I’m starting to really get concerned
1 Like
It looks like no-one has updated the DNS. Alternatively it could be that it has been stolen by someone. It looks as if it is registered at the moment.
Domain Name: CRSOCIETY.ORG
Registry Domain ID: db0f89a046d24c4cba3b787c333b34f5-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: https://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2024-04-16T14:15:47Z
Creation Date: 2002-04-15T05:35:48Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2025-04-15T05:35:48Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Registry Registrant ID: CR768678825
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 100 S. Mill Ave, Suite 1600
Registrant City: Tempe
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85281
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: Select Contact Domain Holder link at https://www.godaddy.com/whois/results.aspx?domain=CRSOCIETY.ORG
I noticed this when I tried to read about biophosphonates on google, I think it’s your thread. It’s probably being deranked now though. The thread wasn’t in web archive.
I asked someone to get an admin to look into it, but its admin team is dwindling down
I’m getting moderately concerned - there was so much unique good content on the site and it could at least be maintained without much effort
I just used google’s cached versions + archive.is to save/download some of my better threads there (though still not all of them).
crsociety cannot die - it’s tragic that forums are being killed in favor of gatekeeping/un-longform platforms like slack and discord and telegram, it’s a dark age of the Internet. it has maintained consistently high quality even as longecity.org went to trash
1 Like
What happened then with the forum?
People in the facebook group guess it could be a forum upgrade or some DNS issue.
But a previous webmaster died, and much of the original crsociety.org team died or had health issues, which means that the person who maintains the forums keeps changing. The maintainers are also not the ones who are most actively posting on the forums [there has to be a way to transfer ownership of the hosting domain, and this has to be done through family members, and I don’t know what domain is storing the data].
There are also old crsociety.org mailing list archives (which are a true treasure) - someone has a backup of them but I don’t know when these will go anywhere…
There was an old community from 10 years ago that has largely dispersed, which is sad b/c longevity/CR is one of the pet issues that guarantees non-drift/you never leave from. Still, crsociety.org was active enough to be useful
I’ve seen people on CR have health problems, is this diet really good? Is there any retrospective studies on long term CR in humans?
1 Like
CALERIE study
The basic issue is that most people cannot conform to it for long periods of time (but crsociety used to have a much more vibrant community and regular conferences!!). Michael Rae can do it successfully. We also don’t have strong definitions of CR biomarkers… It’s just not getting new blood the way that, say, Bryan Johnson’s movement is. Which is still sad, b/c forums are far better for long content than any other platform.
There’s also LivingTheCRWay.com (a splinter community) that also hasn’t gotten much in the way of new blood
It seems that CR diets attract way less attention before. Rapamycin is one reason why. However, semaglutide+canagliflozin makes intermittent CR way easier than before (and ADHD meds can also help reduce appetite).
Some people (eg @repligate or https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariaentraigues/) have naturally low appetites and are just CR’d by nature. I’m jealous of them.
It is an interesting observation that many CRONites in the cr community seem to not be… thriving for one reason or another…
I’ve never met an older CRONite who seemed especially robust for their age. Their biomarkers (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc) tend to be really good but these are only the basic biomarkers, none which are the most important for longevity (LDL is in fact very mildly correlated with slower epigenetic aging).
FYI Matt Kaeberlein was a huge defender of CR diets back when CR diets had faced substantial criticism
CR was seen as “weird”/fringe for a long time, and also attracted weirdness points because it took A LOT of sacrifice to truly do it (at least it mostly had purists rather than people who tried hard but failed). Most people I know in CR societies are pretty far from normal in some way (though not as outlier as I am, or as much as some of the early SL4/transhumanists/extropians/lesswrong were…) And weird in a way that didn’t make others want to be like them.
rapamycin is now way less weird than CR - the social sacrifices are minimal. Bryan Johnson has also made his thing way less weird.
1 Like
I think CR diet are lucrative for numerous irrational reasons. First of all I think they might feel good in the short term, from my own experience and based on evolutionary reasons. Second there are studies in overweight individuals where biomarkers improve and people generalize this to normal weight individuals without evidence if I would guess. Third, CR diet improve longevity in other animal models. CR participants might be self selected based on genotype where calorie restriction is preferred, like in my first point, a high polygenic score for anorexia for example (they might not be anorexic, but the high genetic load might give them positive valence for restricting calories).
