What age would you ideally like to live healthily into? 70s, 80s, 90s plus?
It has been said and repeated several times here on this forum that ASCVD is physiologically not possible at apoB 20-30. I am not sure if PA said it himself but for sure it stems from his podcast.
1 Like
Ideally into my 90s. My grandparents avoided major degenerative diseases into their nineties. So there is hope I can make it without statins? I described my experience with ASCVD assessment done at a clinic some 6 months ago and my lifetime risk of ASCVD is around 16% and radically lowering my apoB of 58 won’t do much for that.
1 Like
I’m waiting for you to falsify the hypothesis by showing a single case of genetic LDL 0 who had plaque build up in the aterial wall, or MI after a plaque rupture. Until then, it still stands and you’re developing atherosclerosis faster with your apoB, just because you don’t want to take safe drugs that would give you no side effects.
1 Like
I don’t speak for Attia, but I know he’s never said nor implied that metabolic health, blood pressure, smoking, etc don’t matter as long as ApoB is low. That’s crazy talk😆
1 Like
Thanks a lot for sharing, very helpful to refresh the biggest killers.
If one sums up the numbers for (i) strokes and (ii) heart disease it is crystal clear that this common category is such a massive killer (and clearly number 1) and something all of us with healthy aging and longevity goals should be thinking about seriously.
For example numbers of deaths from heart disease and strokes are
-
7 times more than from Alzheimer’s
-
1.4 times every single different type of cancer summed together and combined
-
8 times more than diabetes
-
15 times more than from liver
-
4 times the sum of all types of accidents
6 Likes
There is no such a thing as a drug without side effects. Period.
Of course there is. There are many people who do not get side effects.
Honestly folks, I think we should all be taking Bempedoic Acid as a preventive measure against the number one killer of heart disease. I don’t see any downside to lowering LDL by 20% and ApoB by 14% as well as hsCRP by 23%. It seems like it is much more effective than almost any other pill we take. And it is about 30 cents a day if you order it from India. Where else can you get yourself such a cheap insurance policy?
It’s a no brainer and you lower inflammation dramatically as a bonus.
6 Likes
I’ve chosen a PCSK9i for now, but agree with the principle that this it the area where both most can be done easily, with no to at least low risks and where without being proactive still leaves significant risks on the table also for generally healthy people.
Re the inflammation part of your post, has that been distanced in context of bempedoic acid here on the forum already or could you provide some color on that aspect?
2 Likes
The inflammation reduction is from this paper. I’m surprised no one has really mentioned it before.
4 Likes
My bempedoic acid just came today from Jagdish. Amazing how fast it got here considering the holidays! Unfortunately there’s a sign on my door saying not to knock because of the dogs, and it needs a signature 
Just put me on ignore. I’m just correcting things that you post which are factually untrue by posting the source contradicting it. Nothing personal, but facts are important and I think it’s helpful to cut down misinformation. What’s the point of this site if we don’t care.
It may be that you’re working in a second language. But there’s a huge difference between “heart disease is the leading cause of death” and
The latter is saying >50%.
Yes i find it really useful to understand the biggest killers. Id also like a list showing prevalence of the biggest comorbidities in the elderly. There’d be overlap but not completely. One area where I’d love to see some research is understanding how elimination of a disease class impacts longevity.
I’ve heard figures quoted (by Peter Attia i think) as saying that for example eliminating all cancers or all cvd only adds some surprisingly low single years to population longevity. Id love to see the research behind it if anyone has a link
1 Like
We’re talking about pragmatism here, and just like Neo says, your source has zero pragmatic relevance compared to what I say:
Even if 30% die from heart disease than 51%, it still matters a lot based on the base rate and the ability to prevent the disease.
I don’t take it personally, it’s just annoying for someone to do the least charitable interpretation of everything you say, and tunnel vision.
You should do steel man arguments, most of the time you’re bordering on straw man.
I think @John_Hemming has provided that citation before
But I think that the analysis in that paper was flawed in some key ways, including based on “keeping all other things the same”, which in people’s case on this forum is probably not an accurate case for at least two reasons
-
many of the the things in our playbooks that for instance decrease risk of cardiovascular disease (healthy diet, optimized quality and quantity of sleep, nailing stress management, managing glucose/insulin patterns, great exercise regimes, measuring blood work and other biomarkers and and then taking data driven action, many of the pharmaceutical approaches to interact with aging pathways, etc) generally also impact cancer risks in a positive direction (as well as risks kidney disease, diabetes, liver, neurodegeneration, etc, etc, etc).
(And there are probably also other interactions, someone with a stroke or heart attack that survives will perhaps exercise less, be more depressed and begin eating and sleeping worse, might have memory impacts that stops then from taking basic meds or even just impacting how well they can follow and keep evolving their overall longevity and health protocol) -
even if a specific action like taking a certain Apo B lowering medication did not also have positive impacts on other health pillars/diseases, the lower risks of cardiovascular disease in an individual that also via separate tools and actions is addressing cancer (generally much better at early screening and general physician check in and just being observant of anything being on if our bodies, data, etc, perhaps also using liquid biopsies and MRI screening) means that the person does not have an average risk for just dying of cancer two years later, and the same goes other diseases and health pillars too
Said differently the cost in years of life lost of a fatal stroke or heart attack of someone who truly is aggressively going after health and longevity across the board, is probably on average much higher than it would be for average Joe or Jane Smith.
—-
And above does not take into account that the world of science and medicine and technology is not static, but that prevention strategies and treatments for the other things outside of heart disease will likely be much better in the future than it is today.
(You can flip stroke/heart disease for cancer or whatever other killer you want and the answer comes out the same way)
1 Like
The gero science hypothesis is basically you can hit multiple targets. I think citrate does this. Rapamycin also does, but through improved mitochondrial efficiency.
1 Like
I’ll try to find it.And yes, I’m hoping there are multiple flaws in it!
I agree with your logic, it’s partly why I’m so keen on factors with multiple downstream points of effect. Rapamycin, statins, taurine, exercise, evoo, glynac etc.
1 Like
I’m not sure why its pragmatic to just make stuff up. And it’s actually 20.6% for heart disease. So you were out by quite an enormous margin. That’s obviously fine, but i think if you find it difficult when someone corrects you - just put me on ignore. That way we can debate things based on the correct data without it being an annoyance for you.