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

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#71

Post by rscho »

the__alchemist wrote: post #64
Aurornis wrote: post #47

These articles really need a lot of context to parse as they paint some of the compounds as having potential upside without downsides. Metformin is amazing in people with diabetes, but among non-diabetics taking it for vague life extension claims it’s often discontinued due to side effects. Rapamycin has fallen out of favor among many in this space because they felt it was producing net negative effects as well as ca…

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!

Metabolic acidosis. Not trivial at all.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#72

Post by balamatom »

nutribueno wrote: post #48
Aurornis wrote: post #47

These articles really need a lot of context to parse as they paint some of the compounds as having potential upside without downsides. Metformin is amazing in people with diabetes, but among non-diabetics taking it for vague life extension claims it’s often discontinued due to side effects. Rapamycin has fallen out of favor among many in this space because they felt it was producing net negative effects as well as ca…

I'm surprised at the lack of intersectional shitposting when it comes to this subject, something along the lines of "FAANG intern tech bros making $1.5m TC are microdosing on ivermectin for health benefits." Get Wired or some other shit rag (the Altnatic?) to run with it complete with fancy full-viewport animations and gushing narrative intro over how it all started when someone's pitbull decided to take a shit in je…

Underappreciated comment.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#73

Post by lokrian »

schappim wrote: post #62

What's striking about "anti-ageing" research is how it keeps circling back to the same boring truths: don’t smoke, keep your weight down, move often, sleep properly, keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, and go easy on the booze. If something makes an overweight, sedentary smoker hit 100, then it’s a miracle drug. Please let me know if/when you've seen that drug...

This is just another way of saying there have been no big advances in clinical anti-ageing. And that's probably because little serious effort is going into it, compared with say, military spending.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#74

Post by schappim »

echelon wrote: post #67
schappim wrote: post #62

What's striking about "anti-ageing" research is how it keeps circling back to the same boring truths: don’t smoke, keep your weight down, move often, sleep properly, keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, and go easy on the booze. If something makes an overweight, sedentary smoker hit 100, then it’s a miracle drug. Please let me know if/when you've seen that drug...

GLP-1s are the first hint of that.

You’re right. I can’t think of anything else with that level of impact. Maybe we're all just taking things like statins or blood pressure drugs for granted, but I don’t think those have much effect on people who are already healthy...

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#75

Post by lumost »

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…

If we really manage to crack the code on aging, How certain are we that it's merely something to be delayed? Apparent age is at least somewhat reversible via lifestyle factors e.g. diet/exercise/sobriety.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#76

Post by schappim »

AntiqueFig wrote: post #69
schappim wrote: post #62

What's striking about "anti-ageing" research is how it keeps circling back to the same boring truths: don’t smoke, keep your weight down, move often, sleep properly, keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, and go easy on the booze. If something makes an overweight, sedentary smoker hit 100, then it’s a miracle drug. Please let me know if/when you've seen that drug...

> 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?

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#77

Post by lumost »

lokrian wrote: post #73
schappim wrote: post #62

What's striking about "anti-ageing" research is how it keeps circling back to the same boring truths: don’t smoke, keep your weight down, move often, sleep properly, keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, and go easy on the booze. If something makes an overweight, sedentary smoker hit 100, then it’s a miracle drug. Please let me know if/when you've seen that drug...

This is just another way of saying there have been no big advances in clinical anti-ageing. And that's probably because little serious effort is going into it, compared with say, military spending.

It's easy to poke at the military budget as wasteful, but human history has shown that military expenditure is at a minimum, necessary. The same cannot be said of most preferred spending avenues for the cause of the day.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#78

Post by starchild3001 »

Aurornis wrote: post #44
starchild3001 wrote: post #39

This is a great discussion on longevity, though the main article focuses heavily on mouse studies. To add to that, I've been thinking about a framework that prioritizes the existing human evidence. My take, which I wrote about in the linked post, is to use a tiered approach: 1. Top Priority (Human RCTs): Start with what we know works in human randomized trials. This is our most solid ground and includes sustained wei…

> appropriate TRT for men with low T You lost me here since this doesn’t appear in the linked article at all. You seem to be speaking about your own link, not the linked article on Hacker News. Be especially careful with TRT advice on the internet or from local clinics that push TRT treatments. The definition of “low testosterone” used in the longevity studies is very different than the definition used by TRT clinics…

> You seem to be speaking about your own link, not the linked article on Hacker News.

Correct. The hacker-news linked article talks about drugs that made mice live longer, my article talks about drugs that made humans live longer with some supporting evidence from mice studies.

> Be especially careful with TRT advice on the internet or from local clinics that push TRT treatments.

Correct. If you read my article, it repeatedly talks about working with a Dr on this. Ideally an endocrinologist (in USA), or potentially a urologist.

Healthy doses of TRT, where studies found benefits are with hypogonadal men whose low T is verified via two separate tests (An endo will ask you to make lifestyle changes first, and resort to supplemental testosterone as a last resort.

> it’s on the short list of medicines that can make you permanently dependent by causing testicular atrophy.

I believe you're factually wrong on this. I know a lot of people personally who stopped TRT successfully, some after being a decade on it.

> It’s not appropriate to mix into a list of supplements to take

This is a non-sensical idea, because supplements are much like drugs except they don't go through the FDA approval proceess. They're simply unregulated drugs with potentially significant sides. You shouldn't take a light view of them.

Actually, if I were to choose between a drug and a supplement for the same problem (such as living longer), I think people should prioritize drugs first as they go through rigorous clinical trials, their side effect profile is well known, there's post-approval drug monitoring.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#79

Post by zoeysmithe »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #43
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…

While autophagy does correlate with fasting and some studies link it to health markers, it should be noted that it usually takes at least 18 hours of continued fasting to even start and only goes into full swing after 48 to 72 hours. It is also an extreme cell response that is associated with high levels of cellular stress, which might have understudied long term detrimental effects. A simple calorie reduction either…

Autophagy research is all over the place and its hard to understand this stuff or make blanket statements, instead we just have to be flexible with it. Autophagy is always working and the ramp up happens pretty quickly for a lot of people. I think aiming for the 48-72 hour peak isn't helpful. Most people cant or wont fast that long. A lot of people on 16-18 hour daily fasts see benefits that suggest autophagy working well.

Also biology isnt computers, its not exact and all our bodies are very different. For example, say your standing autophagy rate is 3. 16-18 hours fasting its 7 out of 10. But at 48 hours its 10. The difference between 7 and 10 might not even be very meaningful on a practical health level. The difference between never getting to 7 because of "it takes 48 hours" thinking and never trying is then huge. Just a couple hours a day at level 7 autophagy or whatever could be life changing. I do about 14-16 hours a day and am happy I made that decision for myself. I do see benefits that are real seeming to me.

From what I've seen there's no real downside to 14-18 hour daily fasting and in theory incredible benefits. Its also worth mentioning for a lot of people just sleeping with an empty belly means a higher quality of sleep, so there's secondary benefits as well. Your gut 'taking a break' during those hours may also be another benefit in terms of gut health as well, but I'm more skeptical of that claim.

Re: Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

#80

Post by lumost »

deadbabe wrote: post #55

How many people can really even afford life extension? As in living all the way into 90s or 100? Your retirement savings have to be pretty solid to enjoy those extra years. It’s not like before, the game has changed.

If 100 year olds were truly healthy, then I strongly suspect we'd see a shift in societal structure and expectations for retirement. Societies tolerances for a permanent upper class of retirees and a permanent lower class of workers would likely not last - worker's would likely be unwilling to do the same job for a century.
Post reply on HN