In the real world, I would guess you need adequate calories for optimal immune function, muscle mass, bone mass, tendons, and upstream from that for androgens and other hormones. Basically it is a diet that on paper, theoretically is well, but it has not been proven in humans and now we see people on CR diet either dying, abandoning it, or have difficult health issues. I don’t want to deal with resistant UTI’s, neither do I want my hip to snap in half when I am 50.
Bryan Johnson has decreased his CR to 10%, this seems so small. I’ll have to read the CALERIE study. Maybe the level of CR matters. I also remember a vegan who eat whole food plant based, like 100 gram fiber a day who had his appendix burst. It’s those things that makes me think “what if…?” “what’s the evidence?”
It’s my belief that life-long calorie restriction (from age 20-30) is the most powerful way to reach centenarian status. The only problem we face is understanding how much CR is enough and is too much CR damaging and life-shortening.
By objectively monitoring health biomarkers as well as being mindful of subjective well-being, it might be possible to ‘adjust’ CR over time as you learn more about how you are responding to the diet (this is generally not possible in animal studies).
(CR monkey is C/D).
2 Likes
Thriving and robustness are probably way more important as you can’t control it in other ways, while the biomarkers you can control with pharmaceuticals.
First of all you should be thriving, then you should be robust, and with it your standard biomarkers should be optimal.
In the end I would guess you would kind of look like Peter Attia, if you were thriving and robust as a male, or a female I don’t know what the example would be, but similar, kind of athletic FBI or CIA build. You would also be on a mission with such a build, with a purpose, so thriving. You can see pretty quickly who is just lost and wandering?
2 Likes
I think there is something here. But that it really should be done as CRON and not just as CR - so CR with optimal nutrition. Also think it needs to be combined with solid resistance training program.
The Yale CALERIE studies are def worth a read and reflection. Including the one in Nature Aging or something on epigenetic profiles and clocks.
One question is if it is better to cycle in and out of CR status (combined with optimal cycles of increased resistance training).
And a key other question is how to think about this vs or and with somewhat frequent fasting.
1 Like
My guess is that Peter Attia has passed the point that is optimal for longevity, even if he perhaps is around what is good for current/near term health. For longevity, it seems that something between where Michael Lustgarden and Bryan Johnson are might be better.
I am getting a bit sold on optimal nutrition, but can you explain what that is and how you learned what that is. For example which association study did you use to show what to eat and within each category? If you’ve chosen to include vegetables, how do you determine what vegetables to eat? Do you eat whole grains? What whole grains do you eat? Can you break down your diet in calories?
Walter Willett suggest following prioritized in calories:
Most calories from:
+Whole grains
+Healthy fats (Olive oil, canola oil, soybean oil)
Plenty of fruits and vegetables and wide variety
Protein:
Emphasizing plant protein sources,
Nuts, legumes and beans, soy products
Modest amount of poultry is okay
Fish a couple times a week is a good idea (because of Omega-3)
He does not seem to include other parameters like what type of plant protein source, whole grain, etc.
I just noticed this presentation, uploaded a few days ago, of a centenarian nutritionist, check out that tie @AlexKChen
I think it’s pretty clear there isn’t any evidence yet what within each category is healthiest, i.e what vegetable, what fruit, what berry, etc. So the eye for detail as Bryan does it, nope.
2 Likes
Above I meant “optimal” in the sense of CRON vs any CR (see eg classical books and paper by Prof Roy Walford).
CRON means that one is extra careful about eating nutrient rich and complete as there is less leeway / it’s easier to end up with shortages of certain vitamins, minerals, etc when eating less calories overall.
