Yes, I still take Bempedoiic Acid and Ezetemibe. They have never caused me any problems and are a permanent part of my stack.
4 Likes
The best way I can describe the muscle aches are like how you feel after climbing a flight of steps. Your muscles are a bit achy. Now just imagine that feeling as a constant throughout the day. On Rosuvastatin, I felt like I was an 80 year old the aches were so bad.
A cramp, for me, is a short duration intense pain which this is not.
I found a large Chinese Pharma company just across the border in Shenzhen that makes Pitavastatin at Indian prices so I go there to buy it. They also sell brand name Dapagliflozin from Astra Zeneca at half the cost of India, so I purchase that in Shenzhen too. That’s two major drugs I no longer need to source! And they don’t require prescriptions. Too bad they don’t carry anything else I’m interested in.
4 Likes
Same here. Been on pita 2mg daily for last 6 months and I don’t think I have experienced any side effects.
3 Likes
Well, I would consider it flattering that the calculator isn’t validated for people your age! It probably means they didn’t have enough sample size to work with 
Or terrifying. Signal to start making funeral arrangements?
Don’t rely just on CAC scoring for cardiovascular health:
7 Likes
Couldn’t agree more to not relying on CAC alone. I’ve had a couple CACs over the past 10 years all showing 0%. I’ve been lucky to inherit great cholesterol genes still producing great numbers. A year ago at 64 yo my dr recommended a CCTA combined with the Cleerly AI analysis. It shows a 10% blockage in the LAD artery (widowmaker). I’m now on Repatha to drive the numbers even lower to see if it will resolve the 10% or at least keep it from increasing.
8 Likes
Yeah forget about CAC scores, just do CLEERLY or similar. Scans usually are only done if it changes treatment decision making, often just motivating someone to treat. Negative (i.e good result) often shouldn’t change anything.
2 Likes
I agree completely. Based on the Mesa calculator, 75% of 45-year-old males have a zero CAC score. At age 55 it is 44%. At 65 it is 23%, at 75 it is 10%. This cardiovascular disease didn’t just suddenly appear. Waiting until you have calcified plaque.is a fool‘s errand. If you are younger than 65, a zero score tells you almost nothing. At 65, a zero score is great news. But 55% of those men will have a positive score in 10 years. But it’s the soft plaque that will likely lead to an event.
2 Likes
Yes, I made my funeral arrangements many years ago when I passed my use-by date.
5 Likes
Given that if you make it to 65 in the USA, you’ll most likely make it to 85, and given the fact that @desertshores is so proactive about his health, this bumps it up to 95. The bonus is Rapamycin, which should take him to 102. I predict he’s got a couple of decades left in the tank before it gets dicey.
Of course, we’ll have to wait a couple of decades to see if I’m right or not. 
10 Likes
Florida man beats death!
Yeah, I predict most if not all in these boards will live past 105. Honestly, it is not rocket science. We know how to prevent diabetes, heart disease and to some extent cancer, plus add to it Rapa & Acarbose/SGLTi2 and exercise and it is an easy sail to 105. I think my demise will be somewhere between 105-110 LOL and I’d be totally fine with it.
2 Likes
Interesting. My suspicion is that the vast majority on this board will derive ~3 years life extension at most. That extension will happen because of CVD and metabolic disease prevention or amelioration, possibly some lower rates of cancer, maybe even NDDs. Exercise is helpful, but the benefits in lifespan (unlike healthspan) are vastly overestimated. Diet is pretty helpful, but just reading the various posts seem to indicate a lot of people have controversial diets that may not necessarily translate into extended lifespan. All the drugs and supplements will mostly impact healthspan - at best. So, an extra 3 years? Late 80’s for most? But hey, you could be right, and 100 is in the future for most. If so, that, IMO, would happen only because some as yet undiscovered powerful intervention emerges in a reasonably near future that truly impacts lifespan for most humans - fingers crossed. YMMV.
2 Likes
I 100% disagree with you. If it is only three years, I wouldn’t waste my time doing everything I’m doing. Much rather have my steak (cooked with butter) and wine and take it easy and don’t bother exercising LOL. I have three people that I knew of (related to them) that passed away (in last three years) at 101, 100, and 98) and they did nothing to live that long. The only thing they did was they were careful not to eat sweets and no fat as in butter and fat meats. Other than that, they ate everything and did Zilch to live long. Didn’t even bother to go for daily walks. So yes, people are living longer and if you do the right thing it is easy to live past 100 IMO.
2 Likes
If you sincerely believe that, why would you even be here to begin with?
I’m hoping to beat the (steep) odds. But also, because while I think the lifespan extension might be marginal, I do think the healthspan can realistically be strongly enhanced. This may seem modest, but if you’ve been around end of life elderly, you know that the last 10 years can be miserable and last 1-2 abysmal. Having healthspan until the end is like gaining 10 years, since QOL is paramount. So, while not holding out great hope for living longer by much, I do expect to do so in good health, if that fails, then the whole biohacking project fails for me.
3 Likes
I concur, and I think +3-5 healthy years would be really good, based on the interventions we know work today. 10 years would be exceptional, again, based on what therapies are available to us today.
2 Likes
Right. People are hypnotized by all these centenarians and near centenarians who lived that long while not doing much biohacking, as Kelman observes. But that fact of “not doing much”, should have been the clue that extreme longevity (anything past 90 or so), is really down to the genes, not “doing” something. Not down to especially clever hacks. And the interventions we have today will not change the genetic makeup, the upper limit that’s in your particular design - what they might do is fix some unfortunate weak link. So, as an example your design has you lasting 85 years, but you unluckily have a bad ticker that cuts you down at 50 (say, afib) - now you fix the afib, and you can last your full designated 85. Healthspan, not lifespan. It’s the luck of the draw, and modern medicine can hopefully assure that you reach your biological potential, whatever it may be, 80, 85, 105 etc., rather that be cut short by a single weak link, a chink in your armor.
3 Likes