Thank you and exactly the input that I was hoping for. Being expert does not mean you are right, just a better guesser 
3 Likes
Anyone thoughts Aubrey de Grey?
Aubrey is fun to read about, and is an interesting and optimistic blue-sky type of thinker, but I wouldnāt be looking to him for actionable healthspan or lifespan advice. I donāt think he actually does anything for his personal longevity (he is pretty thin though, which is helpful). But - heās great to hang out with in a bar, drink beers with, and talk about life extension :-). And heās doing interesting work on the research side of things with the LEV Foundation.
7 Likes
Ditto for Aubrey. Great idea guy and optimist but not much on the scienceā¦
2 Likes
Matthew Walker is by and large right. Lack of sleep does kill!
1 Like
It is interesting on who we deem as experts! A charismatic attractive communicator can have more trust than the person that has done the benchmark research:) Actionable Healthspan advice seems to be rare from the researchers - Sabatini and Mannick
I would demote Dr. Sinclair, Dr. Green, and Dr. Huberman to second tier status. They all have some interesting things to say and are all worth listening to to consider their ideas and thoughts, but Iām at least somewhat skeptical of all 3 of them:
Dr. Sinclair has acquired a reputation as often being on the cutting edge of the next big revolutionary things (resveratrol, pterostilbene, NAD+ precursors) which so far have earned a fair amount of money for people who make certain supplements but which AFAIK have never quite lived up to the hype.
Dr. Greenās primary claim to fame is that he jumped onto the sirolimus-for-longevity train early- but he largely seems to be winging it. How much sirolimus should we be taking and how often? Iāve seen no evidence to suggest he has any more authoritative of a clue than anybody else.
Dr. Hubermanās podcasts are often interesting, but I find them marred by his obvious bias when it comes to sponsorships. (Who knows, maybe Iāll eventually become an Athletic Greens acolyte and change my tune, but for now I kind of doubt it.) My general sense is that heās a great source of information on neuroscience-related topics and he knows a bit about some other things as well (e.g. exercise physiology), but I donāt have a clear enough sense that he stays comfortably within his lane when it comes to speculating on things that might be outside of his areas of expertise. YMMV.
7 Likes
George Church. He has a range of interests, but some of his labās work on genes in mice and pigs is great stuff.
8 Likes
+1 on Morgan Levine!
4 Likes
I find my visceral response to some of these people useful - and I trust that emotional feeling. It often changes my mind about them over time, particularly as I grow more experienced and knowledgeable myself. I have found all of the above valuable at one time, but look more to the scientists in the Matt Kaeberlin category of well balanced honest viewpoints.
Rhonda Patrick interviewing Tony Robbins. My gag reflex was quite engaged. Also very poorly prepared in a recent Joe Rogan interview. I expected better. I dropped my subscription.
Dr Matthew Walker. A number of people are criticizing his work. In some cases he is using poorly designed research to make blanket conclusive statements about sleep that is not realistic. I doubt if much of the studies he cites have ever been reproduced - sadly the case for a lot of science in the psychology/neurology field.
Dr David Sinclair. You canāt trust someone who has gained extraordinary wealth so shamelessly. Yet, he runs an elite research lab. I would listen to anyone who understands his work though.
Dr Peter Attia. I like his pugilist personality. He does some excellent writing. His flaw, as I see it, is putting his knowledge into personal practice. I think he is as much of a schlub as myself when I see his workout videos or rationale for personally taking or not takings things like metformin. Pretty amateurish in my opinion.
Dr Andrew Huberman. He does a lot of bro-science podcasts and every time he does, I reach for my stun-gun. I enjoy his podcasts when he stays in his wheel-house, but they are long-winded.
Dr. Brian Kennedy. A good scientist. But compromised by efforts of the associated company to make a product out of CaAKG (Rejuvenant) . See how the investor capitalist class works in this vein by the key investor @ Thomas Weldon | How to Reverse Your Epigenetic Age Now - YouTube
Dr Matt Kaeberlein. We are lucky to have him. An honest broker of what good science should be and rarely is. My only criticism is he should do more cardio :).
Dr . Alan Green. He is doing the actual work of prescribing rapamycin for aging. No one else has anything close to his medical practice.
I would add Josh Mitteldorf. Excellent well balanced writings from an interesting scientist. Contributors to the forum he publishes on include Harold Katcher and his research partner Akshay Sanghavi who have produced the longest living rat. https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/2023/03/13/harold-katchers-last-rat/
12 Likes
Totally agree with your post.
I would tend to put Mr Huberman in the same box than Mr Sinclair though. Clicks and sales first.
Honestly, all these experts are human. They all have their negatives, weaknesses, and imperfections. However, each has something to offer. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff and take the important nuggets of knowledge that each has to offer. Remember, a lot of these guys are friends. Sinclair and Kaberlein worked together at the Gurente lab and are good friends. Dr. Miller and Dr. Kaberlein are on the ITP selection committeeā¦ etcā¦ They all influence each other and build upon each othersā ideas. As a collective, they are great. But to expect one superior and infallible source is folly. They all make mistakes.
8 Likes
Not sure if I would say I trust any of them, but many of above are very valuable to follow for perspectives to then triangulate further on
To that list Iād also add
- Prof Valter Longo
- Prof Nir Barzilai
Not saying they are better than others, just that they were not mentioned above I think and provide additional valuable perspectives.
Also find following agingdoc1 on Twitter a good way to have a bit of a pulse on a wealth of information within the world of longevity science
10 Likes
Would also add
Dr. Eric Topol - for a broader perspective on the near and medium term frontiers of medicine and medical technology
- he is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, and is one of the top 10 most-cited researchers in medicine!!! For decades an international leader in (1) cardiology, (2) precision medicine, and (3) digital health)
I started to follow him during the pandemic, because he often had good coverage of what science and medicine was learning about Covid, but have kept following for the broader things mentioned above
4 Likes
I second adding Longo and Barzilai. I believe they are both experts in their areas and stay in their lane.
4 Likes
Jack La Lane could have lived longer but his supplementation ritual was 20 years behind the times. I would have like to see what his lifespan would have been with Rapa and Acarbose.
5 Likes
Everyone already covered my favorite people. Weāre living in amazing times when so many experts are so accessible and spend time communicating directly with the public.
4 Likes
Actually, I find it shocking when I watch a movie from the 1950s or 1960s and they talk about medications, healthcare, etcā¦ Itās like it was the dark ages! (Plus all the smoking and drinking) Iām amazed people lived into their 70s from back then!
2 Likes
You know, a lot of people still do live just into their seventies. Life expectancy for USA men is just over 70 if I remember correctly.
1 Like