—
Re optimal nutrition in general - I think three things are true here at the same time
- striving towards optimal nutrition can have a massive difference in our health and longevity when compounded over the decades
- the data for exactly what to do is less clean and clear vs eg many pharmaceuticals with MR of targets and large, randomized clinical trials
- taking and approach that tries to think through a lens of the “totally of data and totally of mechanistic understanding” together with frequent individual assessment and testing provides a ton of ground for many, many good benefit/risk decisions
—
The third bullet above means that optimal nutrition will likely vary from person to person - sometimes very substantially
Eg for someone with big metabolic issues, eating more protein (combined with more resistance training) might on the margin be a bigger component vs for someone that has a big family and personal risk for cancer, etc, that may want to cut down on more on (certain) amino acids and up regulation of growth pathways like mTOR, etc.
Someone with bad metabolic health, may want to use a higher (“good” fat diet), while someone in great metabolic health may want to include more complex carbs and less fat.
—
Not sure how helpful, but:
For me personally, I landed on a vegan + occasionally fish diet. It’s generally low on “bad for longevity aminos” (as long as I still retain/build muscle), whole foods, organic, a lot of legumes, leafy greens, broccoli, cauliflower, low on fast carbs, but not low on complex carbs, lots of berries, some, but less fruit, overall try for a lot of variation to support gut microbiome, relatively low sodium, try to prepare with low glucagon in mind, on days with lower fiber (generally a high fiber diet) I add some insulin).
Nothing is black and white for above, but I try to match current my read of good principles based on worlds current understanding and will continue to update as time goes on.
I try for a perceived approx 10% CR (via/combined with time restriction) much or the year, but less during a few months when I focus more on strength/resistance training.
I supplement with “food close” supplements like Omega 3, Vit D/K, B vitamins, Magnesium, etc based on blood work and also try to add a bit extra protein via seemingly high quality protein powders + some creatine, especially during lifting days/periods. Also manage selenium (via Brazil nuts) and other things via blood work.
Also have recently been experimenting with some microbiome enhancing measures (with subjective and microbiome data suggesting it’s going in a good direction).
Drink wise, I almost only drink water and sometimes tea. (Besides the protein shakes).
(Also fast occasionally, originally FMD/Prolon, more recently water + electrolytes only)
I think that a lot of the principles - not just the data per se, but also their holistic integration of how things work and their intuitions - of Drs. Valter Longo, Luigi Fontana, Roy Walford, Dean Ornish and Michael Lustgarden (and to some extent Blueprint, but think more variation can be beneficial) - make sense and triangulate well with my understanding. While the massive protein, including methionine and other “growth” aminos approach that Peter Attia and other suggest seems more like a look good and feel good now (that easier build large followers), even if not optimal from young age and through middle age. I think resistance training and sufficient protein is important, but for most people Attia’s ultra high protein recommendations overdo it and will be revving up nutrient sensing and growth pathways in ways inconsistent and that go against what we know about optimal aging and longevity phenotypes.
3 Likes
Considering mechanistic data that way I don’t think I will use as a parameter, first of all then you’d have to consider that relatively junk data in other domains as well unless there’s a reason for why you only do that in nutritition. You also open up the decision space and the information you can gather, leading to possibly information overload, decision fatigue, and influence from all kinds of charlatans which reduce the most important decisions that has a much more precise benefit/risk calculation. Until more evidence I will stick to the categorically considered optimal nutrition most of the time and not pay much attention to the best within each category. There is probably a case for variety within each category but I have not looked for this data specifically.
Categories: Whole grains, healthy fats, vegetables, fruit, etc.
Intentionally not explicitly considering such data and understanding still means that you are taking it into account, you are deciding to weigh it at zero value.
leading to possibly information overload, decision fatigue
It does not have to be all or nothing. Eg approaching it with - I’m going to weigh clinical and MR data higher than mechanistic understanding and hence spend more time understanding the former types and approach the last category in an 80/20 type of way - should enable better decision making than 100% valuing the last source as zero.
—
The other thing is that there often is an asymmetric nature to decision around diet, sleep and exercise vs strong pharmaceutical molecules where the downsides can be more severe quite quickly. Not always in by any means, but occasionally. If you eg look at the list of my decision above, I’d love to hear if you think any of the things I listed are high risk (except perhaps the fasting).
—
Question for you
- do you take care to be careful when crossing in busy area?
- do you think and act upon prioritizing getting a meaningful amount of sleep?
- do you think that resistance training, some form of zone 1/2 cardio training and some form of higher intensity cardio training are good for health and longevity?