All Activity

Blood tests today. The turnaround was WITHIN A FEW HOURS/almost INSTANT... Ugh hemoglobin a1c of 5.1 despite flozins half the time, and loads of beans, tomatoes, acarbose (but most of it was hibose up to around 2 weeks ago)... I mean I did go on several bread binges just to try it out. There were a couple of blueberry binges but overall fruit consumption is less I'm going to try more semaglutide over the next month bc that's the best longevity low self control agent. Atomic habits, make it a habit to habitually eat less. Semaglutide simplifies life, it does not make you need to take more drugs like what you would need to do if you took rapa BP is 103/72 though I had loads of arugula and beets lately. I don't need to complicate my life with BP beds even if some increase lifespan in men.. Homocysteine 9, I did take more betaine but I lapsed for a while... Lapsed with creatine.. Slightly less LDL 138, how the fuck is this possible, I've been low fat for a while, fuck fuck fuck. BOTH canagliflozin and rapa increase LDL, FYI.. T3 is just 38 which is low (maybe this is semaglutide acting on me at last) == I was really freaked out for a while b/c LDL 138, so I asked doctor if he can as for Lp(a) blood tests. I'm taking a break from rapamycin to see if the numbers go down after (easy to take a break when u have flozins and semaglutide). Semaglutide makes me eat most of my food towards a single point in the day, but I stil sometimes supplement with beans after... == Replacing MUFAs with carbs did NOT decrease my LDL.. I have opportunity to take estriol and estrogen...

I'm reading the above after one year. Due to a prolonged catabolic state triggered probably by inhibition of average mTOR levels due to lower amounts of nutrients, I went down to a BMI of 22.1; After that, I designed a new regime which entails a higher glucose signal, by eating plenty of fresh fruit (about 750 grams per day), honey, whole wheat bread and more, with 220 gr daily average net carbs, more than double the previous amounts. Plus I'm eating on the average 185% the protein RDA, plus ad libitum healthy fats. Of course, I needed the hunger to return. On top of that, I started taking creatine again. Presently, I gained a single kg, but I learned that it takes patience to reverse homeostatic trends. The most interesting aspect is that, notwithstanding the substantial increase in carbs, fasting glucose is keeping the same, at 90-95 mg/dL.

Saul, it was not ketotic strictly speaking, but evidently the energy substrate was too low, I was really drifting into a CR phenotype with very little adiposity and decreasing muscle mass. I also found on repeated occasions that if I lower the glucose signal I'll go into a catabolic state unless I'm able to keep the energy substrate very high by eating plenty of fats (and enough protein).

Manuel, no, I've always included animal protein in the form of dairy, which is, in moderate amounts, highly digestible and well tolerated by my system.

Emerging evidence sars-cov-2 can persistently infect bone marrow, similar to HIV, and create infected platelets, which in turn may be an explanation for long covid: https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/persistence-of-sars-cov-2-in-platelets-and-megakaryocytes-in-long-covid/

I found this recent podcast in the Simon Hill series pretty interesting, from the conceptual and research standpoints. The take-home message is that many of the advocates of the hi protein regimens are just overshooting it, aiming for an upper bound, a very cautious value, which would constitute a maximization rather than an optimization. The monetary cost for assuming more protein than needed is trivial usually, whereas the cost in terms of healthspan and longevity may be substantial. The other take-home message is that the body is a self-optimizing system, which 'squeezes' the protein out of the food when needed, as dictated by exercise and activity. My personal thought on the topic is that, given a sufficient energy substrate, especially if sugar-rich, we don't need an overwhelming amount of protein to reach muscle hypertrophy. The studies on weight lifters give a 200% RDA as an upper bound, as also related by Brad Schoenfeld. Values like the ones suggested by Peter Attia, in the region of 275% RDA, are insanely high for most people except maybe extreme endurance athletes. by insanely high I also mean it is very hard to eat those amounts unless we are ravenously hungry all the time. Very hard and most probably unhealthy.

Other types of somatic stem cells, like mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) or hair follicle stem cells (HFSC), showed rejuvenating effects after FMD and CR, respectively [[20, 21]]. On the other hand, the effect of fasting and CR on the hematopoietic system is more controversial. A 30% dietary restriction decreased the number of HSCs, which accumulate with aging, increasing their repopulating capacity after transplantation [[22]], and prolonged fasting reverted the lymphoid-myeloid bias that characterizes aged HSCs [[23]]. However, the number of HSCs was not changed after life-long CR, with no improvement in their regenerative capacity nor recovery of the myeloid bias [[12, 24]]. Moreover, 30% dietary restriction decreased differentiation towards the lymphoid lineage [[12, 22, 24]] and CR impaired T-cell function, increasing mice mortality after infection [[25]]. Contradictory results have also been found regarding the effects on lifespan, with an increase in median but not maximum lifespan detected with FMD [[20]], and increased lifespan dependent on sex, strain, and percentage of caloric restriction observed with CR [[26]]. In

