Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Matt

  • Birthday 10/21/1984

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,047 profile views
  1. Eyes closed and on your weakest leg? I've not found anything to say that you can significantly improve this with practice. Some people keep saying that but I've not seen anyone provide any evidence for this. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though! There might be some level of adaptation in the brain by further compensating for degradation of sensory input, but I'd be surprised if it was that significant. But I think some people are just misunderstanding what it's testing. From what I understand, this is NOT primarily about muscle strength in the leg or something like that, although it is part of it. You can't just make your legs stronger and hugely better. As people age, they lose vestibular function and equilibrium. Unless you can regenerate new hair cells, it's going to be difficult to improve on this kind of test because when you close your eyes, you're relying on proprioception, the integrity of the vestibular system, central nervous system to correctly maintain balance without the use of the visual system. The only real thing you can do here to perform well on this test is to either a) regenerate these cells or b) slow the rate of damage and cell loss (as what happens with long term calorie restriction in animals). -- "Clinically, progressive dysequilibrium of aging presents as gradually worsening balance due to age-related decline in function of the peripheral vestibular system, central nervous system, vision, and musculoskeletal system. Vestibular function testing has shown clear evidence of age-related changes in peripheral and central sites. Histopathologic changes in the vestibar sensory organs include progressive hair cell degeneration, otoconial degeneration in the otolith organs, and decreasing number of Scarpa's ganglion neurons." "Results show a highly significant continuous decrease in all counts from birth to age 100, best fit by a linear regression model. Type I hair cell counts in all three semicircular canal cristae decrease at a similar rate, significantly faster than the degeneration observed in type I hair cells of the maculae. Type II hair cell counts decline at the same rate for all 5 sensory epithelia. These normative data provide the basis for comparisons to hair cell counts made in temporal bones from subjects with known vestibular disorders" [2]. 1. Age-Related Vestibular Loss: Current Understanding and Future Research Directions https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25567421/ 2. Decreasing hair cell counts in aging humans https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11710464/
  2. That is really good. And that was with your eyes closed and not hopping around? 😄 I've repeated the test a quite a number of times now and I can normally get between 90-120 seconds. But that dropped to near 60 seconds the more I tried (without a rest), as my foot and muscles were burning lol. I've gotten quite a lot of people to do this test now and most of them fall close to where you'd expect on the graph in the original post. The ones that have been on CR for extended periods of time and who really do seem young for their age (I expected they'd do well), were able to do significantly better. This is one of the tests Roy Walford proposed checking from time to time in the book 120 Year Diet. Functional tests that decline for everyone with age and can't be as easily changed compared to something like cholesterol. But with CR, you'd expect to see a delayed deterioration. Also, I should mention , the study I referenced in the 2nd link (Normative Values for the Unipedal Stance Test with Eyes Open and Closed), used a different study design where they crossed their hands over their chest. This is much harder. I performed this test as well I'm well above what is expected for my age. Eyes closed, arms crossed, standing on weak foot: 42 s, 66 s, 44 s. Only a few seconds rest between tries though. Back to the original test (no arms crossed), this the results in children / teenagers. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Single-leg-balance-on-stable-surface-eyes-closed_fig3_236908767
  3. Has anyone tried the one leg static balance test? I first tried it in 2005 when I bought "The 120 Year Diet". It was the last time I tried the test until yesterday! I managed to get about 1 minute 30 seconds. My age is 35y, 11m. How well do you do? My father is 65 and managed about 5-6 seconds. My brother who is 40 managed about 15-17 seconds. They are close to what is expected for their age. Your ability to stand on one foot with your eyes closed drops sharply with age. If you're right handed, balance on your left foot. Left handed, use right foot. Stand with feet close together and lift foot about 6 inches off the ground. Don't move your foot that you're balancing on. If you try this, be safe about it! Maybe have someone around close to you while you try. A decrease in balance may indicate brain abnormalities (eyes open) and even increased mortality for those over 50 (eyes closed). As you age, there will be a loss of vestibular function and also other age-related changes take place in the central nervous system that makes it harder to balance. As people get older, they rely more on the visual system - even when eyesight is also failing. A lot of people think this is merely just practice and you need to exercise... but it's more than just stronger leg muscles. Michael and Joe try the test in the video below: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287201 https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2219 https://geriatrictoolkit.missouri.edu/balance/Normative_Values_for_the_Unipedal_Stance_Test_Springer-JGPT.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2219?
  4. At the end of the year it'll be 4 years since I was last struck down ill with a cold or flu. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I will sometimes experience what seems like the beginning of a cold like a scratchy throat but it's typically gone within hours and doesn't develop further. It's about 11-12 years since I last had a full blown norovirus infection with all the symptoms. So I've not vomited in 12+ years either. I have had what seems to be the start of norovirus, but allicin has never failed to get rid of very early symptoms within hours. Typically those will be nausea and a feeling of pressure under the rib cage where the stomach is located. Could be a coincidence that I stopped getting sick since using zinc and allicin, but who knows. 🙂 I do know allicin has antiviral properties, and getting it into the stomach is pretty straight forward. But it's not been tested against norovirus? Only against stomach issues related to bacteria like h plyori, where it seems effective.
  5. Matt

