#2832

Did you add any of the main cholesterol lowering meds (Eze, PCSK9i, statin and/or BA)?

1 Like
#2833

I did add Eze but it was after my doctor appt. and I have not been checked since.

2 Likes
#2834

Great. That may bring down ApoB by 20% or something.

Might also wan to consider adding one more if you don’t get enough movement.

Can also recommend the test that shows if your high cholesterol is due to too much production (and/)or too much absorption. Can help guide what to do about it.

1 Like
#2835

I had not heard of that test. Blood test?

1 Like
#2836

Yes. Can also be done at home (initially did it via Boston Heart via my doc).

2 Likes
#2837

See above (extra characters)

1 Like
"Early" Longevity Program by Peter Attia Launches
#2838

Congrats on your achievements! Keep us posted.

1 Like
#2839

I had chelation done for heavy metals long ago with good results.

2 Likes
#2840

@LaraPo What was the procedure for chelation and what were the hoped for outcomes?

#2841

It was an IV for approx 3 hours with EDTA. My test for mercury at that time (30 years ago) was high. After the procedure all my elevated numbers went down. I did it only once, even though 10 sessions were recommended. Don’t remember details now bc it was so long ago.

1 Like
#2842

But remember, Olshanksy’s numbers don’t start from a cure for diabetes or obesity, and conversely they already assume the complete elimination of cancer.

I will give you non-IHD forms of vascular disease. But you’re overestimating the effect on AD. Age itself is a much bigger risk factor for AD than even being homozygous for APOE4, let alone the indirect effects of ASCVD. And when you look at the best-validated modifiable risk factors for AD, ASCVD and apoB don’t even rank: it’s low education, hypertension, obesity, hearing loss, smoking, depression, physical inactivity, social isolation, and diabetes. You could cure ASCVD and still have plenty of ill-educated people smoking, sitting on their butts, with sky-high blood pressure, and living in desperate loneliness. Even eliminating diabetes (which, again, is not factored into Olshansky’s numbers) would only prevent 1.2% of AD cases per The Lancet’s numbers.

Since you’re only going to impact a tiny fraction of AD cases by eliminating ASCVD, and since AD is only responsible for 5.5% of all deaths, you’re not going to save a lot of lives indirectly through AD by curing ASCVD.

#2843

I was talking conceptually and think the point to be correct and you can just change disease X to disease Z and the logical is generally the same.

Having said that, I does seem like that they do in fact use a cure for diabetes scenario so I’m not sure why you were saying me picking diabetes was not correct/related to that paper:

With the use of conditional probabilities of death from complete life tables for the United States, reductions in mortality required to achieve extreme longevity (that is, 80 to 120 years) were compared with those resulting from hypothetical cures for all cardiovascular diseases, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2878489

Most importantly - science and medicine are not standing still. So the question that may be more relevant is probably what are the different states that the world can look like in the future at the when we would die of the first disease if it was not cured and also what would it look like if we did not die of that disease because it was cured but get to live healthily and longer in that outer world can get to intercept even more scientific, medical and technological progress?

Here is one concept on that not only is more than a few years possible, but that medicine even could break through current max life spans.

These observations prompted the notion that human life span might have reached its maximal natural limit of ~115 years.

Altogether, these findings suggest that targeting the biological/genetic causes of aging can allow breaking the currently observed ceiling of human maximal life span.

#2844

Here are also some additional thoughts I shared on this topic elsewhere (again you can exchange age related disease/top killer X for Y and the logistic will still generally hold).

I think that the analysis in that paper was flawed in some key ways, including based on “keeping all other things the same”, which in people’s case on this forum is probably not an accurate case for at least two reasons

  • many of the the things in our playbooks that for instance decrease risk of cardiovascular disease (healthy diet, optimized quality and quantity of sleep, nailing stress management, managing glucose/insulin patterns, great exercise regimes, measuring blood work and other biomarkers and and then taking data driven action, many of the pharmaceutical approaches to interact with aging pathways, etc) generally also impact cancer risks in a positive direction (as well as risks kidney disease, diabetes, liver, neurodegeneration, etc, etc, etc).
    (And there are probably also other interactions, someone with a stroke or heart attack that survives will perhaps exercise less, be more depressed and begin eating and sleeping worse, might have memory impacts that stops then from taking basic meds or even just impacting how well they can follow and keep evolving their overall longevity and health protocol)

  • even if a specific action like taking a certain Apo B lowering medication did not also have positive impacts on other health pillars/diseases, the lower risks of cardiovascular disease in an individual that also via separate tools and actions is addressing cancer (generally much better at early screening and general physician check in and just being observant of anything being on if our bodies, data, etc, perhaps also using liquid biopsies and MRI screening) means that the person does not have an average risk for just dying of cancer two years later, and the same goes other diseases and health pillars too

Said differently the cost in years of life lost of a fatal stroke or heart attack of someone who truly is aggressively going after health and longevity across the board, is probably on average much higher than it would be for average Joe or Jane Smith.

—-

And above does not take into account that the world of science and medicine and technology is not static, but that prevention strategies and treatments for the other things outside of heart disease will likely be much better in the future than it is today.