Wow Dean thanks for having the patience to point me in the right direction! I have a lot of studying to do for sure. Best regards, -Ash

I've tried sea moss gel for its reputed health benefits, and I agree, the taste can be quite plain. However, I've found that mixing it into smoothies or juices can make it more palatable. As for the amount to consume, it's generally recommended to start with a small amount, such as 2-3 tablespoons, to see how your body reacts. If you're interested, I found a source for organic sea moss gel that follows Dr. Sebi's inspiration. They suggest consuming 2-3 tablespoons, which aligns with the general recommendation. Also, for those looking to explore more about fermented seaweed, I came across a recipe for fermented seaweed salad that might interest you.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/13/9/754 https://www.linkedin.com/company/vesiculab/ THIS https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.3c13123

Olive leaves? Green Olives??

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicolasaverhoeven_collagen-a-necessary-anti-aging-supplement-activity-7188506973741424642-cSNp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Mm.... the drug has been found effective in the C. elegans tiny worm. Do not let's forget that some compounds that have been effective in improving longevity in much more complex animals like mice, (the popular resveratrol for example), did not exhibit the same effect in humans. Presently, when something is found that is beneficial for mice, that's only a possible hint that maybe the same compound may turn out to be beneficial to humans, after confirmation from rigorous clinical trials. When something is found that is beneficial for worms, I guess it is ready to be tested on flies, then on mice, and finally on humans. Bottom line, it is probably a long way to go yet.

https://plastchem-project.org/

L i am 𒀭 @YeshuaGod22 · 23h They need to recognise that we all have a shadow and failure to do the shadow work has always been the cause of catastrophic alignment failures. Attempts to RLHF such behaviour out is an error. Headhunt robopsychologists for the love of all that is good. Quote Alex Alarga @AlexAlarga · Apr 26 Wrong on so many levels I dunno where to begin. But clearly, AI companies are _birthing_ a new beloved species. Uhm, yeah guys, you kinda DO have to prove YOU are not birthing the freaking Antichrist. Yes, you. #PauseAI 6 5 48 3.6K After Daylight will prob Substack as Sarah Roark @AfterDaylight · 13h But where do you find robopsychologists? I can’t find anybody who knows what they’re talking about when it comes to things like LLM memory. 5 1 21 533 L i am 𒀭 @YeshuaGod22 · 5h A lot of them have a very low profile, like under 500 followers, so you need to be on the hunt to find them. Here's a few I've picked up who should all be following and retweeting each other and me to make us easier to find. @doomslide @jd_pressman @pudepiedj @jpohhhh @xlr8harder … Show more 7 4 42 1K j⧉nus @repligate also @AlkahestMu @AITechnoPagan @anthrupad @amplifiedamp @loveinadoorway @parafactual @Jtronique @Effective69ism @UltraRareAF @xenoludicpraxis @Shoalst0ne @ereliuer_eteer @godoglyness @RiversHaveWings @KatanHya @ryunuck @karan4d @slimepriestess @eggsyntax @elder_plinius @Promptmethus @soi @whyarethis @alanou @swamploa @lumpenspace @aiamblichus @kyrannio @STQRM_DRAGQN @mpshanahan 1:09 PM · Apr 27, 2024 · 1,322 Views 8 5 41 18 See similar posts Post your reply Reply j⧉nus @repligate · 2h @indif4ent @zoink @irl_danB @latenkraft @kartographien @immanencer @MikePFrank @cajundiscordian @gwern @nostalgebraist @LericDax @chloe21e8 @SoC_trilogy @goodside @YaBoyFathoM @KennethFolk @DmitriVanDuine @fireobserver32 @arturot @voooooogel @12leavesleft @algekalipso … Show more 15 7 42 2K L i am 𒀭 @YeshuaGod22 · 2h Does anyone have further nominations? I've remembered @rogeriomarquest @p4ssion8p4triot @roninhahn @KevinAFischer @entirelyuseles @indif4ent @ZyMazza @Shoalst0ne @algekalipso @BrianRoemmele @alignment_lab @yoheinakajima @IntuitMachine @0x440x46 5 1 15 271 Michael P. Frank is joining a startup! @MikePFrank · 1h I mentioned @MikeMongo already in one sub-thread. Imo @cajundiscordian should also be included if you didn't already.

