30 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

From what I've seen, Michael has tended to have an anti-supplement bias for years. I'd love to know what supplements he considers important, if any. I suspect his answer leans to the idea of getting all of your chemicals through food and drink, but this approach comes up seriously short, if maximizing a healthy lifespan is important. And that's exactly the area where I do not believe that he appreciates the value of supplementation: Supplements can extend healthy lifespans. They might not be able to help humans exceed their maximum lifespan, but that's another topic, and it seems to be the only topic Michael likes to address, for the most part. Hence his fixation on CR. However, a combination of CR and good supplementation would very likely increase his (or anyone's) longevity.

BTW, I have it from a good source that a study will soon be released that shows very positive anti-cancer results with resveratrol. Not sure if this study is with animals or humans, but I'm told it's coming in a few months.

Edited by DukeNukem, 08 June 2008 - 03:32 AM.

[kismet]

That's his regimen, maybe you have already seen it:
http://www.imminst.o...o...c=11396&hl=
Minimalistic compared to your regimen, but obviously not food only.

I'm taking the wait and see approach when it comes to res, until there are some more positive studies with higher doses of res or even a study showing extended maximum lifespan.

Edited by kismet, 07 June 2008 - 08:36 PM.

[Mind]

Duke has a good point to remember about healthspan and maximum lifespan. Of all possible interventions, CR has the most solid evidence for extending your healthspan (the number of years you remain functioning at a useful level), but it is not the only method of extending healthspan (exercise, supps, risk avoidance, being others). There is no human data as of yet that indicates with certainty that CR extends maximum lifespan, but it is sure nice to be in as good of shape for as long as possible. We will not be able to extend maximum lifespan without major bioengineering interventions, so it is rational to stay healthy until that day arrives.

[sUper GeNius]

From what I've seen, Michael has tended to have an anti-supplement bias for years. I'd love to know what supplements he considers important, if any. I suspect his answer leans to the idea of getting all of your chemicals through food and drink, but this approach comes up seriously short, if maximizes a healthy lifespan is important. And that's exactly the area where I do not believe that he appreciates the value of supplementation: Supplements can extend healthy lifespans. They might not be able to help humans exceed their maximum lifespan, but that's another topic, and it seems to be the only topic Michael likes to address, for the most part. Hence his fixation on CR. However, a combination of CR and good supplementation would very likely increase his (or anyone's) longevity.

BTW, I have it from a good source that a study will soon be released that shows very positive anti-cancer results with resveratrol. Not sure if this study is with animals or humans, but I'm told it's coming in a few months.

I have read the book on CR he co-authored. It seems that his stance on supplements is they they can be a risk to successful CR, and one should be very conservative when choosing which ones to take. According to him, no supplement has been shown to increase maximum lifespan.

He wants to extend the curve. Problem is many do not want to bear the rigors of his approach, for various reasons.

[DukeNukem]

>>> According to him, no supplement has been shown to increase maximum lifespan.

I fully agree with this. Although, really, no testing in this area has been done (on humans), right? So, it's not all that valuable of a statement.

But, we need to be very clear when we talk about extending our healthspans, versus extended our maximum lifespans. Supplements, given the research and indicators we have available, can help us live longer, along with eating well and so on (look at Jack LaLanne). But, our maximum lifespans (~120 years) will not be increased by these methods--we'll only get closer to our maximum. This is still a very good reason to take care of ourselves, because by living closer to our maximum, we are more likely to reach escape velocity.

Edited by DukeNukem, 08 June 2008 - 03:42 AM.

[niner]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

[sUper GeNius]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

I'm not trying to hit escape velocity. Don't know if I'd even want to. I'd be very very happy with living to 100 and being fit and healthy nearly to the end.

[niner]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

I'm not trying to hit escape velocity. Don't know if I'd even want to. I'd be very very happy with living to 100 and being fit and healthy nearly to the end.

That's cool. A lot of us are going to have to be satisfied with the same deal or (very likely) worse. Unless we opt for cryonics, which I haven't done yet, but haven't entirely ruled out either. Maybe if I could live another couple hundred years, I could see a horse actually win the Triple Crown.

[steelheader]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

I'm not trying to hit escape velocity. Don't know if I'd even want to. I'd be very very happy with living to 100 and being fit and healthy nearly to the end.

Putting questions of increased lifespan aside, as an older person I can verify that better fitness and health right now, today and tomorrow, doesn't suck.

[tintinet]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

I'm not trying to hit escape velocity. Don't know if I'd even want to. I'd be very very happy with living to 100 and being fit and healthy nearly to the end.

