I’m listening to it, but really struggling with how much to believe. When, say, Matt Kaeberlein or Peter Attia say something, I trust that it’s a mostly clean representation of current knowledge. But with Sinclair I really struggle to parse out what is reproducible science and what is hyperbole and wishful thinking. Does anyone else have this hesitation?
Yes, i have followed David Sinclair for over 15 years (started following the Guarente lab back in the day…). None of the compounds David has focused on seems to have panned out… Resveratrol, Sirtris small molecules… and now the NAD/NMM stuff, that still hasn’t shown any significant life extension effects in third party labs (that I’m aware of).
So yes, his actual track record is not so great. Few of his results seem to be reproduceable.
I think the issue is that he typically has some sort of commercial interest in the outcome , so has a tendency to overplay the results (which is just human nature, and is the problem behind conflict of interest, even if they are identified - nothing nefarious).
I find his analysis in areas he doesn’t have a commercial interest to be much more accurate (i.e. on rapamycin).
Neither Peter Attia or Matt Kaeberlein have much if any financial interest in the most interesting small molecules / aging therapeutics that they focus on - which seems to be a good thing, and makes their information much less biased and skewed (in my opinion).
I do enjoy Dr. Brad Stanfield’s youtube videos. They really got me started on longevity along with Dr. Sinclair. I think Dr. Brad gives advice he believes in. I also enjoy reading Dr. Sinclair’s Twitter feed.
Another couple of longevity youtube channels I enjoy
Yep, that has been the summary of my findings too, but to be clear - I have not read every single resveratrol paper out there. Sirtuins are real and replicated in other labs though.
I think there is also still a possibility that there is some other factor in a polyphenol extract of grape skin in a huge amount of resveratrol that may be needed as a combined SIRT1 activator. I haven’t seen anything yet but that’s just a hunch from very weak evidence in the “French paradox” studies, so I think it’s still a possibility to look for IMO. I’m not taking any resveratrol currently though and never have. But I can’t say for sure I never will when there’s more evidence.
My gut feeling is an overwhelming majority of people just see Harvard and don’t actually read research papers in depth. I’ve seen enough to avoid using brand names as a heuristic (i.e. case in point - Theranos founder went to Stanford) instead of actually doing the hard work of independent research. Nothing against Harvard - I’ve lived in Cambridge before and my dad managed clinical trials in the Harvard-MIT complex before - tons of great researchers overall.