We all struggle with overwhelming amounts of information in every aspect of life. In the space of longevity and Healthspan, who are your trusted sources? Add or subtract from my list.
Dr. David Sinclair
Dr. Peter Attia
Dr. Joan Mannick
Dr. Alan Green
Dr. Matt Kaeberlein
Dr. Rhonda Patrick
Dr. Brian Kennedy
Dr. Andrew Huberman
Dr. Matthew Walker
Good list. I am not familiar with Dr. Walker and not impressed by Rhonda Patrick. But other than that, I think your list is solid.
I would add Dr. Richard Miller from the ITP.
I would add Mike Lustgarten.
Good question. I have grown disillusioned with David Sinclair over the years… largely because of the issues brought up in this discussion with Richard Miller and Matt Kaeberlein: Aging: Separating the Science from the Snake Oil
Generally I like the information provided by Peter Attia. I’m sure he’s wrong on some things, but he’s got a full team reviewing literature on aging all the time, and is working with clients so I believe he has a good infrastructure and feedback loop that is based in reality (vs. just researchers who have minimal experience with patients/people). See this post: "Early" Longevity Program by Peter Attia Launches - #62 by RapAdmin
Joan Mannick is obviously a good and competent scientist, and has a lot of experience also in drug development at Novartis, and ResTORbio with mTOR inhibitors. But as with anyone in industry she’s got the conflict of interest with her new mTOR inhibitor startup Tornado Therapeutics - so I’m cautious with believing all the negatives she’s going to have to promote on rapamycin to support her own new drug development process.
Matt Kaeberlein is, in my view, very good because he has a long history in the research side, has no conflicts of interests with regard to mTOR inhibitors, and comes across as well-balanced (from my biased perspective, with regard to safety and experimentation (e.g. rapamycin).
Rhonda Patrick - seems to have a pretty good background working as a bench scientist with some of the top Biology of Aging researchers like Bruce Ames, and at the Salk Institute. See her resume here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickrhonda/
More here:
Rhonda Perciavalle Patrick has a Ph.D. in biomedical science from the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis TN and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis TN. She also has a Bachelor’s of Science degree in biochemistry/chemistry from the University of California, San Diego. She has done extensive research on aging, cancer, and nutrition.
Dr. Patrick trained as a postdoctoral fellow at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute with Dr. Bruce Ames. She investigated the effects of micronutrient (vitamins and minerals) inadequacies on metabolism, inflammation, DNA damage, and aging and whether supplementation can reverse the damage. In addition, she also investigated the role of vitamin D in brain function, behavior, and other physiological functions. In February of 2014 she published a paper in FASEB on how vitamin D regulates serotonin synthesis and how this relates to autism.
Brian Kennedy - a great background, PHD out of the Lenny Guarente Lab at MIT, worked and led the Buck Institute for years, now at NUS leading Singapore’s biology of aging effort, very interested in translational geroscience (getting it into the clinic as fast as possible). All good I think.
Andrew Huberman - not super familiar with him, watched a few of his podcasts. He’s a neuroscientist by background I believe. The key criticism I hear about him is that he strays pretty far away from his area of expertise… I’m not sure he’s the best person to follow with regard to say, red light therapy or cold plunges. But he gets reasonable people to to discuss things on the science side of things.
Matthew Walker - obviously an expert at Sleep, so I follow his sleep recommendations.
Another person I hear about in the longevity field is Mark Hyman, MD. I don’t follow him much. He seems like a pretty traditional longevity MD in that he’s focused on diet and exercise. This is fine, I just want more… Anyone else have any thoughts on him and follow him more closely?
Avi Bitterman
Gil Carvalho
Brad Stanfield
Nick Hiebert
I don’t follow self-proclaimed longevity/healthspan people except Stanfield and Peter Attia, the latter which someone already has mentioned. I put in order of preference.
You left out Steve Austad. He does have superpowers. I think it’s his ability to avoid bias. He is able to back up and look at things again and consider all possibilities. Not everybody can do this. I was going to buy his book, but this time of year, farming is kind of physical and days are long and I don’t have much time to read. I’ll get to it.
I agree with Chris on Rhonda. She is fun to listen to and very smart, but I’ve seen her very wrong, so check your facts.
No one.ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
Understand this one! Many of the experts are “experts” in click bate more than in results.
Great summation! Traditional medicine needs to embrace this space to help navigate.
I’d add RapAdmin to the list!
The difficulty is that being right does not correlate that much with being popular i am with rapadmin on david sinclair.
Great lists of experts. My list expands as I get deeper into subject matter. I.e. what’s the best exercise or diet.
As I have read more and more, the main points come back to exercise and diet, so for fun I’ll add Jack LaLane to the list.
Here are some that I listen to but it’s important to keep an critical mind because they say also wrong stuff.
I’ll add Reason. I wish him to speak publicly more often.
Charles Brenner anyone? 
Actually Charles Brenner has useful things to say. What is sad is that David Sinclair will not actually debate Charles Brenner’s arguments.
I have read the papers I agree with Charles Brenner that SIR2 is not a longevity gene. Charles Brenner does go over the top a bit, but he will engage in argument/discussion.
One difficulty with many of the experts with a high profile is they will often refuse to engage in any discussion about the science.
That makes it much harder to work out what the truth actually is.
On the other hand you can often get ideas to research. I find the best forum is in fact this one. There are good ideas which are well evidenced. Longecity isn’t bad nor are the various discord groups (lifespan, vitaDAO and hairDAO). Of the discord groups I find HairDAO is best for science, but unsurprisingly it is somewhat focussed on hair.
Longecity, however, does have well evidenced posts and I have picked things up from there.
A lot of the high profile people do tend to have a standard patter that does not seem to change that much.
One of the difficulties with this and many areas where the subject is complex is that people can be totally convinced that they are right even if they are not. My experience over life is
a) I am not inclined to waste my time trying hard to persuade people to change their minds
b) I like to find out why people disagree with me because I might be wrong and I could learn something.
Hence I will happily discuss things with people, but if they want to disagree with me I have no issue with that. I just like to know why.
Adding two people:
Morgan Levine - who looks at biological clocks
Lorna Harries - the mRNA lady. She studies mRNA splicing and has quite a bit of original work here which I think is important.
I would add, Dr. Thomas Dayspring.
Thanks so much Arhu.
Re Matthew Walker: you may not feel the same way after reading this: Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors - Alexey Guzey
I would add Dr. Dale Bredesen, who is a pioneer in brain health and the prevention of cognitive decline. Clearly, one of the greatest risks associated with aging. His protocol is a common sense approach to maintaining health. I am attaching a spreadsheet with multiple tabs some of you might find useful.
Bredesen-Upload2.xlsx (34.4 KB)