Is there an argument to be had for use of Rapamycin for long-term aging-delaying purposes in those under 25? For example, 18?
I understand that Alex Chen is one of the few that has written that this age-cohort could benefit.
I presume differences in dosage based on age should be considered.
When weighing waiting until ~25, or a couple years after that, I think it is important to think about the idea of the earlier the better (in terms of prevention). There is a limit to this, presumably. And that has been set by some at about 25, due to development of the brain, etc. I’m aware that in animal studies, it led to a permanent smaller size in general (body, organs). After one has finished growing in height etc however…
A question is, could proper dosage simply only draw out this developmental process for under 25s (and over 18)? Or instead could it markedly impact development and function in the long term to the downside (in terms of brain function, IQ maybe)? A quick search shows fluid intelligence peaks at 20, though I have not looked extensively into this - I am certainly not sure of the significance of that in this context.
Could that risk be weighed against any hope that starting at 18-24 has a greater impact on longevity than starting even 5 years later?
I have only just discovered Rapamycin and its applicability to longevity (in the last 2-3 days or so). I’m just curious if there could be any strong argument of starting before 25 (but after ~18). There are unknowns and risks, and some things will be theoretical or assumptions, but it seems the complete unknowns tend to somewhat be overstated by some.
For me, a desire to begin Rapamycin may be premature. I am uncertain if there is a consensus that beginning at that age is unwise (that is based on specific reasons rather than generalizations). Naturally, for this age group, the dominant tendency is to give greater weight to the potential unknowns and risks associated with the use of Rapamycin compared to its potential benefits.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.