Wanted to share a few people who died not too long ago who were in the longevity, supplement, and health industry.
Durk Pearson. Aged 81. Cause of death: Not 100% sure but did read “He came down with a stomach infection that he couldn’t shake. It exploded into sepsis. By the time his friends medevacked him to the hospital in Reno it was too late.” October 26, 2024
Sandy Shaw. Aged 78. Cause of death: Unsure at this time. March 12, 2022
Andrew Saul. Aged 69. Cause of death: Heart failure. February 3, 2024
These two were among the first to popularize the concept of longevity through supplements.
They introduced me to L-tryptophan and L-tyrosine, not as life extension supplements, but for their other benefits. I still take them to this day.
“Pearson and his wife, Sandy Shaw, are the authors of Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach[7] (ISBN 0-446-51229-X, Warner Books, 1982), The Life Extension Companion[8] (Warner Books), The Life Extension Weight Loss Program, and Freedom of Informed Choice: FDA v. Nutrient Supplements, (Common Sense Press, 1993). The couple have written numerous articles on life extension, cognitive enhancement, anti-aging, weight loss.”
They were MIT students, so they weren’t dumb. But some of their advice proved to be problematic.
IMHO, if you’ve truly experienced lifespan extension, you need to make it to at least 85. 95 should be the average, as this is the average for wealthy individuals with the best of health care. 99 and higher, you’re doing something right.
If you die at the median age of around 77, you probably didn’t extend your life especially since if you make it to 65, the average life expectancy becomes 85.
If a method is good, it will lead to a good outcome. If you don’t care about outcomes, prioritize methods that feel right, vibe with you and sound fun.
Here is a source from the Brookings Institute from 9 years ago where a wealthy woman is expected to live to 90 yo.
For women who reached age 50 two decades later, in 1990, we found no improvement at all in the life expectancy of low earners. Among women in the top tenth of earners, however, life expectancy rose 6.4 years, from 84.1 to 90.5. In those two decades, the gap in life expectancy between women in the bottom tenth and the top tenth of earners increased from a little over 3½ years to more than 10 years.
From Gemini
Wealthy individuals generally experience a longer life expectancy compared to those with lower incomes. This disparity is evident across various studies and regions, with the wealthy often living several years longer. For example, in the US, the wealthiest individuals may live 10-15 years longer than the poorest.
So if the average life expectancy of a 65 yo is 85, 10-15 years on top of that would be 95-100. I went with 95. It’s a ballpark figure. You could pick 90 or 100.
Well, 85 is the age an average middle class 65 year old will live to, so 90-100 seems like a good number for the wealthy. Charlie Munger was 99 when he died. Warren Buffet is 95, but he’s alive.
David Rockefeller: Died at 101 years old. John D. Rockefeller: Died at 97 years old.
Most recent presidents who have died. Gerald Ford - 93 years Ronald Reagan - 93 years George H. W. Bush - 94 years Jimmy Carter - 100 years
But does a good outcome mean the method was good? Or alternatively, a bad outcome mean the method was bad?
There’s people out there who advocated eating healthy, exercising, taking their meds, controlling their risk factors, maybe they wrote a book about it. Should we dismiss the methods because the author died early?
Not buying a book because the author died at 77 doesn’t mean their method didn’t work, they could’ve just been unlucky and slipped on a banana peel.
That’s why you don’t judge the quality of a method based on its outcome rather than on its own merits. Because you can be unlucky.
Where this trips us up is when we’re trying to improve our decision making by learning from the past. If we mislabel decisions as good or bad based on the outcomes, then we have little chance of improving our decision making ability. We need to consider instead whether the decision itself was a good one, regardless of the outcomes.
Unless the method was too expensive, complicated or impractical, it is a good method if it lead to a good outcome.
If a method did not lead to a good outcome, it was at best a hobby.
There’s people out there who advocated eating healthy, exercising, taking their meds, controlling their risk factors, maybe they wrote a book about it. Should we dismiss the methods because the author died early?
Luckily we have clinical trials looking at their methods for larger populations.
Not buying a book because the author died at 77 doesn’t mean their method didn’t work, they could’ve just been unlucky and slipped on a banana peel.
True, but if we have no other data than their own early demise it can and should be dismissed.
Kind of reminds me of the CR forum admins who all happened to die early.
