#1

Dr. Adam Bataineh runs a newly opened longevity clinic (that prescribes rapamycin) in London, UK, and is working with Oliver Zolman as part of a group working to refine rapamycin longevity protocols (see: Rapamycin - Oliver Zolman MD | Evidence-based health ).

He posted this, related to the recent press on Bryan Johnson for people interested in a lower cost methodology for measuring and tracking health. It seems to have a few good ideas I had not dove into much in the past (functional strength tracking ideas). I’ve added some links under the tweets where I thought appropriate. What would you add to the list?

http://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/dass/

https://www.hrv4training.com/

https://twitter.com/DrAdamBat/status/1619053628756738048?s=20&t=ZpuuUZoMc9KYaA1-NSoGiw

6 Likes
#2

A lot of these are not necessary for prevention and frankly incredibly not cost-effective. The first sentence “might be irrelevant for most people” should be corrected to “most likely largely irrelevant for most people”.

For example, Lp(a) beyond a one time deal doesn’t really change much except in situations where hs-CRP would have already done the job.

Not only that, the accuracy of commercially available assays in some tests can be so poor you’re literally throwing money down the drain. Garbage data in, garbage out.

If one doesn’t know exactly why they’re getting a test with full understanding and how to interpret the results in the context of the lab specs, then one is probably flushing down a ton of money in the toilet with the veneer of this “quantified self” movement that purports “Big Data” is data driven and thus “rational”.

I’m not going to stop anyone - unfortunately not willing to read a lab test label and FDA drug label is worse than people not reading the terms and conditions before accepting.

I just figured most people would prefer to actually know and spend their hard-earned money with better options if they realized there were much better ones. Not only that, negotiated pricing can be extremely low cost while still retaining excellent accuracy. You don’t need to spend thousands of dollars per year on testing when you can get most of it free with insurance and maybe $20-100 or so a year total if you want several extras. Just taking maybe an hour or two to read through and understand what exactly you’re getting will save you a boatload. Well, I guess if dropping a few k every year for no reason doesn’t matter because it’s like pennies to Johnson-like wealth as long as one is aware the dangers of over testing, then I guess knock yourself out.

Seen it way too many times.

4 Likes
#3

FWIW: I checked out the Withings scale on Amazon. “Withings Body Cardio – Premium”
I always check the latest reviews first, because that usually gets rid of a lot of fake reviews if the product has been around for a while. This scale gets so many negative reviews I won’t be spending my money trying it. The idea seems great, but this scale; not so much.

5 Likes
#4

I personally use a “smart scale”, but it pales in comparison to a “physician’s scale” in an office in terms of accuracy. Seriously, home scales are almost always incredibly inaccurate on any of their marketed “additional measurements” and the accuracy for weight is only “okay” if you just need a trendline with careful picks. False positives are just garbage data.

1 Like
#5

I get most of the tests regularly and covered by my insurance. Recently asked for CRP test and my doc immediately sent script.

1 Like
#6

Seems to be tests that Michael Lustgarten takes and posts about. Nothing new. No scientific breakthrough here. This is worth $2 million?

2 Likes
#7

This is the short, low budget list of things that this longevity doctor suggests people consider if they want to try a health test regimen that moves them towards Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint type of program at a fraction of the cost.

1 Like
#8

Most labs offer well man or well woman panels which include a lot. As long as they include crp and vitamin d the other variations probably dont matter that much. However, tine to testing is crucial as samples metabolise.

#9

Most of these tests seem pretty standard to me.