    1 week of CR

    Please don't copy me. I have a small body frame and I'm only 5ft 7"
  6. Matt

    New to CR, have 4 basic questions

    Unfortunately, there is no perfect answer. We don't even know how much CR is too much. And it probably varies depending on the person as well... I can give you my own experience from started at a young age: When I was 18 years old, I removed sugar from my diet, changed bread and cereals to wholewheat, I stopped fizzy drinks, added more fruit to my diet, etc. It resulted in a weight loss drop without intentionally cutting calories. But calories were cut just by doing this. And so I count this as the first stage towards CRON. It was CR, but not intentional. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I found a notepad with my weight on them from that time and I think it was about 135-140 lbs. I'm 5ft 7" So I assume that was my set point. But I was 18 years old... not in my early 20s. After two years of that, I started a strict CRON diet and reduced my weight from something like 123-124 lbs to 104 lbs at my lowest (BMI 16.3) I maintained this for about 6-7 years an then increased to around 1700 k/cal for 2-3 years from 1550k/cal. Eventually I got to about BMI 17.5 and maintained this for a while. Gradually, my weight got to about 18-18.5 and stayed there for some years. In 2005 at 20-years-old, eating 1550 k/cal per day (measured everything) I could only maintain a BMI of 16.3 IN 2020 at almost 36-years-old, I eat 1500 k/cal per day, my BMI today is 18. But I still maintain the same CR biomarkers at a higher weight. My metabolism just seems to have slowed. I've now added in a bit more exercise 3 x per week. Ultimately, your guide should also be your blood work and seeing if it matches up what we see in people on CR. And also what weight you're comfortable being. You restrict until you feel it's too much and you're too skinny. You be objective about your own health and quality of life. You track biomarkers like thyroid, glucose, insulin, IGF-1, body temperature, cholesterol, inflammation, blood pressure and more. Are they consistent with being on CR? You won't reach the levels of the most severe CR imposed on rodents without looking extremely skinny. So in the end, it doesn't matter for most people as they would not put up with that. Personally, I would not go below a BMI of 17.5 again. That would be my limit.
  7. Matt

    New to CR, have 4 basic questions

    You're restricting from your previous ad lib intake, that is the important part and how it's CR is implemented. You reduce weight by 10-25% below your natural 'set point' or where your weight gravitates to in your early 20s, assuming you're not obese or something. This will induce the CR phenotype that is protective against diseases of aging and may extend lifespan. Two books you should read: Dr Roy Walford - 120 Year Diet Dr Luigi Fontana - The Path to Longevity It's not about weight. Although, in rodents, those in the CR group who are able to hold onto more fat when they're restricted, tend to do better and live longer. But they're still really skinny compared to ad lib controls.
  8. Matt

