#21

I hate health influencers that aren’t data driven so much.

2 Likes
#22

There’s only so many things that you can get data on. None of us are waiting for data on human double blind randomized Rapamycin studies.

1 Like
#23

You can measure your own biomarkers before and after and be your own N=1.

2 Likes
#24

the coversation in this video really undermines the advertisement of the “human grade” farmers dog food. no wonder joe looked so uncomfortable!

#25

I am tending to think that development is driven by a reduction in mitochondrial membrane potential. Hence early puberty comes from this whatever causes the reduction in MMP.

1 Like
#26

lol. The irony of that statement.

#27

So here is a thought experiment of how long one could live based on my hypothesis and many assumptions so take it with a pinch of salt and some Tabasco sauce…

I am going to use myself as an example… since I know myself pretty well :rofl:
First, I will roughly estimate my biological age using:

  1. Average HRV for the past few weeks (Garmin measured nightly average of averages) = 70 ms (that’s an average of someone in their twenties)
  2. My Garmin estimated cycling VO2 max was 54 (measured during my last Zwift FTP attempt in April 24’)
    that puts me in top 2% of average 18 year olds.
  3. My appearance is generally estimated by others of 40 or under. Personally I feel better and stronger than in my pathetic 30s. Apparently appearance and “feel” can be a good predictor of biological age.
  4. Normal sets of labs including LDL of 70, low homocys, ua and non-detectable inflammation…also BP of 110/70, resting HR of 40, etc etc

(BTW, I have not done any biological age testing as I doubt the actual predictive value of the test and I’m not willing to spend the money and time on it.)

So my rough biological guesstimate is about 35 at chronological age of 50. I could make a case for 30 but I would rather err on a higher side without any other available data.
So bio age of 35 at chrono age of 50 - implies 30% reduction in the rate aging due to genetics, exercise, diet experiments and lots of dumb luck.

Now, more assumptions:

  1. Slowest pace of aging achieved in rejuvenation olympics was 0.47 so 53% slower aging

  2. Further modifying and perfecting my lifestyle could further reduce my rate of aging beyond 30% and at best achieve 50% IMO. These include:

i. Recently added rapamycin, finasteride (higher dose of 1mg) and smart supplementation
ii. Aerobic exercise to maintain my VO2 max, functional weight training, stretching, balance, stability via yoga and other exercises
iii. Obsessive use of nutritionally dense diet with high fiber, probiotics, high low-BCAA protein, etc.
iv. Brain training - my job, learning languages, playing an instrument, playing games, etc.
v. Topical agents for skin and hair rejuvenation. Skin is very easy organ to access.
vi. Extreme conditions: exercise at altitude or heat. Cold and heat exposures. Long endurance events.
vii. Whatever the future discoveries will bring to the table
viii. Eliminate “dumb stuff” - smoking, drinking, driving too fast (guilty), wearing helmets, avoid excessive radiation and environmental toxins (heavy metals, BPA, pth, pesticides, etc) when possible etc etc etc etc

So if my current biological age is 35 at chronological age of 50, and I would able to achieve 50% reduction in aging, the following numbers in theory reveal my lifespan (assuming no accidents or other unexpected health problems)
CA-chrono age, BA bio age ---- (again, assuming I’m maintaining 50% reduction in aging so basically aging biologically only 5 years for every 10 chronological years)

CA BA
50 35 ---- currently
60 40
70 45
80 50
90 55
100 60
110 65
120 70
130 75 -----> this is the time of death for most with this biological age

Thus 130 is my prediction, however have I started in my 30’s maybe even 140 or 150 would be possible with current knowledge and available resources.

6 Likes
#28
2 Likes
#29

I fundamentally reject this model. I do not believe that biological age is a single number the way chronological age is.

Instead, as an organism, we are composed of dozens of systems, each having their own age, and each aging/deteriorating at slighty/substantially different rates. We do know for a fact that different organs age at different speeds. Some of it can be impacted by lifestyle factors, like smoking might accellerate the aging of the lungs more than, say, bones. But the point is that under any circumstances different systems age at different rates. Therefore there is no “global” number that represents your biological age. There is only: heart of a 30 yo, liver of a 32 yo, brain of a 40 yo, kidneys of 36 yo etc. When we die, we don’t die because all of our systems have failed at the exact same moment. Instead, we die, even at a very advanced age, from a very specific cause, heart, kidney, brain etc. Every single death is always down to a discrete cause. Your bones may have lasted another 2, 5, 20 years, but your heart gave out at 96, and you died.

The way you present the model of rate of aging is as if it is a film speed - you slow motion the film at different rates, or speed up the film, and that’s your rate of aging. Normal speed film; speed up the film; slow down the film; sloooow dooooown the film. But that’s not how it works. Your body is not a single film that has a given speed. Rather, it is a collection of films each with its own speed. There is no global speed. There are 250, 350, 450 etc. film projectors running its fim, each with its own speed, you wouldn’t at that point ask “what is the speed of all the projectors?” There isn’t a single one.

Death is a case of the weakest link which fails first. That’s why we have specific causes of death. You are alive as long as ALL the projectors are running. The projector that is running the fastest will be the first one to run out of film, and you die.

