Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

914 profile views
  1. TomBAvoider

    Nuts and Mortality

    I personally have nothing against pot - morally - I believe everyone should be free to ingest/smoke whatever it is they desire and it's nobody else's business. I've also read a lot of positive articles about a variety of possible health benefits of pot. I avoided it partially out of inertia - I'm not a smoker or vaper and make no effort to become one - but also simply because there are so many compounds in pot that it's hard to know what you're getting. It's a big bag of "mystery chemicals" - which makes me personally uneasy. That said, I don't think occasional smoking is harmful and the cyanide levels you cite don't seem alarming, assuming it can even be traced to pot. YMMV.
  2. You're right, Dean, we all have individual genetic profiles, and that certainly has an impact in what the optimal diet is, but of course, it is not the only factor. It's only a matter of time before we all will have to adjust our diets very specifically to our own individual situation. It'll be the death of mass nutrition study recommendations, except as public health research - what applies to 60% of some population, may be exactly wrong for you.
  3. As we all know, biological age does not match up perfectly with calendar aging. And we know that various organs age at various rates. The organ or system that's the weakest link is the one that will eventually kill you (if you die of "old age pathologies"). Based on that, some scientists have developed the concept of ageotype - if your metabolism ages fastest, then your ageotype is metabolic, if your immune system ages fastest, then your ageotype is immune system, if liver, or kindeys or heart etc. - well, that's your ageotype. When you know your ageotype, you know your weakes link, and should focus your energies on that system to keep the whole organism going longer. Now, it appears that some systems and organs decline in most humans much faster than others as a rule - the heart declines after age 40, while the liver seems to just keep going and going, and the retina seems practically ageless. What is your ageotype? Why your organs might reach 100 even if you don't "But Snyder is certain we are entering an age of more personalised approaches to anti-ageing interventions. “One-size-fits-all doesn’t cut it,” he says. “Exercise and good diet can help overall, but if your heart or kidney is wearing down you may need to do more directed strategies.”" Bingo. Medicine is becoming more and more personalized. What is the optimal diet for you - not just generic advice about F&V. What is the optimal exercise for you - not just generic advice about aerobic and strength training. What are the best drug interventions for you - not just say, rapamycin or the next "wonder drug". And so too for slowing down aging, prolonging lifespan and healthspan - you need a program specifically designed for YOU. "One size does not fit all" indeed. You can read all the articles about strategies to reach 100, dietary advice, lifestyle tips and so on - but it doesn't matter in the end if it works for others but not for YOU. So what is your ageotype and what are you doing about it?
  4. TomBAvoider

    Path to Longevity (new book) by Luigi Fontana

    I agree with Ron wrt. Sibirak's intent.
  5. Someone calculated that the radiation from eating a banana shortens your life by 3 seconds (sorry, I don't remember where I read it), most likely it's nonsense (although bananas are radioactive). Nonetheless, many would claim that other health benefits of the banana must offset the (most likely non-existent) 3 second life-shortening effect. Unquestionably, even a single meal like that from the Heart Attack Grill does some health damage, but I imagine that this deletrious effect disappears completely with enough time spent consuming a good diet - to the point where your life is not shortened by a single milisecond or your healthspan compromised even in miniscule ways. Therefore, it seems to me, there is no harm in a rare - emphasize rare - indulgence in a visit to the Heart Attack Grill. As such, this sensationalistic story is far less shocking than might be supposed - even for the readers of these boards.
  6. TomBAvoider

    Path to Longevity (new book) by Luigi Fontana

    Funny. Being familiar with a lot of the research this book seems to be based on - once I read the table of contents, I feel like I read the book! Joking aside, I might pick it up at some point, although I don't expect many surprises. I guess that's the downside of too much reading in the subject area, hard to come across genuinely novel stuff :)
  7. TomBAvoider

    The Intermittent Fasting Advantage

    My problem with Keliot's post is that he offers no evidence, yet holds very strong opinions on the subject. Agreed. I too of course practice limited-window feeding (around 18 hours 5 days a week and 22 hours 2 times a week), and subjectively feel fine - my labs are somewhat better for it (certainly not worse), at least that which I'm tested for, and as I wrote previously, I find the practical advantages of time management to be very substantial benefits. So even if it were shown to have no health benefits, I'd engage in it just for that reason alone. I'm hoping there'll be more research into this, so we can develop more science-based regimens - cause a lot of it is "seat of the pants" at the moment :).
  8. TomBAvoider