(You can flip stroke/heart disease for cancer or whatever other killer you want and the answer comes out the same way)

#2845

My error. Still, the downstream effects you suggested are either already baked in (cancer) or much smaller than you seem to assume (eliminating diabetes eliminates 1.2% of AD cases per The Lancet’s numbers, which would be expected to prevent (1.2% of 5.5% of all deaths) an additional 0.066% of all deaths.

Sure: the bootstrap/LEV idea. My post was exactly about the limits of what owe can do by treating individual diseases without interventions against aging.

#2846

I think I might be confused - I thought we were talking about things from the perspective of what they mean for a health optimizer here on the forum. From that perspective, I still think you may be underestimating the importance of stand alone curing all cancer.

Most of us, have a massive ability to impact our risks of the largest killers of heart disease and stroke. Same goes for most diabetes and metabolic disease. Many other things like fatty liver / NASH / MASH and kidney disease are also almost in this category of really being able impact the odds a lot.

So if we cured cancer, they would not be around the corner to kill us a year or two after we would have gotten sick of cancer.

Hence the biggest risk to someone is their 50s like for you (assuming you are an aggressive health and longevity optimizer) or for someone in their 40s like me over the next decades is roughly speaking cancer and AD.

In that sense the paper you showed me on AD is an outlier since AD is the very leading disease that people historically have thought is the least modifiable.

There is also this context that you have to read that paper: It was by a consensus/committee, that by its nature has to be conservative, and published in one of the perhaps most “medically conservative” major medical journals that there are.

Despite that they went against the prior medical dogma and basically were shouting out that even AD to a large extent is modifiable. I my case applying their numbers I can knock out just north of 50% of the risk of AD and I think that likely is true for many dedicated health optimizers on this forum. And note that that 50% does not take into account the effects of optimized sleep or great exercise practices that they did not include in their calculations since they did not have quantified numbers to use (see next post). So a dedicated health optimizer with great sleep, exercise and other practices (a lot of people on this forum) should generally based on that paper you cited have an even lower AD net risk rate.

So a health and longevity optimizer that is doing “everything” faces materially lower risks for almost all major diseases, even to a large extent for AD as discussed above if we apply the numbers in the paper you cited - except for cancer.

So in this context (which I see the context of the forum), having a cure for cancer would be incredible valuable.

I agree that that is very different from the impact on eg the average American who is not sleeping, eating, exceeding well, not massively optimizing health and longevity, etc, etc, and likely is “dying with” a lot of other diseases beyond the one that kills them and he hence of the other would kills them soon anyway. But I don’t think that is what we as aggressive health optimizers / longevity seekers should base our N=1 decisions on.

The other thing: someone making decision for themselves as one individual - is different from an average of the population.

Many individuals, even if not on average, would for instance get cancer in their 50s or 60s but not AD until I’m their 80 or perhaps even 90s. So in many cases the cure for cancer could mean 3!to 4 to 5 decades. Not on average perhaps, but in enough cases to matter.
(Of course if they did not materially take down their risk of dying of heart disease, stroke, metabolic disease, etc that they can largely impact, they would often not make it to their 80s, or 90s, but those risks can largely be decreased).

I think it’s similar if we could cure AD - that is most of all neurodegenerative disease. And with our increased ability for a health optimizer to (a) decrease cancer risks and (b) screen and find any cancer that still occurs extremely early, not getting AD means the the path to for a dedicated health optimizer to become a healthy 90 or even 100 year old is increased materially.

Above of course means that the ability to intercept all the new science and medicine over the next decades increases a lot. But even without that, for a dedicated health optimizer there are many scenarios where either curing cancer or AD could be the difference of an extra healthy 2-3 and even in key cases 4 extra decades of life with loved ones.

—-

And nothing above is taking into account whether our longevity practices of modulating mTOR, AMPK, IG-1, autophagy, mitophagy, etc, etc practices are having any addition disease lowering risk on cancer and AD and/or on our individual underlying maximum lifespan potentials - which I personally think there are quite ok odds of actually being the case.

2 Likes
#2847

I think this is a good example where your logic is backwards. There is some argument that apob is necessary for ASCVD. But no data shows it’s sufficient.

1 Like
#2849

Don’t they die in their thirties without treatment?

#2850

Ah, so you’re downgrading this to just a hypothesis now?

Do you have any data to support it?

#2852

You called it a “hypothesis”, in your previous post

You genuinely seem to misunderstand the scientific principle. You can’t assert “anything you like” just because it hasn’t been disproven. You can, of course, assert a hypothesis, but it’s scientifically valid to ask if you have any data to support it.

That’s all I’m doing, asking if you have any data to support what you’re asserting. It’s ok if you don’t. There’s no shame in making guesses. I’m just trying to figure out where you’re guessing, where you’re making things up and where you’re quoting data. It’s quite difficult.

#2854

Not sure why you’re getting upset. I was just asking if you had any data to back up what you were saying. Maybe internet forums aren’t for you if you don’t like being questioned or disagreed with?

I would love to be an artist, but sadly have very little ability. :worried: