Neither do I. In fact I have no issues with anybody based on their titles, names, avatars or public profiles. What I pay attention to, is what they say. Now, let’s go back and take a look:
From his post where Bryan Johnson enters the conversation (yet he says i brought up Bryan Johnson). Then he says:
I value both sides of the argument. Sometimes we can get caught up in a positive feedback loop and it’s good to hear the arguments from the other side. After hearing both sides of the argument, I feel that I make a better choice. So I am glad for people like @Dr.Bart and @DrFraser But, let’s remember to go easy on the people and hard on the science.
Now you are out of line. If you can’t distinguish between a debate and “a vicious attack” maybe you shouldn’t be posting on these forums. In fact you never actually even attempted to debate me on any of my statements on this thread, you went straight for ad hominen… which judging by number of posts you made actually feels like “a vicious attack”.
Back this up. Proof?
I’m not the only one here that’s paying attention. Other people saw your deleted posts against @DrFraser before you deleted them. I have no knowledge of @DrFraser other than seeing his posts here but your posts were certainly out of line. The truth is out there.
On the substantive issues, however, I do think the science is settled against supplementing with a lot of vitamin E.
I probably have hit the highest vitamin D levels of people on this forum with a tested 25OHD serum level over 400 nmol/L (which is the UK units - USA units 160 ng/ml) for about a week. I accept entirely that this is too high and there are a number of documented cases where people have suffered (and a few died) from hypervitaminosis D.
There is a story about David Sinclair and Resveratrol supplements, but I have not really bothered to look at it. I don’t myself take resveratrol because it is a cox-1 inhibitor.
I am heavily into skewing my inputs with various supplements etc, but on an evidence and testing basis.
Yes, I try to get my family to look at their annual bloodwork, but they just won’t do it. Instead, they just trust the doctor to discuss problems. But doctors have limited time, many patients, often miss emerging problems, and certainly make no attempt to optimize normal bloodwork numbers.
That is definition ad hominem. Adding a straw man by claiming that I “viciously attacked” is a nice touch. You also heavily rely on appeal to authority fallacy in previous posts.
When comes to debate @DrFraser, I chose to retract some of my posts because at that time I already made my point and further debate was moot. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. There were no vicious attacks and I hope the moderator would step in when that happens. I think I exercised a good judgement by ending a pointless debate (like this one) and I hope that serves as an example of civility for you.
Anyway, I encourage you to put me on the ignore list. I am highly skeptical person and tend to question assumptions. I really don’t care to have any further discussions with you.
When first correlation studies came out with low Vitamin D about 2 decades ago, we were very excited because it seemed like an easy and cheap OTC remedy. Unfortunately as the correlation studies mounted linking low Vitamin D with numerous medical conditions the interventions studies pretty much failed one after another. My only critique of the studies is that a lot of them had subjects take vitamin D irregardless of the serum level. Now I am a lot less enthusiastic about it, I still test it but only recommend replacement when USA unit level is under < 20, some patients choose to replace at higher levels. I never use the high dose replacements 50,000 I.U weekly, just very conservative dosing. Physiologically for humans natural vitamin D production was historically cyclical through out the year in the higher latitudes. I also wondered if daily dosing for fat soluble agent is the right way, I QOD dose it for myself.
My own (n=1 anecdotal) experiments point to a mild toxicity of unmetabolised cholecalciferol. Hence I would suggest daily dosing rather than a weekly bolus. Interestingly trials with monthly bolus have not produced good results.
My view is that we have evolved to handle an annual cycle of food feast and famine which the body controls through the vitamin d receptor.
I just went back and carefully reread the Worth article that is the subject of this thread. I highly recommend it (and rereading it) as an excellent overview of what’s happening in the longevity movement. The only thing I would have added is a little more about developments with Epigentic clocks ( mentioned along with Horvath and Levine).
This is the article that I would send to friends who ask about longevity, metformin and rapamycin. I’m going to send it to my sister who is a naturapath (no, not a psychopath). Also a nice mention of @John_Hemming favorite topic.
" Pollution, radiation, bad diet, lack of exercise, and other stressors can damage both DNA and epigenetic mechanisms. Shelly Berger and colleagues are studying a therapy for nerve cells, using an unspooling enzyme called Acetyl Co A synthetase. “That leads to turning on genes that are involved in learning and memory and creating new circuitry in the brain,” she says."
John, I have to say that I think you are on to a hugely important aspect of aging. I’ve done a lot of reading on gene expression, transcription, translation and the citrate cycle. I really liked that they started the Worth article with a list of the 12 hallmarks of aging and it’s something that we should all keep in mind as we evaluate our approach.
Thank you for this. Looking at it simplistically if the genome starts failing to function (which is the basis of my hypothesis) then lots of other things would go wrong.
The more complex question is what can be done to mitigate this and what the consequences are of doing that. That is where my personal biohacking experimentation (and to a lesser extent those who are working with me) is going.
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.
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.