    The Intermittent Fasting Advantage

    I always found stuff like this rather underwhelming. So fasting for less than 13 hours will increasy (by 36%) your chance of the RECURRANCE of breast cancer. But the very same conditions (fasting less than 13 hours) will NOT increase your chance of actually dying from breast cancer or dying from anything at all, i.e. all-cause mortality. This says to me, that unless I ALREADY have had breast cancer which is in remission, this finding is completely irrelevant to me. I mean, it even implies that while fasting less than 13 hours *might* make the breast cancer recur the cancer it won't kill me*. And that's if it even does make the cancer recur in the first place - that's not 100% I'm getting it, it's 36% increased risk, i.e. if the risk is 10 in a 1000, my risk increases to 14 in a 1000, and my risk of death increases by 0%, just as if I had not had it recur (from the point of view of death). Pretty weak sauce if you ask me. *I am male, but I assume this applies to women's breast cancer, not men's.
  9. It seems the situation with SFA is as confused as ever. The Cochrane Review reached the conclusion that SFA were not the primary driver of CV mortality, although substituting some SFA with polyunsaturated FA reduced CV morbidity (not mortality!) - though again, it may be a small factor: Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease "Authors' conclusions: The findings of this updated review are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on reduction of saturated fat intake. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat appears to be a useful strategy, and replacement with carbohydrate appears less useful, but effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat were unclear due to inclusion of only one small trial. This effect did not appear to alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk. Lifestyle advice to all those at risk of cardiovascular disease and to lower risk population groups should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturated fats. The ideal type of unsaturated fat is unclear." But I keep thinking about Finland and France - both take in about the same amount of SFA, but Finland's intake has a greater proportion of intake from dairy products and meanwhile the Finnish diet does not offset that intake with the amount of F&V that the French diet does. And I keep remembering the harrowing epidemic of sky-high deaths from heart attack in Finland, and how they brought it down dramatically with the reduction of SFA intake from diary... seemingly indicting SFA. Here's an interesting comparative study: Differences in Coronary Mortality Can Be Explained by Differences in Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Intakes in 40 Countries but Not in France and Finland. A Paradox "Conclusions: Over the years, France and Finland, with similar intakes of cholesterol and saturated fat, consistently have had very different CHD mortality rates. This paradox may be explained as follows. Given a high intake of cholesterol and saturated fat, the country in which people also consume more plant foods, including small amounts of liquid vegetable oils, and more vegetables (more antioxidants) had lower rates of CHD mortality. On the other hand, milk and butterfat were associated with increased CHD mortality, possibly through their effects on thrombosis as well as on atherosclerosis." Now, I know this is an epi study, so all appropriate caveats apply, but in general the case of Finland weighs pretty heavily in my mind - after all, the governmental intervention was in effect a kind of "intervention study", even if it's still epi. So, moved by that and a lot of other studies on the effects of SFA, I personally avoid SFA. Does it mean the case against SFA is fool-proof - no. But I'm not taking the risk, since I have access to other FA and SFA are not EFA. YMMV.
  10. If we don't develop immunity - or develop it for only very short periods of time - then the Swedish strategy has to be looked at again. Incidentally, it appears that "herd immunity" is developing much more slowly in Sweden (16%) compared to other countries like Italy (Lombardy region above 50%), and behind schedule. But if there is no herd immunity to be had, then there are three main takeaways - huddle at home waiting for a vaccine... impractical, IMHO, because I don't have much faith that an effective vaccine will be developed anytime soon (probably years and years), and then it might be no better than some of these flu vaccines which still result in widespread illness and death. Second, you could just throw up your arms and open everything up and let Darwin take over and try to live a normal life insofar as possible. Or - which I suspect will end up happening - resume life, but with all sorts of onerous limitations (CA's mandatory masks look like might become the norm).
