Starting low is, however, a good idea.
3 Likes
Certainly appreciate your perspective, but . . . in “do no harm”, I’m not trying treat a “condition / illness” . . . I am a pretty healthy 63 year old who would “normally” live another 20-25 years give or take.
I’m new to the forum, as I just started RAPA 4 months ago. Anecdotally from reading past threads, I’m seeing several members experiencing significant side effect – materially worsening Lipid panels, immune disregulation manifest in canker sores, bacterial skin infections and shingles, plus the known glucose metabolism side effects . . . I have already been taking low dose metformin more than a decade.
Canker sores are noted frequently because they are obvious. But one has to wonder, what other less obvious viral (or worse) manifestations are being unleashed by immune disregulation? Lots of smarter folks here than me, but trying to understand why a healthy person would risk a significant adverse event in the short term with the higher doses and short intervals discussed . . .
Alternately, seeing very few people citing short-term positive impacts – actually to the contrary on the day(s) of the dose . . . I’m concluding much of this is a pursuit on faith of possible benefits a decade or more down the road for me. Would certainly see it different if there were myriad reports here of short term positive improvements in biomarkers and functional measures – I may have missed those.
Regardless, why not start at very low dose and long interval, observe the mid-term effects over the 1st year or two and adjust from there – this is not rhetorical question . . . i.e. “First, do no harm”
3 Likes
Really appreciate the input – intuitively agree that having many smaller (hopefully) synergistic interventions is lower risk and potentially more effective than a handful of “big bets” . . . much like portfolio theory in finance. Erring on the side of low dose 100% agree – going to relook at some of my doses. Metformin already down at 500 mg / day.
4 Likes
Yea its not only lower in risk but also likely suitable for the aging situation (diseases of aging is another matter). Aging itself isnt a quantitative change but rather a decrease in the signal to noise ratio of the whole phenotype. Some interventions may significantly slow the overall rate of damage but they are rare.
4 Likes
Make sure you do at least annual kidney function tests. Lithium is nephrotoxic.
1 Like
The amount people are using for longevity purposes is in micro-dose levels, 1mg to 5mg or so. Not the multi-hundred mg levels used in bipolar disorder.
And related: Low-dose lithium may slow kidney aging
4 Likes
I would drop the NAC and CoQ10
3 Likes
Although I might agree that dropping NAC and CoQ10 relying on a page posted by an company (Novos Labs) which aims to promote their own supplement (Novos Core) is not the best thing to do.
There are, however, good arguments to cycle certain anti-oxidants such as Vitamin C.
These are the Novos Core ingredients
I wish people would say how ingredients are taken ie Magnesium as what form?
2 Likes
I take a lot of supplements as well and have decided that, rather than just supplementing based on good data about a nutrient, I would actually like to see if I can target better to my actual needs. I am extremely focus on high quality food but don’t know the nutrient load I am getting from all the vegetables, fruit, mushrooms, and proteins that I eat. Am I supplementing nutrients that I already have in abundance? Am I missing some area that just isn’t adequately covered in my intake? So… following the approach of precision medicine I have just ordered Search Tests
I am hoping to start to get a better picture of deficiencies, over consumption or just sufficient levels. In this way I am hoping to dial in my supplements.
3 Likes
(Gly) nac and coq10 supppletion are 2 of few on that list that actually has a bit of research supporting them
4 Likes
This is the problem with manufacturer papers. I personally don’t take either coq10 or NAC.
In a sense this is where examine.com are trying to go. I did try a paid account there, but in the end I find it better to go back to the original papers.
The problem is that dosage and timing of dosage are such important things that if they are not taken into account the conclusions are often not much use.
3 Likes
Great point – last Creatinine (6 months ago) was 121 so lots of room for improvement – will be careful and maybe do lithium every other day – intent was neuro-protection and I had read that it supports autophagy.
Helpful dialog – I’m pretty convinced on NAC plus Glycine given the latest research and CoQ10 given the preponderance of scientific support.
Quick update – I ceased the aspirin per the consensus here and reviewing the toxicity/kidney implications – I am learning some worrisome things about ALCAR and Choline which I take as Nootropics . . . promoting TMAO through activity of the microbiome – thinking of ceasing these given I get a lot of L-Carnitine and Choline through my diet . . . other thoughts here?
1 Like
Creatinine is meaningless as measure kidney function if you see not average or if you take creatine. There are much better tests (which I forgot 
)
2 Likes
Creatinine is not meaningless. It has a number of identified problems, but is a useful starting position.
2 Likes
Creatinine is confounded as I take 5 mg creatine per day . . .
1 Like
I have been taking 5 grams of creatine daily for most of the last 30 years with no detectable ill effects.
Do people recognize the literally billions of people that have taken aspirin with no ill effects?
I have been taking aspirin at least weekly and often daily since I was a child with no adverse effects. When I got my colonoscopy in my seventies the doctor said I had the cleanest colon he had ever seen, with zero polyps. I attribute this to my lifelong aspirin supplementation.
I am not recommending that anyone take aspirin because it may be harmful to a minority of people. I still take 82 mg daily.
3 Likes
I dont like undermining the prostaglandins more generally. I have done a little experimentation with aspirin. It appears to reduce cortisol which can be helpful. There is evidence that its effects last 36 hours on a straight line basis, but i dont want to lose any endogenous melatonin. Also i prefer managing the HPA axis rather than chemically suppressing cortisol.
1 Like
If you are an average skinny fat 40+ it overestimates, if you are active and supplement it underestimates. Cystatin C is much better
2 Likes
THoughtful reasoned approach . . . the most interesting application of biomarkers to actual nutrition in foods I have seen is by Michael Lustgarten PhD - - - you should follow him on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conquer+aging+or+die+trying
2 Likes