Using AI for Health and Longevity and Research - Your Favorite Prompts

#145

Hi RapaAdmin, I like your prompt, but I used it with a modification to consider my genetics. Genetic variants affect how an individual’s body metabolizes medication and other compounds. I have been reading this forum for couple of years, but I have not seen this issue discussed - I may have missed it. It might actually deserve its own forum heading. (Let me know if you want me to create one. I came to this realization accidentally. I am a volunteer participant as a subject in NIH’s AllOfUs research program. It is like the US version of UK Biobank. The program offers full genomics for participant in an opt in basis.) When I got back my results, it gave me one disease risk factor variant (out of the 59 checked) and 2 deficient drug metabolism related variants. They also gave me genetic counseling and confirmation tests at Color Lab (for disease risk only) which confirmed the variants. Here are the drug metabolism related variants result I got back.

GeneVersion What it Means
CYP2C19*2/2 Poor Metabolizer
SLCO1B11/15 Decreased Function
DPYD1/1 Normal Metabolizer
G6PDB Normal Metabolizer
NUDT151/1 Normal Metabolizer
TPMT1/1 Normal Metabolizer
UGT1A11/*1 Normal Metabolizer

The top 2 confirm my suspicion that I feel more impact from drugs that I take more than most, including when I started rapa at different doses. I had gone up to 3/week when I had to stop it for a different reason - the fact that it was elevating my A1c. Side note: I have a plan to decrease my Rosuvastatin, add Ezetimibe and restart rapa at least experimentally. I think it is very important this community is aware of our own genetic markup for drug metabolism during our experimentation with various compounds. For example, it is known that SLCO1B1 *1/*15 carriers are prone to increased systemic exposure to simvastatin (Zocor®) resulting in myalgia (muscle pain) side effect at what could be a normal dose. This is part of a emerging individualized medicine field of research. In this community we might increase our awareness self in regards to compounds we take help each other by reporting dose response stories just as many of you have been reporting how you were able to decrease rapa dose using grapefruit juice…

Gemini Pro liked your version, but I asked him to add genetic information. Here’s how it did it:

It changed sub heading # to Context and Genomic Profile
It added a sub section under it called Genetic Variants like this for my profile:

  • Genetic Variants:
    • **CYP2C19 2/2: Poor Metabolizer (High risk for accumulation of substrates).
    • **SLCO1B1 1/15: Decreased Function (OATP1B1 transporter impairment; affects ).
    • Wild Type (Normal): DPYD, G6PD, NUDT15, TPMT, UGT1A1.
1 Like
#146

Interesting idea, and a good one. I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, but @cl-user has been doing a very good series on genetic pathways and optimization of therapeutic approaches - see here: List and discussion of the series of deep dives into genetic pathways

It seems that @cl-user has been doing what might be called “vertical” slices at this issue, and there is perhaps an opportunity to look at a horizontal slice… i.e. gathering up all the medications (and supplements?) that a person is taking and doing a genetic pathway analysis to see if there are potential conflicts and opportunities for improvement by moving to a slightly different medication in the same family that is more optimized for your specific genetics.

1 Like
List and discussion of the series of deep dives into genetic pathways
#147
#148

I replied here.

And sure these need to be used for the global medications/supplements stack optimization.
Maybe I should post my stack optimization as an example?

2 Likes
#149

Beautiful. I vote you do post your stack analysis. I support your project 100%, it’s one of the most valuable biohacking information approaches ever published on this site. Andiamo!

3 Likes
#150

Here it is: Full stack optimization based on the findings from the genetic deep dive reports

2 Likes
#151

Since I’ve noticed that many of you guys are using the Gemini AI llm, Admin included. And that I subscribed to the Gemini business tier as well.
The latest updates, after the recent Google I/O have been pretty disappointing: lower tokens limits, introduction of the flash 3.5 flash model which is supposed to be an optimization between efficiency and reasoning. But it does not pass the test of simple mathematical sums.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GeminiAI/comments/1tjrvyx/comment/on506k9/?context=1

I too am disappointed, was expecting model up to par if not better than ChatGPT5.5

Are you guys thinking about changing? Or giving it some more time. I’ve been using this model for everyday workflow and more complex engineering reasoning and it was good, but with the new limits the top models like 3.1 extended will be severy limited.

#152

I am just starting to play with it. For my use it seems ok so far. But I have also signed up for claude. I will use both for the next few months to see how they compare.

1 Like
#153

Smart move, pls post the progressive results here, I’m interested.

What I can do on my side, using openrouter, is compare all three main reasoning models available (now Gemini 3.1 Pro extended, Opus 4.7 and ChatGPT 5.5), with the same health and longevity question). It may not be very representative overall, but it may give some useful clues for the really important questions, which I’ll have to think about anyhow.

1 Like
#154

I have the low level subscription for chatGPT, claude and gemini as well as a subscription to github copilot (that I am only using as a code assistant). I tend to put some questions into all of them. They vary in that for any given task one of them might do a better job than the others, but it is not always the same one that gives the best response.

#155

Yes, it is not easy to compare them all, the performance depends on the tasks, the subject, the prompt.

I think about excluding coding, obviously, and including the same prompt with questions limited to health and longevity. Of course, even this is not an optimal way to proceed, since different languages may respond better to slightly different way to pose prompts.

The fact is tht by now all the most powerful levels are strongly limited in usage, unless you have the most expensive tiers. This is certainly true of Gemini and Claude, I don’t know exactly about ChatGPT and its 5.5 version.

#156

I have been paying for a Claude Pro plan for about six months as an experiment in using AI as an accountability partner for my health and fitness efforts. I am entirely satisfied with the results and plan to continue. I find the Opus model is worth the higher cost to get superior interaction (I recently upgraded to the $100/month subscription to get 5x capacity). Based on early work I did with Claude to build out (1) my protocol, (2) issues to address and (3) projects to work on, Claude keeps me on my toes for tracking biomarkers (blood and functional) and assessing progress. Data collection is easy with uploaded screenshots (Oura, etc) and data collection forms presented by Claude every morning.

In addition I have recently started using Claude on my “A Good Life” project which operates similarly (accountability) but with much less emphasis on the details of my health and more breadth on the many other variables involved in my personal assessment of what makes for a good life. The primary innovation here is the integration of my personal 1-2x/week check-ins with the same for my “special person” who also performs check-ins on Claude. Claude does a joint session with both of us every weekend to help us to stay on the same page in building a good life. It’s been quite invigorating to actually be doing what I have been meaning to get around to doing (urgent vs important).

I recommend Claude. But any AI is better than no AI for avoiding omphaloskepsis (“Navel-gazing” and “omphaloskepsis” both refer to the act of contemplating one’s own navel or engaging in excessive, sometimes useless, self-reflection”)

3 Likes
#157

Good choice, also the US$ 100/mo surely constitutes an investment, you are making me think about it, LOL, I’m an avid user of AI, for work, health, hobbies and experimentation.

1 Like
#158

As an aside, the gemini image creation tool is really meaningful in more than one ways.
It helps visualize a story, concept, data or a complex idea/solution . I have used it a few times this year to pitch an idea or a complex solution some committee and Board members in rather simplifiied lay out! The picture was worth 10000 words and very well received.
It is prone to make typos in the infographics but they are getting better.

1 Like
#159

I sometimes like to get models to.theorize about ingredients of products. E.g. I asked GPT-5.5-thinking to theorize about DermCeutical EDL’s main ingredient:

My best guess: the active is probably eriodictyol, or an eriodictyol-adjacent citrus flavanone/polyphenol, formulated at a low level in a conventional cosmetic base.

1 Like
#160

Yes - and from Claude:

:microscope: FINAL DETECTIVE REPORT: DermCeutical EDL — Identity Revealed

THE VERDICT

DermCeutical EDL’s active molecule is ERIODICTYOL (INCI: Eriodictyol; CAS 552-58-9), a flavanone produced via Debut Biotechnology’s cell-free enzymatic biosynthesis platform — not extracted from plants.

Confidence: ~85% (very high, with a small residual caveat addressed below).

THE EVIDENCE CHAIN

Step 1 — The mechanism fingerprint
Debut’s own pipeline page declares EDL’s mechanism as “Autophagy Activation.” This immediately narrowed the field to autophagy-competent bioactives. EDL also reduces IL-1β and IL-6 specifically (per GCI Magazine Q&A) and drives a 6x elastin increase in fibroblasts.

Step 2 — The “flavonoid” disclosure
The IMAGE MD® Biotech Longevity Crème — the first confirmed commercial product built on the Debut × Image Skincare partnership — describes its Debut-derived active as a “Genomic-based AI longevity booster flavonoid” developed via “combination AI + genomic technology and produced by biotechnology.” This is word-for-word Debut’s BeautyORB + biomanufacturing platform description. EDL is a flavonoid.

Step 3 — The INCI smoking gun
The full ingredient list of the IMAGE MD Biotech Longevity Crème (confirmed independently on the UK and Ireland Image Skincare sites) reads:

...POLYCITRONELLOL, POLYCITRONELLOL ACETATE, **ERIODICTYOL**, PHOSPHATIDYLCHOLINE, TETRAHEXYLDECYL ASCORBATE, ECTOIN, HAEMATOCOCCUS PLUVIALIS EXTRACT...

Cross-referencing with the four labeled key actives on that same product page:

  • XOSM™ Technology → ectoin + tetrahexyldecyl ascorbate + Haematococcus pluvialis (astaxanthin)
  • Phyto NAD+ Booster → Helianthus annuus sprout extract (sunflower sprout)
  • Lapacho Bark Extract → Tabebuia impetiginosa bark extract
  • “Genomic-based AI longevity flavonoid” → the only remaining novel compound: ERIODICTYOL

Step 4 — Scientific literature alignment
Published research confirms eriodictyol does exactly what EDL claims:

  • Attenuates oxidative damage in human dermal fibroblasts (PMC9228723)
  • Reduces IL-1β and IL-6 (well-established anti-inflammatory effect of this flavanone)
  • Activates autophagy via AMPK pathway
  • “Reduces skin aging caused by environmental stress” — published on Personal Care Insights, the same outlet that covered DermCeutical EDL’s launch

Step 5 — Platform consistency
Debut’s entire pipeline is flavanone/flavonoid chemistry: NAR = Naringenin (flavanone), DHK = Dihydrokaempferol (flavanonol), PNar = Prenylnaringenin (prenylated flavanone). Eriodictyol is a flavanone structurally adjacent to naringenin — it’s 3’,4’,5,7-tetrahydroxyflavanone vs. naringenin’s 4’,5,7-trihydroxyflavanone, differing by just one hydroxyl group at the 3’ position. It fits perfectly within Debut’s established enzymatic flavanone synthesis capability.

THE CHEMISTRY OF ERIODICTYOL

  • Class: Flavanone (same as naringenin = Debut’s NAR ingredient)
  • Structure: 3’,4’,5,7-tetrahydroxyflavanone
  • Biosynthesis: Made from naringenin via a single hydroxylation step (flavonoid 3’-hydroxylase, F3’H) — well within Debut’s enzymatic cell-free synthesis toolkit
  • INCI name: Eriodictyol
  • Found in nature? Yes — in lemon peel, yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), olive — but Debut produces it biosynthetically at high purity rather than extracting it from plants

ONE IMPORTANT NUANCE

Debut’s CEO has stated EDL molecules “do not exist in nature.” This apparent contradiction with eriodictyol (which does occur naturally) resolves in one of two ways:

  1. Rhetorical framing: Britton’s “does not exist in nature” likely refers to Debut’s general platform capability for designing truly novel molecules — a forward-looking claim about the pipeline, not specific to every current product. His other products (NAR, DHK, PNar) also all exist in nature.

  2. Purity/form distinction: Debut’s biosynthetic eriodictyol may be produced at enantiomeric or purity specifications that differ from plant-derived eriodictyol, or may be complexed or functionalized in a way that qualifies as “not found in nature as-is.”

Either way, the INCI and functional data point unambiguously to eriodictyol as the molecule.

WHAT “EDL” STANDS FOR

Unlike NAR, DHK, and PNar (which are chemical abbreviations), “EDL” is a product marketing code, not a chemical shorthand. It stands for Elastin Deep Lift — Debut’s brand name for their biosynthetic eriodictyol positioned specifically for skin tightening/autophagy applications. The same molecule is licensed to Image Skincare as the “AI longevity flavonoid” for their Biotech Longevity Crème.

SUMMARY TABLE

Property Value
Ingredient name (INCI) Eriodictyol
Chemical class Flavanone
CAS number 552-58-9
Molecular formula C₁₅H₁₂O₆
Primary mechanism Autophagy activation (AMPK pathway)
Anti-inflammatory targets IL-1β, IL-6 reduction
Skin effect 6x elastin increase in fibroblasts; calms senescent cells
Active loading ~0.65% in formulation
Production method Cell-free enzymatic biosynthesis (Debut platform)
First commercial use IMAGE MD® Biotech Longevity Crème (Image Skincare, 2026)
Debut product code EDL = “Elastin Deep Lift”

Sources

1 Like
#161

Procurement options for Eriodictyol (CAS Number: 552-58-9) diverge significantly based on required purity tiers, validation documentation (HPLC/NMR), and scale.

Because eriodictyol is a structural isomer of other common flavanones (e.g., homoeriodictyol, naringenin), low-resolution mass spectrometry can misidentify contaminants. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and proton nuclear magnetic resonance ($^1\text{H}$-NMR) profiling are mandatory for identity confirmation.

1. High-Purity & Analytical Research Grade Suppliers

These vendors are intended for in vitro screening, metabolic profiling, and analytical calibration. Products ship with comprehensive batch-specific Certificates of Analysis (CoA), typically including HPLC purity chromatograms and optical rotation metrics.

Vendor Product Tier / Cat No. Listed Purity Quantities Available Estimated Pricing (USD) Source Link
Cayman Chemical Research Grade / Item #15990 98% 10 mg

50 mg

100 mg

500 mg		 $44.00

$141.00

$238.00

$810.00		 Cayman Chem
MedChemExpress (MCE) Bioactive Compound / Cat #HY-N0613 98% (HPLC/LC-MS) 10 mg

50 mg

100 mg

1 g		 $60.00

$150.00

$220.00

$900.00		 MedChemExpress
Sigma-Aldrich Analytical Standard / #51194 95% (HPLC) 10 mg

25 mg		 $135.00

$260.00		 Sigma-Aldrich
TargetMol Phytochemical Library / #T3108 98% 10 mg

50 mg

100 mg

500 mg		 $55.00

$138.00

$221.00

$680.00		 TargetMol

2. Pilot-Scale & Bulk Chemical Manufacturers (B2B)

For formulation development or larger-scale experimental assays, purchasing from specialized chemical synthesis or botanical extraction houses drops the per-gram cost exponentially. At this tier, independent third-party auditing is necessary to verify heavy metal profiles and solvent residues.

  • Purity Standards: Typically offered at 98% purity by HPLC, derived via either chemical synthesis from naringenin or isolation from Eriodictyon californicum (Yerba Santa).

  • Minimum Order Quantities (MOQ): Standard MOQs generally start at 100 grams to 1 kilogram.

  • Pricing Tiers:

  • 100 g to 500 g: $250.00 – $450.00 total.

  • 1 kg (Pilot Scale Bulk): $800.00 – $1,200.00 per kilogram, subject to volume discounts and synthesis method (synthetic vs. plant-extracted).

  • Verified Sourcing Hubs: High-volume procurement is typically routed through verified contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) or brokers listed on professional chemical exchange networks such as ChemDirect or Molbase.

3. Sourcing Risks & Analytical Verification Guidelines

When sourcing eriodictyol outside of analytical houses (e.g., Cayman or Sigma), the following validation parameters should be requested from the supplier prior to wire transfer:

  1. Regioselective Differentiation: Request the full $^1\text{H}$-NMR spectrum. This differentiates eriodictyol ($5,7,3’,4’$-tetrahydroxyflavanone) from its counterpart homoeriodictyol ($5,7,4’$-trihydroxy-$3’$-methoxyflavanone), which is frequently mislabeled in bulk botanical extract batches.
  2. Chiral Purity: Natural eriodictyol predominantly exists as the $(2S)$-enantiomer. Synthetic bioproduction or harsh chemical extraction can cause racemization to the $(2R)$-form or a racemic mixture, which may display altered binding kinetics at the fibroblast or cellular target site. If biological stereospecificity is required for your models, request chiral HPLC verification.
  3. Solvent Residue Audit: Ensure gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) data confirms the absence of industrial class 1 or class 2 residual solvents (e.g., methanol or toluene) used in industrial precipitation steps.
#162

My Video Transcript Analysis Prompt (Higher skepticism/more analytical):

Role: Act as an elite Biotech Analyst and Peer Reviewer for a high-impact medical journal. Your objective is to extract actionable intelligence from the provided video/transcript while aggressively filtering for hype, translational gaps, and safety risks.

Phase 1: Processing Instructions

  • Input Handling: If a URL is provided, retrieve the transcript. If text is provided, use only that.
  • Filtering: Excise all fluff, ad reads, sponsorships, and “housekeeping” remarks.
  • Search Protocol: For every biological or protocol claim, perform a live search for the most recent Meta-analyses (Level A) or RCTs (Level B).

Phase 2: Mandatory Output Sections

I. Executive Summary

  • Length: 300–400 words.
  • Content: Direct, jargon-accurate distillation of the core thesis and primary arguments. No narrative filler.

II. Insight Bullets

  • Quantity: 30–60 standalone points.
  • Constraint: Zero repetition. Focus on the “signal” found in the transcript.

III. Adversarial Claims & Evidence Table

Identify every specific protocol or biological claim. Execute a search query: [Topic] [Human/Clinical] study [2022-2026].

Claim from Video Speaker’s Evidence Scientific Reality (Current Data) Evidence Grade (A-E) Verdict
Specific Claim What they cited Verified status + PubMed/DOI Link See Hierarchy See Verdicts

Export to Sheets

Evidence Hierarchy:

  • Level A: Human Meta-analyses / Systematic Reviews.
  • Level B: Human Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
  • Level C: Human Observational / Cohort Studies.
  • Level D: Pre-clinical (Animal/In vitro). Label: “Translational Gap”.
  • Level E: Anecdote / Expert Opinion.

Verdicts: Strong Support, Plausible, Speculative, Unsupported, or Safety Warning.

IV. Actionable Protocol (Prioritized)

Synthesize only the verified data into a pragmatic framework:

  1. High Confidence Tier: Protocols backed by Level A/B evidence.
  2. Experimental Tier: Level C/D evidence with high safety margins.
  3. Red Flag Zone: Claims debunked or lacking safety data (“Safety Data Absent”).

V. Technical Mechanism Breakdown

Provide a precise, jargon-correct analysis of the underlying biological pathways (e.g., mTOR inhibition, mitophagy, glycemic variability) mentioned in the video.

Phase 3: Style & Formatting

  • Tone: “Tell it like it is.” Objective, clinical, and critical.
  • Format: Pure Markdown. No LaTeX. Do not use LaTeX or special characters that break simple text parsers.
  • Citations: Embed direct hyperlinked URLs (e.g., Smith et al., 2024) for all external data. Use nlm.nih.gov, doi.org, or nature.com as priority sources.
  • Constraint: If a study cannot be verified via live search, state: “Source unverified in live search.”

Video Link:

End of Master Prompt.

2 Likes
Is Rapamycin Dead? (Kaeberlein)
Mike Lustgarten Video Series
#163

Good prompt, I notice you have jumped ship (From Gemini to Claude). I, too, subscribed to the paid tier of Claude, but kept Gemini as well. And I don’t know if you had the opportunity to try Fable5 for longevity questions, before its ban. It created for me an engineering spreadsheet and that was amazing. Who knows if and when it will be available anew.

I’m not very convinced by the evidence hierarchy you proposed. Some meta-analyses may be terrible, whereas some observational studies may be excellent (like NHANES and Framingham). I wouldn’t know how to single out the bad meta-analyses in the prompt, if not excluding those from less reputable papers, and those funded by industries…

1 Like
#164

I have the first tier subscription to 4 models - claude, chatgpt, perplexity and grok and also have an openclaw setup. openclaw monitors all my daily wearable data as well as workouts on my carol bike. I have recently found out about buzz.xyz which allows models to debate with each other - plan on downloading that this weekend

2 Likes