A thought experiment: there is a spectrum of aging styles, consistent with the concept of antagonistic pleiotrophy. On this spectrum, one end is: higher growth, may-be more mesomorphic muscular body type, high fecundity, later menopause (?), denser bones, very robust in early life, higher rates of cancer and other disease of inflammation or overgrowth in late life. On the other end: smaller body, lower BMI, smaller muscles, lower fecundity, tendency to earlier menopause, osteoporosis and frailty, possibly longer life length but with high tendency to neurodegeneration. This is the more “catabolic” style. Is this also consistent with the Indian dialectic between “hot” and “cold”?
Reading about Alzheimers and also listening to Nir Barzilai I have learned that I am highly aligned with the catabolic style and so likely to have longer life and develop Alzheimers. (like mother and grandmother).Early menopause, osteoporosis, high HDL, low TRIGS, low BMI, BP and pulse-- all line up perfectly with the high Alzheimers cohort and the long lived cohorts that I have read about.
So while I am trying to optimize bones, heart, anti cancer, it is clearly Alzheimers that is at the top of my ladder of worries and the area that I am most wanting to take action to prevent. Considering GHK-CU, tadalafil and already taking many supplements.
So, since Rapamycin seems to push toward the catabolic, acting as an mTOR switch and CR restriction mimetic, I wonder if that is the right strategy for me personally. I have the pills here but have not yet started taking.
Would appreciate insights on whether this “spectrum” from an anabolic to catabolic overall phenotype makes sense as a tool for guiding one’s personal overall longevity strategy and decisions on what interventions to puruse. With emphasis on Rapamycin, yea or nay, specifically.