I agree. But I think it’s the same thing for “no other data than their late demise”, otherwise someone’s grandma who smoked and drank whiskey every day who lived to 99 comes into the picture.
I would agree 95 should be the minimum IMO that shows what you were/are doing is being the right approach. For me those that are in longevity field and die under 90 they were either stubborn to listen to their body and do what is right for longevity, and not what’s popular (i.e. running a marathon at 80, you would need to either pay my $10Million, or hold a loaded gun to my head for the whole length of the marathon LOL) or they were simply lazy to follow the longevity basics. Knowing what I know now If I die before 100 it is just because I was a lazy loser and did not follow what I knew works. Something tells me that I’ll live well past 100 but my approach differs a bit from most. I try everything that is out there and only stick with what I specifically see/feel is having a positive effect (beyond the maybe, or who knows it could be placebo etc…) and do everything in moderation. I don’t subscribe to the theory I feel nothing but must be doing something good in long run other than very few meds in low dose (my case Cialis 5mg, 4-5 times a week, and finasteride 1mg 5-6 times a week mainly to stay prostate cancer free). I would also do certain CVD meds (very low dose) if I were in high-risk category and would also do meds for glucose control (lowest dose possible to keep it under 100).
I would never shoot for perfect numbers which some in here do (i.e. LDL 40, or APOB 35 etc…) as it is my belief that pursuing perfection is the enemy of moderation and will negatively affect longevity in long run. I would also not do heavy exercises (rather focus on moderate) especially at my age or 50 and later. Would not consume over 1800 calories either (though I am not very good at this one, sometimes go with 1200 sometimes with 2400, but it is one of my objectives to try and keep it between 1500 and 1800). I also try to eat as much as possible organic, some people don’t believe in it, but for me it is mainly the tase believe it or not, plus it doesn’t hurt that it has less pesticide and other chemicals.
I watch out for outliers like someone at age 100 looking, feeling and being active like a 40-50 year old when all their ancestors weren’t particulary known for being long-lived.
Is this for real? and do you happen to know any names. Find it very interesting because I am a firm believer that CR (not Extreme like 1000 calories per day. but more like around 1500) should end up being really good for longevity (not necessarily good for strength and stamina though). By same talking can’t take Atkins diet (re:KETO) as good for longevity when Dr. Atkins himself dropped dead at 70 from a heart attack. I guess any diet could be ok for a certain period of time and to achieve a specific goal but long term you’d better had listened to your parents that veggies are good, and butter is bad.
Damn. That’s bad news. I bought Pearson & Shaw’s book in the mid-80’s and really got “hooked” on the subject of longevity with that.
I always wondered what happened to them. Sounds like they didn’t even make “average” LS, which is a pity. And they were certainly clever people.
One other person who was a pioneer at about the same time as P & S was Roy Walford and he didn’t live to old age, either. I think he got ALS??
I never could understand the secrecy some people put around the cause of death. One good example of that is Vladimir Khavinson…still no idea how he died.
Sh*t happens. I asked several AIs to look for the cause of Durk Pearson’s death.
The AI’s answers were all over the place. One even claiming he is still alive.
If he did die, he still beat the odds “The average life expectancy of a male born in the United States in 1943 was 62.4 years.” “The average life expectancy of a male born in the United States in 2025 is approximately 75.8 years.” He lived to be 81.
“Conclusion: There is no reasonable guess about Durk Pearson’s cause of death because Durk Pearson is not dead. He and Sandy Shaw are alive, residing in Nevada, and continue their work, primarily focused on legal challenges to supplement regulations.”
The most plausible:
“No Evidence of Unusual or Supplement-Related Cause:
There is no credible evidence or widespread speculation suggesting that his death was directly related to his supplement regimen or any specific life extension practice. Instead, the circumstances described—an elderly man succumbing to sepsis after a stubborn infection—are unfortunately common in this age group, even among those with a history of health consciousness.”
Stomach Infection Leading to Sepsis:
The most consistent narrative, echoed by multiple individuals familiar with Pearson’s later years, is that he developed a persistent stomach infection. This infection reportedly “exploded into sepsis,” a life-threatening systemic response to infection. By the time he was medevacked to a hospital in Reno, Nevada, it was too late for effective intervention, and he passed away shortly thereafter.
1987