That is the question as to 80% of what. Is it possible to achieve more in improving than what you seem to think is possible. The key question here is what evidence would be required to prove more is possible today with interventions used today.
My own view is that we need to identify functional tests to monitor this.
Exercise, proper diet and sleep account for 80-90% of what one can do to increase one’s lifespan based on current best evidence. (I gave him 80% because he did not elaborate on the diet) This is of course a very rough estimate and of course IMHO.
That’s a good response. I think more can be done by hitting the core aging pathways, but only time will tell.
I think starting a statin or other medication early in life rather than later when heart disease have already developed is important as well.
I don’t disagree and remain hopeful, especially with RAPA. However I have been studying and reviewing the science on supplements for the past 25 years and it just feels like it was one disappointment after another. Whereas diet and exercise seemed to always meet the endpoints of the study.
Probably but then we get a thread like this : Higher LDL-Cholesterol is Associated with Greater Longevity? - #193 by Ericross2
I don’t know who or what is behind the push against statins but people who don’t treat their apoB aggressively are doing a mistake that’ll cost them their life.
Yeah and what I meant wasn’t secondary prevention, but primary prevention, more specifically preventing atherosclerosis building up.
The fact that Brad Stanfield, MD put himself on a statin at age of 27 is pretty telling. HOWEVER twenty five years ago I have known cardiologists that were putting themselves on beta-blockers and aspirin prophylactically… and I am pretty sure no cardiologist would that now without a good indication.
Personally I don’t have FH of CAD and but I managed to keep my LDL in the 70-80 range with just lifestyle changes. I will have to check my ApoB and (a) one day.
So for someone to proclaim that their 100+ supplement stack is effective and safe because they did their “research” is a combination of hubris and foolishness. Animal studies mean nothing. Observational studies mean nothing. Show me a 1000+, multi-center, long term RCT - then we can talk.
That’s great you have such high epistemic standards, but the reality is that such evidence doesn’t exist for the vast majority of interventions being discussed on this site.
We have limited information, and we have to try to and make our best judgement of what to do with it. I hope you’re joking to say animal studies mean nothing. If that were actually the case, nobody would waste time doing them.
Wild he posted this on a site called rapamycin.news
Statins, BPA/EZET/PCSK9i, BP-lowering meds, SGLT2i… What did I miss?
Did you look back on the original post? It was about Vitamin E…not a pharmaceutical.
And yes rapamycin is a pharmaceutical but that’s not what was being talked about.
It’s about SUPPLEMENTS…get it?
I was just asking what intervention I missed.
Vitamin E, it’s the greatest thing ever…we all know that.
What kind of a complete moron would add a supplement in a 100+ stack that didn’t show at least some efficacy in an animal study ? That has be the lowest of low bars of inclusion.
The question is which supplement will become the next Vitamin E. So far Niacin is winning. NMN might be next.
Rapamycin is an FDA approved pharmaceutical, however only a complete idiot would create a 100+ stack of off label pharmaceuticals to “experiment” on, right? But supplements? They MUST be safe because they are “natural”. 
There are advantages to taking molecules with a long track record in that there are likely to be some records as to when there are adverse responses. Eg ashwagandha has a track record of exacerbating liver disease.
Most supplements are placebos. So, taking 100 placebos should give you the benefit of 30. 
Although those with scientific studies may provide a better return.