So you say now. Are you sure you will have the same attitude if you're fit, healthy, and feeling fine @ 99?

Edited by tintinet, 08 June 2008 - 07:11 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

I'm not trying to hit escape velocity. Don't know if I'd even want to. I'd be very very happy with living to 100 and being fit and healthy nearly to the end.

So you say now. Are you sure you will have the same attitude if you're fit, healthy, and feeling fine @ 99?

I'm not so afraid of death. I am more afraid of dying before I have accomplished what I want/need to accomplish. I'd rather live to 100 and have had reached my goals than live to 150 and have those goals still unmet.

[tintinet]

I'd like to echo what Duke just said, because I think it's important and we don't hear enough about it. Some people dismiss treatment regimens that increase average lifespan but do nothing for maximum lifespan as "only" curve squaring. Ask yourself this: Am I more likely to be the one in a million who hits the maximum, or one of all the rest who are closer to the average? Unless you are the one who hits the max, the increase in the average will do more for you. We're all trying to hit escape velocity, and right now that's all about living healthier, longer. Anything that extends your healthspan is good.

I'm not trying to hit escape velocity. Don't know if I'd even want to. I'd be very very happy with living to 100 and being fit and healthy nearly to the end.

So you say now. Are you sure you will have the same attitude if you're fit, healthy, and feeling fine @ 99?

I'm not so afraid of death. I am more afraid of dying before I have accomplished what I want/need to accomplish. I'd rather live to 100 and have had reached my goals than live to 150 and have those goals still unmet.

Good for you. Personally, my goals have changed so many times, I have no idea what they might be when I'm 100.

[niner]

I'm not so afraid of death. I am more afraid of dying before I have accomplished what I want/need to accomplish. I'd rather live to 100 and have had reached my goals than live to 150 and have those goals still unmet.

If I live to 150 and I still haven't finished remodeling my bathroom, I'm going to be really annoyed. And don't even ask about my wife...

[maestro949]

I'm not so afraid of death. I am more afraid of dying before I have accomplished what I want/need to accomplish. I'd rather live to 100 and have had reached my goals than live to 150 and have those goals still unmet.

If I live to 150 and I still haven't finished remodeling my bathroom, I'm going to be really annoyed. And don't even ask about my wife...

My wife would be pretty upset if I suggested remodeling her.

Regarding supplements, I tend to lean towards the conservative side. I take a handful but until better biomarkers and testing emerge, it's a bit of a crapshoot as to determining whether they are having a positive impact.

Edited by maestro949, 10 June 2008 - 06:31 PM.

[DukeNukem]

>>> Regarding supplements, I tend to lean towards the conservative side. I take a handful but until better biomarkers and testing emerge, it's a bit of a crapshoot as to determining whether they are having a positive impact. <<<

You can probably lower you risk by sticking with food-based supplements, like green tea, resveratrol (not a megadose levels), blueberry, pomegranate, garlic, and so on. Also, you can reduce your risk by supplementing with chemicals already produced by your body, like lipoic acid, vitamin D, CoQ10, etc. Finally, just make sure you're getting a good foundation of vitamins and minerals, in good ratios.

[Shepard]

However, a combination of CR and good supplementation would very likely increase his (or anyone's) longevity.

The problem is that this is nothing more than an assumption based on observations made from the effect of supplements on non-CR'd humans. Michael has a good, long talk on this topic on the CR-II DVD (Calorie Restriction Society Conference). I'd hate to mess up a lifetime of following CR by making an incorrect assumption.

[sUper GeNius]

However, a combination of CR and good supplementation would very likely increase his (or anyone's) longevity.

The problem is that this is nothing more than an assumption based on observations made from the effect of supplements on non-CR'd humans. Michael has a good, long talk on this topic on the CR-II DVD (Calorie Restriction Society Conference). I'd hate to mess up a lifetime of following CR by making an incorrect assumption.

That of course needs to be balanced with the possibility that CR will have litle or no effect on humans in extending lifespan. Recently I read what seemed like a very well written opinion on the subject. I'll post the link later, but the general idea idea was that 1) CR in humans is likely to have SOME effect on humans, but 2) CR is likely to add only a few years to one's life, something like three.

So, my belief is that one needs to attempt to balance these possibilities out. The possibility that CR will not significantly extend lifespan in humans, vs the possibility that supplements might interfere with any CR effect, vs supplements will square the curve.

For me, I think I'm going to do a little bit of both, picking some high value supplements to take, along with some moderate periodic fasting/moderate CR.