    New to CR, have 4 basic questions

    You would be colder (men with lower body temperature live longer and lower body temperature seems to be part of the protective effects of CR). And no, you won't always be shivering cold. My body temperature is 35.5 degrees C and I'm fine. You adapt to it. No, being young and skinny is not the same as being old and frail. I had a BMI of 16, weighing around 106 lbs. I was benching 60-70 kg. That is more than my body weight and definitely not "frail". My BMI now is about 18. Sex drive can decrease for people on CR but it's different for everyone. If you're young, you probably won't be as impacted. When I was 20 and on strict CR with a BMI of 16, my libido did not just vanish. You can see the benefits here. 😉 No, the diet is not about reaching a certain BMI. There is no good way to translate the level of restriction imposed on animals like mice and rats to humans. Ad lib intake varies a lot and so the best idea seems to be to reduce body weight by 10-15% if you're fairly skinny and up to 25% (if you're over a BMI of 25 when you start). You impose calorie restriction slowly. Drop calorie intake by 10% at a time over a long period of time. Maybe 10% drop every 3-4 months or something. No, you do not eat more calories on days you exercised. You don't "stop restricting" after weight loss. If you eat 1800 k/cal per day down from 2300, you will eventually stop losing weight and maintain. It's really up to you if you are comfortable with how you look at that point. Also take into consideration your quality of life and your blood work. You might end up below a BMI of 18, you might not. It depends on many factors. When I first started to CR, my BMI dropped to 16. Now, almost 18 years later, I can maintain a BMI of about 18 at a strict 1500 k/cal per day. In rodent experiments, CR mice are more active and are still running long after all the ad lib are dead. And no, they don't add in calories when their exercise more. You stick to the same calorie intake. It's worth doing some exercise like cardio and weightlifting. This is really up to you... it's a trade off. You stick to the same calorie intake, but if it's low enough, it will limit your muscle gains. But CR helps maintain muscle function and mass with age. If you're not compensating by increasing calories in the day(s) after intense exercise, you may lose more weight. So you accept the extra weight loss or you increase calories, thus reducing the level of restriction.
  9. Matt

    New to CR, have 4 basic questions

    yeah, but Roy started CR in his 60s and possibly died earlier due to Biosphere 2.
  10. Are you referring to Michael's voice? He explained what happened before on the CR email lists from what I remember.
  11. Matt

    New book on aging

    I'll buy the book soon, thanks mccoy for sharing it! I don't remember him thinking the NIA study was compromised in the same way when he was talking on the podcast. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist myself, but there is some interesting data that doesn't agree with what we see in humans based on the CALERIE study or Fontana's work on CRSociety members. Or what we see happen in rodents who do live longer. In the NIA study, the body weight of old onset CR vs the control was not really any different in the study. Does this agree with the effect we see of carefully imposed CR in humans? It does not. But their diet was healthier and they did weigh 15% less than the UW controls. And with that, lived quite a few years longer. So clearly quality of diet plays a role, too. But both studies were a mixed bag of results when it came to the response or lack thereof to CR. Michael already did a really good analysis on this so I won't go into any detail. But the inconsistent response to CR regarding hormones, glucose, cholesterol, triglyceride trajectories; especially for female CR monkeys: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3832985/figure/F9/ (and body weight in some cases). Mccoy said: It's probably true that each of us can tolerate CR to a lesser or greater degree, but understanding when we've pushed it too far is still difficult. There were follow up studies looking at predictors of whether or not CR works, and maintenance of body fat under extreme CR was an important one. Nothing new... as this was observed by researchers who studied CR mice or rats years ago. I've looked at cohorts and the numbers for offspring of nonagenarians centenarians and despite them at the time being close to our older CR Society members, their numbers with regards to cholesterol, glucose, blood pressure (systolic 142 +/- 19 for LLS cohort) are really not all impressive (see here). And as you know, they are predisposed to also living much longer and healthier. I think a person on life-long CR with a very healthy plant-based diet would be in much greater shape at 100 than your average centenarian. Luigi Fontana still appears to be fairly optimistic about the strong effect of CR on health and potentially lifespan. I've heard him several times saying that he expects people on moderate calorie restriction (and implementing several other strategies) to reach 100, 110, or even longer in some cases. I thought the study looking at the transcriptional profile of people on CR quite interesting but never got much attention. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714316/ It just shows that many of the important and common genes or pathways that regulate longevity in animals and humans are affected by humans on CR (from CR Society.) I don't know if CALERIE did anything similar? I'm still obviously very optimistic about the effect of CR in humans. I still think for most people, there is a lot of improvement than can be made to their healthspan and lifespan.
  12. Matt

