If it’s available now we can use it now. If it is successful it will also encourage further studies being done on larger creatures and humans.
I also encourage anyone who wants a molecule tested to do their own submission to the ITP.
I’m doing Orforglipron. Anyone else who is doing a submission should state what molecule they are doing one for here.
How are we deciding what supplier for the chemicals to choose? I can’t tell which ones are good and which ones are bad and prices vary. I hope that if the rest of the proposal I make is good but they don’t like the supplier they can find another one more suitable.
Intra nasal insulin
Sigma Aldrich / Millapore Sigma is the largest supplier in the US - just use them as a benchmark price: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/
Orforglipron application has been sent off!
Please post a PDF of your application (with personal details redacted), if you can. I’ll do the same for mine once I finish them.
Here is the application minus personal data. I removed the first page, the biosketch and my signature.
anonymized orforglipron ITP application.pdf (685.5 KB)
I’d be interested in feedback. I spent about a week on it so hopefully it is professional enough that it conveys the point.
A reminder that the deadline for our ITP applications is quickly approaching.
Using that prompt I made makes this really easy… about 40 minutes per ITP application (or less, it gets easier and faster each time). If other people have ideas, I recommend you put a little time in and make the submission. Here are my three submissions (I may do more):
Imeglimin ITP Application Proposal.pdf (85.9 KB)
MA-5 ITP Application Discussion.pdf (79.6 KB)
Dapansutrile ITP Study Proposal.pdf (102.0 KB)
And one last submission… (note, the above were all earlier drafts). So, a total of 4 drug submissions to the ITP for me. Anyone else send any in?
Maraviroc ITP Application Draft.pdf (122.0 KB)
Well done. I’ve never done this before, any idea on approximately how long until we find out if our submissions were accepted/rejected?
I don’t have time to be coming up with suggestions and writing proposals to the ITP but I will say this to anyone that is doing so. I think it makes sense to mainly focus on interventions that are generally available to humans and to use them at doses that are within the range of what humans can safely use and preferably access.
There is very little use in finding out that some drug increases lifespan in mice, if the dose used was ten times higher than what humans can tolerate safely. In a similar vein, I think it was mostly a waste of money to test astaxanthin at the super high doses that were used in the ITP, since even though it’s relatively non-toxic, those doses are so far beyond what anyone would reasonably use that they don’t give us important information. The success at the extreme doses doesn’t tell us whether very high yet far less-extreme doses that humans could use would also be useful. So the result ends up being interesting but of little practical use.
Note that most of the successful interventions that could come out of the ITP aren’t something that will radically extend human lifespan. The most successful ones are likely to buy us some extra years needed while waiting for more effective rejuvenation therapies to arrive.
Botton liine is, ask yourself what will change if the intervention you’re proposing to test were to be successful at increasing lifespan in the ITP at the doses you propose testing it at. What difference would it make? Would it result in actionable information that people can use now to live longer? If the answer is no, then IMO the intervention is not something that should be a priority to test. With limited money to do tests, it’s important that test results lead to data that is useful in the near term. That’s my opinion at least.
Asatxanthin is currently being tested again at a dose 5x lower than the previous one. I’m not even sure whether doses beyond 12-24mg provide any benefit because the body should be saturated with it.
What did you think of the rationale behind Orforglipron?
There is a reason why the ITP does not do this: because supplements that mix a large number of anti-aging compounds have actually been shown to shorten the lifespan of mice. This study [Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA] mixed the vast majority of anti-aging compounds people are currently taking—such as Coenzyme Q10, pomegranate extract (Urolithin A), Niacin (NAD+ precursor), Quercetin, Resveratrol, Lutein, Vitamin K2, TMG, Glutathione, Curcumin, Aspirin, Sulforaphane, Anthocyanins, and more—but the results were actually quite poor. Furthermore, it is difficult to untangle the unknown reactions between so many combined compounds, which offers no help in understanding the underlying mechanisms.
Actually, I suggest that those who don’t have the time to fill out the formal application can simply propose compound names on this page, clarify their reasoning, and attach relevant studies. This would provide valuable ideas and inspiration for those who do have the time to complete the full applications.
Cole - thats a good idea. Whenever someone has an idea for a new compound to potentially submit to the ITP, just post it here with the research and we’ll figure out an application next February.
I have heard back from the ITP that they got my four submissions last Friday… so together we here have submitted a total of 6 applications. I think I’ve heard before that they typically get about 25 to 30 applications … so we’ve bumped the number up significantly this year, and next year we’ll do even more!
Very cool, thanks for sharing the study. I took a quick look at the products used.
I’d counter you and say ITP did test a mixed supplement back in 2011, Protandim, which has 5 botanicals in it. Which did increase male lifespan.
Some of those have also been tested seperatly in ITP - curcumin, and great tea without any life extension.
I think I saw bacopa and milk thistle in your study. So that only leaves 1 ingredient left…
I did not see in your study(unless I missed it) or ITP (as a single ingredient) was ashwagandha extract, so that might be something to test then in a single test for ITP perhaps.
Your study did use a multi vitamin & mineral, so I’ll consider that dropped then from my original stack idea.
I did not see your study use glycine or a whey protein. Though a did see a few other amino acids which was nice. Nac, Acetyl-l-carnitine, and I think one or 2 others.
Glycine tested well in ITP for male and female.
Seems they also used glucosamine in your study, and ITP is in progress testing that now. Will be interesting to see if the results are the same.
Your study did show astaxanthin being tested along with other products. So it’s odd it did not perform well there, and astaxanthin did well in ITP for males.
I’m not a fan of testing anything whose primary effect on health is through reduced calorie intake. This is because we know that calorie restriction works well so anything that reduces calorie intake will likely do well unless it has some negative effects that offset the benefits.
In general, I think interventions that reduce calorie intake should only be tested if there are strong reasons to think that they have significant benefits that are independent from calorie intake. Importantly, such interventions should be tested with a calorie-matched control group such that, in case it increases lifespan, we know it’s not simply because calorie intake is reduced, because the control group’s calorie intake was reduced to the same extent.
I would like to see pyridoxamine tested btw. It’s a decently effective anti-glycation agent: