Beth
#2
Anyone know of why he and Johnson choose cocoa over cacao ?
1 Like
Neo
#3
@Beth Perhaps connected to things in this thread and the related clinical trials:
2 Likes
Neo
#4
Makes sense to me. Aligned with Longo and much of geroscience. Different than the Attia school of thought. Perhaps because longevity and lung run healthspan focus here vs more near term healthspan focus.
AnUser
#5
What about if you are trying to lose weight, wouldn’t it be important to boost growth / protein signal for muscles meanwhile?
Neo
#6
I don’t know enough re that context. Do wonder if in that context you want to focus that extra growth stimulus via extra resistance training but still eat more like above / Longo / Blueprint / perhaps with more total protein for a while, but perhaps not big on methionine and/or leucine
dhm
#7
This was going so well, but I was disappointed to see fluoride-free toothpaste. Fluoride is incredibly effective at reversing enamel demineralisation. Not only that, but the fluoride substitute will actually be stronger than the natural tooth. And it’s perfectly safe, as long as you don’t swallow the paste. Also, using tea tree oil mouthwash is pretty dumb; even if it does have antibacterial effect, you don’t really want to nuke the microbiome in your mouth every day. That just leaves your mouth vulnerable to pathogenic strains, since they will not have competition anymore.
1 Like
AnUser
#8
Well we can only make our own choices and decisions, and I’ve chosen stannous flouride toothpaste, as I believe it is better than other toothpastes.
Elros
#9
His doctor is 29 years old? So he’s still a resident? I’d think he would want somebody more experienced
1 Like
dhm
#10
Anti-bacterial action is not recommended for oral health. It is impossible to maintain a sterile environment in the mouth. What anti-bacterial products do is to temporarily kill your flora, which leaves the medium vulnerable to colonisation by new strains. These new strains are normally inhibited by the present flora, because they compete for the same resources. Killing the oral flora is only advisable when pathogenic strains have outcompeted the benign ones; even then, anti-bacterial action should ideally be followed by innoculation with desirable strains (which is not really available as an intervention on the consumer market); otherwise, it just risks the same (or worse) strains colonising again. There is also the risk of developing pathogenic strains which are resistant to anti-bacterial interventions. The situation is similar to the effect of antibiotics on the gut.
By the way, toothpastes have existed on the consumer market which contained an active anti-bacterial agent called triclosan (even Colgate had a formulation with it). Apart from concerns about the side effects, it was found that it just didn’t provide enough clinical benefit.
Mechanically disrupting the plaque using a brush and a correct flossing method and depriving the bacteria of the sugars they need is sufficient for maintaining balanced oral flora, if there are no signs of pathogenic strains.
Edit: This is not criticism of stannuous fluoride in general; it’s a good alternative to sodium fluoride (although all the high-fluoride 5000ppm toothpastes on the market use the latter). What I wrote is to explain why the focus on anti-bacterial action is unnecessary.
1 Like
It’s a bit strange choice since it’s hard to imagine him having had time to learn a lot about aging alongside medical school being so young. I guess one of the reasons Brian choose Oliver to be his doctor is that Oliver himself is following an extensive longevity regimen, which cannot be said about most doctors. It looks like hat’s the mindset he is looking for in a doctor.
1 Like
