Blood biomarker profiles and exceptional longevity: comparison of centenarians and non-centenarians in a 35-year follow-up of the Swedish AMORIS cohort

Just published. The study is an interesting read. Some surprises for sure. Especially the low cholesterol camp would need to rethink the lower the better strategy and CR seems to have no difference. Dysregulated blood sugar seems to be the worst enemy of longevity.

11 Likes

It is only an assosciative study which is also using a less imprecise method of biomarker for heart disease risk. Total cholesterol is superceded by ldl and apob.
And if the graph is as someone else posted, the effect might be driven by those with low levels of cholesterol, which is most likely reverse causation from disease.

It doesn’t change anything for me regarding targeting low levels of apob or ldl. You do what you think is best.

6 Likes

By looking at all the U-curves, being overweight, pre-diabetic and having normal cholesterol levels seems to be the way to go if you are the type to put all of your trust into association studies while completely disregarding all intervention studies.
So eat your candy bars, longevity enjoyers!

2 Likes

To be a centenarian:
As usual cholesterol is not really correlated with bad outcomes except for the lowest quintile.
(7.2 => 278 mg/dl)
Glucose is bad and more glucose is worse.

3 Likes

In fact the whole figure is really interesting. Uric acid is the most predictive!
My uric acid is 220umol/l (3.7mg/dl) so I do like that study :slightly_smiling_face:

For total cholesterol and iron, higher levels increased the odds, and for glucose, creatinine, uric acid, ASAT, GGT, ALP, LD, and TIBC lower levels increased the odds of becoming a centenarian. A dose-response relationship was found for uric acid; individuals within the lowest quintile had almost twice the chance of reaching age 100 compared to those in the highest quintile.

2 Likes

I updated my post about my thoughts of this study.

I don’t want to go again into this cholesterol debate with you as it makes me a cholesterol denier.
I just want to stress that that cholesterol levels (LDL-C/apoB etc.) seems more important in young/middle age and less so when you get older and higher cholesterol levels might even be protective in old age. On ASCVD I have written extensively on other topics but just to stress it again while I believe cholesterol is causal I must add that from what I (could use collective we here too) is that it is just one piece of mosaic. I believe ASCVD is mostly metabolic disease and disease of arterial endothelium and that sterile inflammatory processes are more causal than LDL-C levels alone. And just keeping your LDL-C low will prevent it to some extent. I believe sedentary lifestyle, visceral fat, obesity, insulin resistance etc. play a major role and are more predictive of your long term ASCVD health than LDL-C. This focus on LDL-C (or TC for argument sake) is partially (in great part IMO) driven by pharma, just a look from the other side where we have spent 3 trillions (I have read an article a while ago, but haven’t checked the number) on lipid lowering medicines and the result is just more ASCVD deaths. Something is wrong here, don’t you think? A more balanced, total view is sometimes a better view, than focusing on just one detail.

2 Likes

And why don’t you think it’s because the duration of treatment is too short?

Haven’t ASCVD rates actually gone down in the past 20 years?

2 Likes

Right, I misinterpreted that part of the comment, thought it was about why there still is deaths from ascvd which I am very certain it is because treatment took too long to happen. Early apob lowering vaccine would probably eliminate most cases of heart disease. Basically if everyone was on a PCSK9 and/or CETP inhibitor from early life.

“We know what causes cardiovascular diseases and how to prevent it in general,” Roth said

1 Like

Deaths from cardiovascular disease surged 60% globally over the last 30 years: Report - World Heart Federation.

2 Likes

Am I looking at your chart correctly? Contrary to popular belief, it looks like low iron levels are detrimental, and high iron levels don’t make much difference.

2 Likes

I think you’re arguing for the sake of arguing and not trying to build an accurate world model over what’s true.
Your link is saying they are increasing globally, in low and middle income countries. What do you think they don’t have access to that the U.S has?

1 Like

“cholesterol levels (LDL-C/apoB etc.) seems more important in young/middle age”

My dad was never overweight, but had very high cholesterol levels. His doctor suggested he go on statins, he never did, and he loved his steak, and lamb, and pork, and even heavy whipping cream.

1 Like

OMG @AnUser please just stop and let’s agree that we disagree on this topic. But if you want I can use your argument, statins are dirt cheap and generic, so they should have plenty access.

This is just one of the studies on centenarians and blood markers and if you check some, you will find that higher levels of cholesterol are not detrimental, sometimes they are preferable to live to really old age… I don’t know why is it so, maybe centenarians are just people who are genetically better equipped to deal with higher levels or maybe higher is better or there is some other answer for that…

3 Likes

It literally mentions a region in your link where 50% of countries do not have CVD drugs in pharmacies etc.
And education and doctor access is important as well.
Do you read what you link and seek to gain clarity / a world model on this topic or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

2 Likes

I don’t buy that crap. Cholesterol is not detrimental to heart health. I wouldn’t give a shit if my cholesterol was at 500 lol. It is all but debunked. my dad as mentioned had it very high, my sister also and she loves her pecorino and Manchego. LOL

3 Likes

No clue what you are trying to say, and no I don’t trust Russians at all, nor anyone else with a vested interest in lying and then profiting from it. As for the vax I’d have to be a moron to take it if CDC itself had it in their website initially (then removed it later) that for me and my age group the regular flu virus was about twice more lethal. I NEVER had covid, I NEVER get/got the flu (last 15 years) and that is a 100% non-issue for me. Wish everything else was as concerning to me as covid.

2 Likes

@kansel are you ok? Little worried.

1 Like

I saw that also, that goes against a lot of things I’ve seen that iron is pro-oxidative and damages tissues… the only thing I could guess is maybe it was correlated with anemia and/or heart failure? People with heart failure have super low iron levels, and so maybe that was where the correlation could’ve come from…

4 Likes