No intervention, or interventions will affect the speed of each and every one of the projectors. Diet, exercise, drugs, supplements. What they will do is affect the speed of one, or several, and maybe even a great number of them. But not all. Can that delay your death? Yes, if it happens to slow down your fastest projector, or group of fastest projectors. If your fastest projector is your heart, cause of death is heart related, a statin might slow your fastest projector (in your case: your heart). Now a statin may affect only one or a few projectors. Rapamycin may be able to take a huge number of projectors and slow all of them down. And if you are lucky, your fastest projectors might be among them. But you may not be lucky - after all, in all those studies, there is a bell curve - most animals benefit, some hugely, but some don’t or even are damaged. Same with the most potent antiaging intervention we know so far, CR - a bell curve that at one end results in a shorter lifespan, even if most benefit (to different degrees). Will your intervention(s) address your fastest projectors? If you’re lucky, perhaps. As the saying goes, “it is better to be lucky than good”. But slowing down further your already slowest projector does nothing for you, if it doesn’t address your fastest projector. That’s how you get "s/he was a health nut with great diet, exercise, lifestyle, fantastic athlete etc., but suddenly keeled over, “got diagnosed with terminal cancer"etc.” Strengthening your already strong heart does nothing to prevent death from your sh|tty pancreas and its cancer. Which projector(s), are your interventions addressing? Hopefully your fastest. But maybe not.

Bottom line, you cannot match your calendar age with yor “biological” age, and use one constant number for a rate, like your example of “50%”, and then extrapolate forward to 120, 130, 150 years. There is no constant single speed of the film of life, there is instead a collection of films each with its own speed and each in turn not constant (your individual organ, and system doesn’t age uniformely, instead it can go slow, and then suddenly speed up etc.). The weakest link will always, always get you. You may look young, feel great, exercise, have heart rate variability of an 18 yo, VO2Max of an elite athlete, but if your weakest link is elsewhere, getting even better HRV won’t help it. If you are 50, most of your projectors (biomarkers) might be of a 30 yo, but there are those projectors which are 50, and some(?) that are 55. The fastest projector, your weakest link will get you, never mind the illusory single number of “biological age”. We extend life and health if we’re lucky enough to affect our weakest links.

7 Likes
#30

I think there are two main factors that drive biological status, mitochondrial quality and the presence of senescent cells. If there are more senescent cells in any one organ it will deteriorate more rapidly and cells have a number of mitochondria of different efficiencies.

However, the body acts to spread mitochondria between cells which will at least as far as that part of the aging process goes maintain some overall consistency.

1 Like
#31

That’s true aging in its all complexity can occur in spurts, probably around 30, 50 and 70. And it’s also true that different organs can deteriorates at different rates for different people, like the brain for people with double APOE4 allele.
As stated multiple times through out my post, my model is simplified for purposes of this forum and operates under multiple assumptions. It uses average rate of aging for average of all systems. It does represent the best case scenario.

Feel free to post a more accurate model, as I am sure we all curious to see what maximal lifespan your model would predict.
I would remind you that a maximal lifespan is ALWAYS a best case scenario.

3 Likes
#32

New study singles out the riskiest of all processed foods: ‘One of the most robust studies’

The study monitored more than 200,000 adults over roughly 30 years, adjusting for risk factors like family health history, sleep habits, and exercise.

People who ate the most ultra-processed foods were 17% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 23% more likely to be diagnosed with coronary heart disease.

Sugary drinks like soda and processed meats like hot dogs and breaded fish products were the riskiest items. Study lead and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health postdoctoral researcher Kenny Mendoza told the Times the risk associated with ultra-processed foods significantly decreased when researchers excluded those categories from analysis.

New York University professor of public health nutrition Niyati Parekh noted to the Times how the work, published in the Lancet, is “one of the most robust studies” of its type because of its size and regular check-ins with participants.

3 Likes
#33

Never seem to see it mentioned that the Nurses Health Studies percentage increase is comparing quintile 1 (that consumed up to 25% UPF) to quintile 5 (that consumed something like 50-100%).

Seems like this dilutes the message.

Anyway, for optimal health, never attend a baseball game, or a backyard 4th of July celebration.

1 Like
#34

Based on current science, you living to 130, let alone 150, seems extremely unlikely for anyone, regardless of when they start. No proof anyone could do this.

#35

Jeanne Calment lived to be 122 years old, so not quite 130 but what is often overlooked is that age expectancy for Victorian female was about 60 years old corrected for high infantile death (otherwise it would be 45). So she lived double her life expectancy. Current life expectancy of a Japanese female is 88 years old, so you can extrapolate from that. So here you go, at least you have a case study. So I would disagree that there is no proof, there is very little proof.

There is currently a medical trial in Japan to regrow subjects’ teeth, this should give some clue of what’s on horizon over the next years. Organ regeneration or cloning is likely within the next 20 to 30 years. With an exception of your CNS, which won’t be able to be replaced in this millennium, all other may be. However even CNS though can be tuned up with very simple current interventions - sensory stimulation, B vits with Omega 3, not smoking, not drinking, etc etc etc

I stand by my hypothesis, if someone in their early twenties had the current knowledge in the longevity field, extreme discipline and resources to do whatever it takes to slow down their aging, they could live beyond 130 years given good genetics and lots of luck.

Maybe this person already exists on these forums.

4 Likes
#36

Makes sense. Further I think that surgical interventions that replace weakest link(s) e,g. a failing kidney with you own lab grown kidney are needed and will have substantial impact on longevity. The other systemic approaches like rapa or better are needed as well to synergistically and substantially extend the lifespan for many.

2 Likes
#37

Simple question:
Which body system would not be affected by the list of the interventions listed in my post?

1 Like
#38

Yamanaka factors make me very bullish on passing the age of 100 but cancer is very likely to get me beyond that.

1 Like
#39

I believe once you are passed certain age, a lot of the cancers that older patients tend to get are less aggressive - prostatic cancer, CLL, multiple myeloma - they can smolder for decades.
One that scares me is pancreatic cancer, undetectable until it’s too late.

Best remedy is screening, screening, screening and it’s never too late to introduce the interventions I listed. If someone in their sixties is still eating processed meat, fast food, drinking or smoking - they are just asking for it.

3 Likes
#40

Given the “quality” doctors here in Europe, I should save up for a home-kit x-ray.

1 Like