I think Mike’s biomarkers are going to go ‘crazy’ relative to previous interventions, widely change in all directions, it would be interesting to see if any potential net longevity benefit could be picked up in blood tests.

2 Likes

Indeed Mike has been quite adamant about getting all of his nutrients from food whenever possible, and has resorted to supplements only reluctantly.

But incorporating prescription pharmacueticals is a whole new chapter in the longevity strategies evolution (if I recall correctly, previously Mike only took - and still takes - some compensatory drug for a thyroid condion).

To be completely honest, I can’t say I’m deeply shocked. If your aim is to extend health and lifespan to the greatest degree possible, inevitably at some point you’ll need to step beyond the naturalistc diet, exercise, lifestyle - once you’ve maximized along that axis, pharma is your next stop. I suspect a lot of people agree, and were only held back by a relative paucity of agents which provably can accomplish that - with the ITP results, we now at last have candidates with at least confirmations in mammals, and rapamycin is the early undisputed champion with the biggest scientific support so far… now there’s an explosion of candidates, but rapa has the most robust track record and a relatively good safety record for the risk/reward ratio.

It also makes sense, because rapa can be initiated later in life, so perhaps it might be easier to observe positive effects sooner and more distinctly compared to a young person in excellent health.

I’d also be interested in the sourcing of the rapa, if possible.

2 Likes

Stunning. A major change in direction. I’ve been thinking that Mike had run into limits to his long-standing approach. I admire his willingness to change his mind when necessary to continue making progress. I look forward to learning from him on this addition to his approach.

3 Likes

This morning’s 57-43 isn’t great news [first number is HRV and second is nighttime pulse, he is generally quite a bit higher on the HRV and often a bit lower on the pulse], but is an improvement over the past 2 days (52-45, 51-46). Yesterday, there was additional resolution for the work stress that triggered these changes, so I’m expecting a big improvement for HRV and RHR over the next couple of days.

57-43 may also be good news because I was (and still am) wondering if rapamycin may be bad for HRV and RHR. This morning’s data suggests that they can improve while taking rapa-we’ll see how this story plays out over the next few days.

3 Likes

Isn’t this a clssic short term vs long term effect? We have to wait longer term to draw conclusions, same as exercise messes up a ton of biomarkers short term, but improves long term. Or it could be a geniune effect like rapa on glucose and lipids.

4 Likes

62-43 is a small improvement over yesterday’s 57-43 (higher HRV, but the same RHR), but might be better news than expected when considering that Thursday was an active day, with a daily HR (55 bpm) that was almost as high as on a workout day (56 - 57 bpm), but without a workout. With that in mind, 62-43 would be decent data relative to post-workout induced alterations to HRV and RHR.

Today, I can take as close-to a full rest day as possible, which should help push HRV and RHR towards better values on Saturday. If not, is rapamycin bad for RHR and HRV? Nonetheless, I’m committed to taking rapa until next Thursday, to see if it can reduce Candida IgG.

2 Likes

On sept 10 he said:

I’ll start rapamycin (1 mg) today.

1 Like

Is he taking it daily? Sorry, apparently I’m confused!:joy:

@blsm All I know is above

Perhaps it’s just a one off experiment for the Candida IgG

2 Likes

Anyone else feel like Michael Lustgarten’s approach might actually work since CR has a net benefit on like 7 biomarkers (except lymphocytes), iirc?

Isn’t this possibly some signal that it, and that CR works as well?

1 Like

@AnUser Yes, I think that aspect is core and helping him (and one of the most valuable things in Bryan Johnson’s protocol too).

And in general would be good even if it does not drives clicks or sell as much as taking people to eat loads of protein and gain big muscle

Have you seen my posts on CR(ON)

(And fasting)

I meant that his approach might both work and that CR itself.
Because CR is expected to work in animal models, and now both method and CR validated in N=1 according to human epidemiological data (ACM). I might be thinking incorrectly on the CR validation part though.

7 or so biomarkers improve on ACM, 1 negative, that means his method in itself might be valid and that’s important.

It was long ago but I will take a look, I think important is to have the correct method of evaluating strategies.

Wonder if the benefits in human CR studies were on biomarkers showing a net benefit on short term ACM risk.

Would love the read about this - can you share more

I don’t have any studies per se, what I meant was:

Mike has a method he believes will improve his longevity.
This method of optimizing biomarkers according to ACM epidemiological or youth data show that CR works really well for him with lots of biomarkers going in the right direction.

Is his method good? I’m thinking that his one actually works and there’s signal in the epidemiological data for ACM and youth because it shows that CR works well. Which validates his approach.

Does that make sense? If so:

Next would be to see if short term studies on calorie restriction improves biomarkers for better epidemiological ACM, including ones he saw improvement in.

