Also, I see no reason why people couldn't live for, say, 200 years or even indefinitely. I think it is an engineering problem that can be solved and I wish we as humanity allocated more attention and resources into solving this particular problem. Especially as it concerns all of us. Solving suffering and then solving mortality sounds like a good project to m…

Philosophically there is no difference. The gun to your head is infinity, 40 years has no meaning.
Post reply on HN