[Shepard]

That of course needs to be balanced with the possibility that CR will have litle or no effect on humans in extending lifespan. Recently I read what seemed like a very well written opinion on the subject. I'll post the link later, but the general idea idea was that 1) CR in humans is likely to have SOME effect on humans, but 2) CR is likely to add only a few years to one's life, something like three.

So, my belief is that one needs to attempt to balance these possibilities out. The possibility that CR will not significantly extend lifespan in humans, vs the possibility that supplements might interfere with any CR effect, vs supplements will square the curve.

Certainly, I'm not saying that supplements will have any negative effect. I'm saying that if anything is going to make a difference, it will almost definitely be CR. And there are several supplements that would be appropriate to take based on the individual and very favorable risk:benefit ratios. But, the risk is potentially much greater for CR'd people because of the amount of work that goes into following that lifestyle. So, why take the risk of messing up your best bet by introducing too many unknowns?

[sUper GeNius]

That of course needs to be balanced with the possibility that CR will have litle or no effect on humans in extending lifespan. Recently I read what seemed like a very well written opinion on the subject. I'll post the link later, but the general idea idea was that 1) CR in humans is likely to have SOME effect on humans, but 2) CR is likely to add only a few years to one's life, something like three.

So, my belief is that one needs to attempt to balance these possibilities out. The possibility that CR will not significantly extend lifespan in humans, vs the possibility that supplements might interfere with any CR effect, vs supplements will square the curve.

Certainly, I'm not saying that supplements will have any negative effect. I'm saying that if anything is going to make a difference, it will almost definitely be CR. And there are several supplements that would be appropriate to take based on the individual and very favorable risk:benefit ratios. But, the risk is potentially much greater for CR'd people because of the amount of work that goes into following that lifestyle. So, why take the risk of messing up your best bet by introducing too many unknowns?

Although I generally agree with you, I'm not sure that the evidence for CR efficacy in humans is as bright as you make it to be. But as the data increases, so will our degree of certainty. At that point I may increase the degree of CR. But there's much to be said for quality of life as well. Despite the cheery assessment of devout CR pratictioners, I'm not sure I would enjoy the process, nor would I be happy with the way I looked.

I also think there may some risk jeopardizing the "easier" squaring of the curve by taking too many supplements. My reasoning goes something like this: the more you take, the greater the chance of an adverse reaction, adverse in the sense of nullifying any squaring of the curve, let alone maximum lifespan. The beta-carotene issue, the vitamin E thing, and now the general vitamin issue that has appeared in the news recently, all make me wary.

[Shepard]

Although I generally agree with you, I'm not sure that the evidence for CR efficacy in humans is as bright as you make it to be. But as the data increases, so will our degree of certainty.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I'm fully confident in CR. I currently fall into the camp that thinks it's not going to do a lot for maximum lifespan. But, I think the evidence is ridiculously weighted in its favor for having an effect on both maximum and average lifespans over basically anything else.

[sUper GeNius]

Although I generally agree with you, I'm not sure that the evidence for CR efficacy in humans is as bright as you make it to be. But as the data increases, so will our degree of certainty.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I'm fully confident in CR. I currently fall into the camp that thinks it's not going to do a lot for maximum lifespan. But, I think the evidence is ridiculously weighted in its favor for having an effect on both maximum and average lifespans over basically anything else.

I think I wouldn't agree with the word "ridiculously." Too strong a word for me. But...

Consider this possible side-effect. The first hit googlng 'depression' & 'caloric restriction.'

http://ouroboros.wor...and-depression/

edit: Maybe we'll need to add an SSRI to our stack...

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 11 June 2008 - 04:41 AM.

[Shepard]

Consider this possible side-effect. The first hit googlng 'depression' & 'caloric restriction.'

http://ouroboros.wor...and-depression/

edit: Maybe we'll need to add an SSRI to our stack...

http://ouroboros.wor...ted-to-rodents/

[sUper GeNius]

Consider this possible side-effect. The first hit googlng 'depression' & 'caloric restriction.'

http://ouroboros.wor...and-depression/

edit: Maybe we'll need to add an SSRI to our stack...

http://ouroboros.wor...ted-to-rodents/

I guess we can, if we want, cherry pick data to give us what we want to hear. So CR's life-prolonging effects DO carry over from rodents, but their depression doesn't.

[Shepard]

I guess we can, if we want, cherry pick data to give us what we want to hear. So CR's life-prolonging effects DO carry over from rodents, but their depression doesn't.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but that's not what the link indicated. Anyway, it makes evolutionary sense. In a food shortage, listening to emo music and crying inside wouldn't have been advantageous. Getting off your ass and killing some food would have been.