I might be missing something here, but I feel like it shows that it works? Unless we believe CR to not work in humans, thus we can’t determine how valid his method is based on it. I might be confusing myself here, though.

I thing the answers to this might be yes - check out the the different Nature journal paper after the Yale Calorie Trial and all the CRONy stuff.

@CronosTempi can probably help with examples from the top of his mind

1 Like

For anyone interested in CR studies in humans and the associated research, you should look at the work of professor Luigi Fontana. He’s the primary investigator behind the CALERIE trial. He’s done a ton of CR work in humans over the decades, and if you google around you’ll find his work everywhere.

Here’s a taste - an interview from 2018:

2 Likes

Thanks @CronosTempi

@AnUser and any anyone else interested in this topic (@adssx what is your latest thinking), here is one thread that also references several other recents ones

2 years of mild caloric restriction significantly reduces biological age?

Having an accurate method of evaluating strategies is way more valuable in my view than any intervention. The latter has often undue weight and leads to a lot of waste in supplements and lifestyle changes that don’t work.

@Neo I read through thread on CR but didn’t verify, these things are pretty new to me, Dunedin pace and the other clocks sound interesting. So what I think:

Michael Lustgarten’s approach probably works in so far the markers he optimize have causality and correct curve (e.g I believe he has the wrong curve on apoB and LDL-c which I’m sure you agree with). CR probably works in humans since biomarkers improve in studies, however like any intervention, I’d want to check in regularly how biomarkers move and how I feel.

I’m curious, you mentioned in your thread, outside of how you feel, is the restriction on amount of calories basically dependent on muscle mass, or is it something else? Sudden deaths in e.g anorexia or liquid protein diets (has anyone mentioned this?) I see a lot of case reports and news in the 70’s and 80’s.

What’s causing suddent death etc in anorexia, can this happen on CR at some point? What is measured?

At least one-third of all deaths in patients with anorexia nervosa are estimated to be due to cardiac causes, mainly sudden death.14,16,20 Cardiovascular complications are common, and they have been reported in up to 80% of the cases; up to 10% of these complications were mainly bradycardia, hypotension, arrhythmias, repolarization abnormalities, and sudden death.14,16,17,2123 It must be noted that food restriction can lead to increased vagal tone, bradycardia, orthostatic hypotension, syncope, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.24 Bradycardia presents particularly during the night but neither mean QT nor corrected mean QT length over 24-hour monitoring seem to be different compared with controls.25

With respect to QT abnormalities, QT interval is a measure of myocardial repolarization and its length is associated with life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. Thus, a prolonged QT interval is a biomarker for ventricular tachyarrhythmia and a risk factor for sudden death.17 In EDs, QT interval abnormalities have been studied as a marker of sudden death and also to assess the effect of refeeding. It has been proposed that sudden deaths are a result of cardiac arrhythmias for which a long QT interval on the electrocardiogram would be a marker. The necropsy and clinical findings in three cases of sudden death reported by Isner et al provided evidence that sudden death in anorexia nervosa, like sudden death in liquid-protein dieting, might result from ventricular tachyarrhythmia related to QT interval prolongation.16,26 Nevertheless, the QT interval seems to have a poor predictive value for the recognition of patients who are at particular risk of sudden death. Only QT intervals >600 milliseconds are clearly associated with a significant risk of sudden death, but few ED patients usually have such long QT intervals.27 Considering the QT dispersion, an increase of the QT interval dispersion represents regional differences in myocardial excitability recovery and may lead to an increased arrhythmogenic substrate, with a higher risk for clinically significant ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. In this case, the predictive value of the increased QT interval dispersion as a marker of sudden acute ventricular arrhythmia or death has been demonstrated.16,22 Both prolonged QT interval and increased QT interval dispersion tend to normalize after refeeding, along with heart rate and heart-rate variability.5,28

Reason I am asking, I’m wondering about the feasibility to be on higher CR might increase (you mentioned hunger feelings) – because we have GLP-1 agonists and other drugs? But of course probably a safer level to not get in anorexia territory for body fat or muscle mass (and as optimal BMI as possible)? Just wondering about the limits and how to track it as well.

But do you think 10-20% long term CR might be more possible with GLP-1 agonists (provided it’s still safe body composition, etc), would that be good?

1 Like

@AnUser Not an expert but think at too high degree of CR the bodies uses up not just some of your normal (skeletal) muscle, but also some of your heart muscle - which does not seem to be a good thing

You might be right about GLP-a meds as a way to achieve meaningful CR at less hunger hassle. It may or may it be better than not being on CR (@AlexKChen might have thought and experimented with that).

At the same time it may not be as good as achieving the same amount of CR without the GLP-a meds (given eg the potential increase in insulin levels).

Still if the actual choice a person faces is less/no CR without GLPa and more CR (to a reasonable degree) with GLPa, then perhaps that is still better

1 Like