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
A landmark area of research involves master athletes (competitive athletes over 50–60), showing they retain significantly better cardiovascular profiles than sedentary peers. Researchers like Dr. Benjamin Levine at UT Southwestern have published extensively on this.
Well, personally I think my interventions are going to produce an increased life extension of more than 3 years, but of course I can’t prove this.
My own observation from looking at my peers and family members is that the ones who follow healthy lifestyle habits and exercise live longer. This certainly could be interpreted as life extension.
From another post:
“Years of consistent moderate exercise accumulate real cardiovascular benefit. The heart adaptations built over decades don’t disappear quickly." I am definitely benefitting from this, as I no longer exercise at the level that I did for many years."
Exercise and going to the gym are not my favorite interventions. But I do them anyway.
4 Likes
I also disagree with this 100%. IMHO for most people (except maybe 1-5%) and by most, I mean 95-99% the real biological age is somewhere between 95-100 (with very few maybe 1-5% beyond that). The reason I say this is because I come from a big family on both sides (it was normal in 1930’s for a woman to have 5-7 even 10 babies) and some of the siblings died young (both mom’s and dad’s side) and some of them made it to late 90’s and even over 100 a couple. The main difference between the ones that died young and ones that lasted was the fact that the ones that died young were either abuser of alcohol, or food (eating everything and being overweight). The only thing the ones that lived long did was they watched what they ate, no sweets, no overeating, and very little or no butter and animal fats, and regularly went to the doctor with couple of them being on cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose lowering drugs for 10-30 years. None of them exercised.
So, it is really not as hard as some people think (to live long). Think of it this way, do everything right, eat 1700-2200 calories as an example, do not consume butter or animal fat (sorry the KETO crowd but yeah animal fat will help you die especially if you don’t do heavy physical activity), lightly exercise and take your precautionary meds (i.e. Sglti2’s and RAPA, + Ezetimibe and pita) and how will you die tomorrow? or after tomorrow or after 10 years. You can’t just die for the heck of it LOL, there needs to be something going very wrong with you for you to die. There is literally nothing that will naturally kill you (cancer being a slight chance, but if you are a man, you should take 2.5mg finasteride and 5mg Cialis, plus couple spoon full of flax seeds for GI tract health, plus no processed foods, and eat naturally organic foods) .
So when I talk to people/cousins they all say that o such and such inherited the good genes that’s why they lived that long and when I push back and say no but remember such and such at that event the cousins that lived long refused to eat the cake, and they wouldn’t touch the cheese tray etc. then all of the sudden they agree and say oh you are right, they were always careful what they ate and drank. There is no such thing as genes IMO (or maybe my genes favor me to live say five years longer max that you, but no way in hell my genes will give me 20 years over you unless you were born with a defect).
For me it is all in the lifestyle plus regularly doctor/lab work/checkups and preventative medicine especially for those that their biomarkers make moves on the wrong direction, plus moderate exercise. You will stay alive until you become very weak and your heart just stops most likely on your sleep.
Don’t blame me if you go run a marathon (because it is cool) at 70 years old and then if you don’t drop dead right then and there, you’ll do it couple years later because you drained every bit of your lively soul running that marathon LOL. When you pass 50 (definitely 60) you must moderate everything in your life, food, drink, exercise, physical activity, sex (have hard time to adhere to this one LOL) in order to preserve yourself and your life but you must remain active. 100 very easy!
2 Likes
I’m not doubting your personal observations, but my read of the evidence is different. If you look at the diets of centenarians and supercentenarians, they are remarkably “average” (including many who had atrocious diets), pretty reflective of their non-centenarian cohorts. Yet they lived to 100+, and the others did not, on pretty much the same diet. Alcohol abuse is certainly life shortening (not always, see Dick Van Dyke at 100+ and a severe alcoholic for decades before he cleaned up). Smoking, same deal, even though there are quite a few smokers or ex smokers among the cents. Exercise, most weren’t exercise freaks. Lifestyle can be helpful, but likely is overhyped by well meaning public health officials, doctors and influencers.
Extreme longevity = genes 100%.
1 Like
“Extreme longevity = genes 100%.” Beyond 105 yes 100% agree, up to 100 nothing to do with genes and everything to do with you knowing what you are doing and doing things right to reach your natural potential.
Well, the diet may or may not be that important, but what is very important is not to abuse with anything, food, smoking, drinking, physical activity etc… What all centenarians have in common (the ones I read about) is the fact that they all did NOT abuse with food. I.e. there is no 300lb centenarian that I’m aware of, nor ever was one. And you don’t get fat by breathing air lol, you have to abuse with food intake. When I say animal fat is not good for longevity that is a general statement but there is definitely a centenarian out there that enjoyed their buttery toast and it never did anything bad for them, and yes that can be the case but for most people I think they should watch the animal products especially fats(btw, I love steak, lamb, and wild salmon and eat them often). bottom line for me is, stay on top of your health with checkups/lab work, moderate eating and drinking (I’m not in the camp that thinks one or two drinks per week will kill you lol) moderate exercise and preventative medicine (in as low a dose as needed to maintain optimal biomarkers) and you’ll reach 100, everyone in my opinion (barring accidents, or gain of function research LOL).
Just look to the rich or the presidents. If you are wealthy enough to have the best healthcare, your baseline is 95 now. Carter made it to 100 and all the rest since Ford (when pharmaceuticals came into play) have made mid 90s. Whenever you hear of an old rich guy dying nowadays, it’s usually 95. But I bet they weren’t taking Rapamycin!
5 Likes
It seems like if someone were to start lipid lowering therapy early on in life nowadays that should completely take that off the table as a cause of death. Same thing with type 2 diabetes/metabolic dysfunction. Kidney decline also seems to be really slowed with both the SGLT2I’s and newest GLP-1s, so that’s also off the table.
Cancer is still a tough nut to crack, but there’s actually been progress on that front in the past decade or so with immunotherapy. There’s a reason Keytruda is the top selling drug in the world, it’s because in the cancers that it works in, it really works. It feels like there’s probably a lot more to be had on the immunotherapy front. Combine that with continual improvements in early cancer screening (MCED), and who’s to say that progress won’t continue? There’s reason to be optimistic at least.
Dementia seems completely unsolved pharmacologically by the point you start seeing symptoms, but we do know there are several factors that reduce the risk. Controlling blood pressure, glucose levels, and lipid levels all reduce risk. Consistent exercise does as well, independent of its’ BP and glucose effects. Getting quality sleep also reduces risk, as does having an active social life. Should at least buy time for a them to come up with a cure (though if the Japanese stem cell therapies for Parkinsons turn out to be effective then maybe It’ll come quicker than we think).
At that point, rejuvenating the immune system becomes a major issue, as does general frailty, but at least from my viewpoint it appears tractible.
4 Likes