    New book on aging

    I heard Nir Barzila talk on Peter Attia's podcast recently and he mentioned something new that I'd not heard before about the CR study in rhesus monkeys. Apparently, early on in Wisconsin study, the study the CR monkeys took a year break from CR because the care takers were being 'compassionate' and feeding the CR monkeys extra food. And it was the cause of the CR group gaining weigh and ending up similar to the ad lib monkeys. Does he talk about this in his book?
  13. Just five months after Biogen’s head of early R&D Anirvan Ghosh left the company to take up the CEO post at Unity Biotechnology, its key leading knee pain program has failed and been thrown onto the trash heap. The drug, known as UBX0101, had already traveled a rocky path: Last year, Unity posted phase 1 data linking UBX0101 to improved scores on pain symptom questionnaires in patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA), but the drug failed to statistically outperform placebo in the second part of the study. Unity, however, plowed on, seeing enough promise in the data to move the p53/MDM2 interaction inhibitor into phase 2. Unity recently completed enrollment in the 183-subject trial, setting it up to post top-line data in the second half of the year. Now the data are in, but they have proven grim reading: The 12-week results from the phase 2 study in patients with moderate to severe painful OA of the knee found that there “was no statistically significant difference” between any arm of UBX0101 and placebo. This was based from a baseline in WOMAC-A, an established measurement of pain in OA. “Given these results, Unity does not anticipate progressing UBX0101 into pivotal studies and will narrow the company’s near-term focus to its ongoing ophthalmologic and neurologic disease programs,” it said in a statement. These are earlier bets, and the setback is a major gut punch for the company. More here: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/buzzy-anti-ageing-biotech-unity-drops-leading-program-after-flop-shares-freefall
  14. Some numbers to possibly explain why I've been able to maintain a higher body body weight at a lower calorie intake in recent years? I've read that T4 is usually stable up until older ages, but I've seen trend downwards over several years. When I last got it measured, it was close to the CR group in WUSTL study, but they they were close to 60 years old. Serum fT4: Reference: 9.8 - 23.1 22.9 (2005) - start of strict CRON 20.2 (2005) 20.8 (2007) 19.2 (2007) 18 (2013) 13.9 (2016) - TSH 1.6 I saw a steady decrease in fT3 from 5.5 to 4.6 but never got it tested in 2016. I've been keeping a closer track to my calorie intake by measuring everything I eat. Some days are really low, but that's just because I forgot to input the data. I eat the same foods every day anyway, so it's probably similar to fully tracked days. A few days missing as I was unable to forgot to track but some are just due to adjusting sleeping pattern . I've not seen any weight loss at all... but I expected as much as I buy the same amount of food every week and I eat the same thing almost every day. So it seems to be true that I can now maintain a much higher weight at the same calorie intake as I was at when I first started CRON.
  15. Matt

    Studying "Boredom" - what it is, what it means

    I really don't even know when the last time I've felt bored... It was probably when I was a child or teenager. I always find something interesting to read about, watch, play, or do. I like simple things, a simple life and no drama. I don't need to go out all the time to keep my mind stimulated. In fact, I've been shielded and living at home with the parents for months now and I've actually not left the house. I too eat the same thing every day and never get bored of it. In fact, I REALLY look forward to my food, especially what I eat for breakfast. People are like: "do you ever get bored of eating the same thing every day?" And like Dean and probably some others here, I don't. I noticed how a lot of my old friends from my previous job would complain about boredem a lot on Facebook. The same people who'd criticize me for not going out and getting drunk with them all the time (I don't drink). Which I thought was kinda funny... I just have so many things that interest me... But I can even sit still in the garden and be totally fine as well. I haven't been bored in a really long time.