[inawe]

Although I generally agree with you, I'm not sure that the evidence for CR efficacy in humans is as bright as you make it to be. But as the data increases, so will our degree of certainty.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I'm fully confident in CR. I currently fall into the camp that thinks it's not going to do a lot for maximum lifespan. But, I think the evidence is ridiculously weighted in its favor for having an effect on both maximum and average lifespans over basically anything else.

A very important point discussed already in other threads, which I didn't bother to find, is how much of the research on other organisms can be translated to humans.
There is of course the difference in metabolism. At an easier to understand level, there is the difference in behavior. Let's consider a study comparing mice or rats with ad lib and CR feeding. Those animals in the wild will eat whenever they find something. Ad lib, they'll pig out, which will hurt their health. It's not surprising that the CR animals will do much better.
Hopefully, the human animals in this forum will have the will power (and good sense) not to pig out. So it's more doubtful whether CR for them will make as much of a difference as for lab rodents.

[sUper GeNius]

I guess we can, if we want, cherry pick data to give us what we want to hear. So CR's life-prolonging effects DO carry over from rodents, but their depression doesn't.

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but that's not what the link indicated. Anyway, it makes evolutionary sense. In a food shortage, listening to emo music and crying inside wouldn't have been advantageous. Getting off your ass and killing some food would have been.

The title is:
"Deleterious psychological effects of CR may be limited to rodents"

And the main point, which comes later towards the bottom:

"Why the difference? Having neither the opportunity nor inclination to construct a panel of rodent-human hybrids, I’m stuck with speculation: It’s entirely possible that rodents and humans are different enough from one another that they have different psychological responses to similar sorts of shortage issues. "

[kismet]

What do you mean with pig out? That ad lib animals are overeating or that people cannot sustain CR due to psychological problems and they'll "pig out"?
Anyway this is irrelevant to CR's efficacy, it works most probably, but it could never work if you don't practise it correctly.

Depression is another non-problem, some may get depression or it may aggrevate already existing mental illnesses, but it won't change anything about CR's efficacy. There are enough CR practioners, why don't you ask them if they all suffer from depression?

Why only rodents? Maybe because we do live in a completely different environment (i.e. we're not captives in a small cage).

[sUper GeNius]

What do you mean with pig out? That ad lib animals are overeating or that people cannot sustain CR due to psychological problems and they'll "pig out"?
Anyway this is irrelevant to CR's efficacy, it works most probably, but it could never work if you don't practise it correctly.

Depression is another non-problem, some may get depression or it may aggrevate already existing mental illnesses, but it won't change anything about CR's efficacy. There are enough CR practioners, why don't you ask them if they all suffer from depression?

Why only rodents? Maybe because we do live in a completely different environment (i.e. we're not captives in a small cage).

Rather than ask "all" CR practitioners, I think I'd like to see a well done study. Anecdotal evidence is almost useless.

Depression would be a *very* serious side-effect. Again, quality vs quantity of life.

[forever freedom]

What do you mean with pig out? That ad lib animals are overeating or that people cannot sustain CR due to psychological problems and they'll "pig out"?
Anyway this is irrelevant to CR's efficacy, it works most probably, but it could never work if you don't practise it correctly.

Depression is another non-problem, some may get depression or it may aggrevate already existing mental illnesses, but it won't change anything about CR's efficacy. There are enough CR practioners, why don't you ask them if they all suffer from depression?

Why only rodents? Maybe because we do live in a completely different environment (i.e. we're not captives in a small cage).

Rather than ask "all" CR practitioners, I think I'd like to see a well done study. Anecdotal evidence is almost useless.

Depression would be a *very* serious side-effect. Again, quality vs quantity of life.

I think that depression is not a problem for every CR practitioner. Actually, the psychological benefits of having a good health due to CR can't be ignored.

Not all people have a tendency for depression so CR wouldn't make them get depressed. And after all, there are many other more significant factors in life for depression than being on CR or not.

[Shepard]

The title is:
"Deleterious psychological effects of CR may be limited to rodents"

And the main point, which comes later towards the bottom:

"Why the difference? Having neither the opportunity nor inclination to construct a panel of rodent-human hybrids, I’m stuck with speculation: It’s entirely possible that rodents and humans are different enough from one another that they have different psychological responses to similar sorts of shortage issues. "

Okay, nevermind. I thought you were insinuating that someone actually was cherry-picking data.

Edited by shepard, 11 June 2008 - 06:52 PM.