  11. Yes, I imagine the next step is to identify which molecules are the ones which are responsible for the effect, by systematically adding them, one by one and in combinations and seeing when the mice are affected. Once you have a list of compounds that the body produces and which are delterious, then you can take that information and see if the production of some of these might not be blocked upstream - I'd guess that way we'd discover more senolytics, and perhaps after running some studies we might find the ones which are beneficial without side effects. It's an exciting discovery, but I doubt it's very practical at this stage as far as implementation - meanwhile, one can hope more research can be funded to turn this into something practical wrt. new senolytics.
  12. This strikes me as a very important result. Everyone knows about parabiosis - but the fundamental question was regarding the mechanism: 1)Was it substances from the YOUNG mouse that rejuvinated the old mouse or 2)Substances from the OLD mouse that were diluted by blood from the young mouse This new result argues strongly and IMO convincingly that it's the second scenario. This is a very exciting result. It means that senolytics is the way to go forward, to get results, at least in the short term. And incidentally, this particular procedure seems easy and with minimal side effects. Here's the expermiment and result, and well worth reading the whole article Diluting blood plasma rejuvenates tissue, reverses aging in mice "They found that the plasma exchange process acts almost like a molecular reset button, lowering the concentrations of a number of pro-inflammatory proteins that become elevated with age, while allowing more beneficial proteins, like those that promote vascularization, to rebound in large numbers."
  13. Hmm. I have written about this before - I personally keep a detailed "health diary". Every day, I enter a variety of health-related information, in code (to make it faster). For example, my supplements for the day will be coded something like SUP022319 - which is the code for the list of supplements I take, last revised on 02/23/2019, and if I want to see what that list is, I can go to a filder with text files for each list - when the list gets revised (adding or subtracting a supplement), I make a new list reflecting those changes and affix a date. Currently my list has last been revised on 05/25/2020, so the code is SUP052520. Each day I enter the code for the supplement list I'm taking (if I skip a given supplement, I make a note on that day's diary), I enter a code for whether I took in excess calories that day CO (Calorie Overload), whether I drank coffe, quality of sleep, any aches or pains or symptoms, or medical issues, medication use, blood pressure etc. - each day's entry takes about 2 minutes. For bloodwork results I keep an excel file. I can therefore tell you everything that happened to me health-wise on any given day in the past 15 years or so - whether I had a headache, or took ibuprofen, how hard and how long I exercised, and so on. Thus, if I need to check on any symptom, I can give extremely detailed accounting of what started when etc. - invaluable at a doctor's office, where I take that data on an iPad. I've been a patient with a primary doctor and any specialists at UCLA Medical Center in Westwood since the mid 80's. Astoundingly, I found out a few years ago, that they didn't keep all of the patient records forever - for example, they don't have all my records from the 80's or early 90's, I guess before the era of widespread computer use, they'd purge paper records on a schedule. However, things have progressed pretty massively in the last few years - now UCLA has electronic records that are accessible to patients, so that all my blood results and all office visits and all tests are in one place, and you can actually graph your results through the years, so I can see what, say, my cholesterol has been doing through the years - it's searchable and very thorough. I wish I could graph the data like that from my diary! What I'm saying is, that what you want already exists in various forms out there - there probably are apps that do that, that you can download and put on your iPad/tablet, phone or computer? Something to explore!
  14. TomBAvoider

    Is a healthy diet the same for everyone?

    Again, one can't simply say "genes determine the best diet for you" - because as pointed out, even with identical twins you can still have radically different diets that are optimal. Even when genes determine some 25% of your diet, you still have 75% left. It's one thing to establish something, and an altogether different one to put into practice. At this point there really can't be much dispute that the "optimal diet" is a highly individual thing. But how do you determine just what that optimal diet is for a given individual is a completely different matter. I'm quite confident that the day will arrive when everyone will undergo tests to determine what diet, lifestyle and medication regimen is optimal for you specifically, but that day is still quite a ways off, unfortunately. For now, it's all a matter of trial and error. Monitor your physiological reactions closely and experiment - that's the only thing at your disposal today. Very lacking, but it is what it is.
  15. Or at least that's the hope. Another tool in the toolbox - trying to determine one's biological age. Still seems early days though and needs to be validated: Eye scanner can determine real biological age in humans