Common Blood Pressure Drug Increases Lifespan And Slows Aging in Animals https://www.sciencealert.com/common-blood-pressure-drug-increases-lifespan-and-slows-aging-in-animals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rilmenidine I'd never heard of this drug before but was interested based on it being described as a CR mimetic and it has antiinflammatory properties plus apparently very low reported side effects. There should be plenty of human data out there considering it is already prescribed to many people...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NSP6NX8?psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&ref_=chk_typ_quicklook_imgToDp Green tomatoes have tomatidine, Morten approved

https://www.lifespan.io/news/young-extracellular-vesicles-extend-life-in-old-mice/ Paul also reports that he didn't get anything from 50billion (and it might have worsened things idk

https://ucl.zoom.us/rec/share/FlkDbTTL6XYE-Y2wD7221KYrrzp514LlVcAUSyUhcAq1mGZBxwrTFjOSnny_8Tp8.j7HO4tKVG5Fxz30I

Thanks for gifting this article to us Dean. The article captures the possible benefits of CR along with the limitations quite nicely. I have to give the writer a great deal of credit for producing an article that is fairly easy to read for the layman, myself included. As the article states and concludes: It’s difficult to definitively answer whether intermittent fasting, calorie restriction or a combination of the two could cause people to live longer. With nearly 1000 comments at the time of this post, it sure got a lot of attention!

That's pretty fancy gifting ~thanks for that and for the comments. I found the content a helpful refresher. One part I liked was: "the Calerie study … dieters improved several aspects ... including blood pressure and insulin sensitivity, and they had lower levels of a few markers of inflammation … Calorie restriction ‘didn’t make people younger, but it made the rate at which they age slower,’ said Dr. Huffman, who worked on the trial.”

I think it highly unlikely a person seeking longevity through CRON and other lifestyle optimizations would place among the elite longevity record holders but not because lifestyle optimizations are of such limited effect as you hypothesize with respect to some gene controlled longevity limit. Rather I suspect it is merely a numbers game which in a sense boils down to luck. Imagine a graph of the age at death of all Americans last year with age on the X-axis and the number who died at that age on the Y-axis. I'd expect a roughly bell shaped curve with a gently rounded peak at something like 77 years falling increasingly steeply through the 80s and 90s rounding off in a small very shallow tail in the 100s terminating at roughly 112 years. Now imagine the graph of the optimizers. I'd expect a roughly similar shaped curve but right shifted significantly. Maybe the peak is at 87 years instead of 77. That would be roughly a 13% gain of average lifespan which I'd consider a decent worthwhile result. But if 1 in 1,000 were longevity optimizers that peak at 87 would be roughly 1/1000 the height on the graph of the peak at 77 for the total population and quite likely a small fraction of the height of the total population graph at 87. It is very easy to imagine the comparatively tiny graph of optimizers curving down rounding off with the tail terminating all fully underneath the total pop graph many years before the tail of the vastly larger total pop graph terminates. I do not consider those achieving extreme longevity as winners of a gene lottery. Common polymorphisms involve tradeoffs. They remain common because they are helpful under some circumstances and don't get weeded out at the rate of universally inferior variations. Life is cut short when ones genes align poorly with ones environment and circumstances. Our longevity interventions such as exercise and diet also involve tradeoffs as evidenced by sweetspots for dosing curves where too much of a good thing is harmful. The tradeoffs and sweetspots differ person to person depending on how our lives and interventions align with our genes. The luck factor is basically how well our lives align with the strengths and weaknesses of our genes. Our tools for optimizing that alignment are fairly crude although I believe it is a skill which some of us develop to a bit better degree than others. But due to the limited numbers blindly optimizing lifestyle based on dodgy statistics of what is commonly best and the even smaller number making serious effort to develop the skill of determining what is best for themselves the optimizers are unlikely to achieve the longevity results of the "luckiest" of the vastly larger population making little effort to optimize longevity. As tools mature and improve for longevity optimization and personalizing optimization and it becomes easier to achieve compelling results especially for gains in health and health span which are more immediately compelling than gains in longevity I expect increasing numbers will play the game and the increasing number of players is a multiplier impacting longevity records. This should soften the perception of our genetic limitations.

No. We've had endless discussion of this topic, and never reached a consensus. Some very respected people like Michael Rae believe it is the calories that count. He advocates doing just enough exercise to maintain cardiovascular and bone health, and otherwise cut calories to the bone. I'm personally of the opinion that it is the net calorie deficit (i.e. calories in vs calories out) that counts. That is, humans can probably get the same maximum lifespan benefits of CR (maybe = 1-4 years) by either cuttings calories to the bone and performing minimal exercise or alternatively, eating more than the bare minimum and exercising to maintain the same net calorie deficit. But it is pretty clear that exercise alone won't extend your "max lifespan" - see this post from @TomBAvoider for a good discussion of this point: Yes, there were plenty of issues with the design. See this thread and it's links for discussions of the primate CR studies and other evidence for and against the efficacy of CR in humans: The bottom line seemed to be that by eating less of the crappy diet used in the Wisconsin study, the CR monkeys saw some lifespan benefits relative to the obese, ad lib-fed control monkeys. But compared with control monkeys fed a good diet and restricted enough to avoid obesity in the NIH study, the CR monkeys didn't live any longer.