#1
9 Likes
#2

I know Iā€™ve become a huge nerd by how excited I am to watch these two collaborate :joy:

8 Likes
#3

@adssx - around 57:18+ Matt Kaeberlein claims NAD boosters are helpful with PD according to some (small) studies. FWIW.

4 Likes
#4

Yes the first RCT results in Norway are very encouraging, phase 3 results expected in a few months. Iā€™m waiting to use it because of this paper though: Nicotinamide riboside first alleviates symptoms but later downregulates dopamine metabolism in proteasome inhibition mouse model of Parkinsonā€™s disease 2024

Our results suggest that reduction in 26/20S function with long term NR treatment may increase risk for developing reduced nigrostriatal DA function.

5 Likes
#5

Lightening round starts at 50 min mark; 1 is great and 5 is a no no
Both rated rapamycin as a 2, with metformin as a 4.
Also all other supplements discussed.

Peter Attia lost some weight? Need a botox soon? Matt looks normal himself.

6 Likes
#6

Yes. It seems like Dr. Attia has lost weight. Maybe heā€™s under stress?

Peter needs to do something about his meals because his daily meals are processed foods that he has a financial interest in - meat jerky and protein bars.

Peter rates Spermidine as a 2. I guess I may add it back in.

SGLT2IS for non diabetics ranked 1-2!

HRT for men and women also 1-2.

11 Likes
#7

I just finished my walk and listening to the video:

Random thoughts -

  1. Peter is overbooked. It took him about 10 minutes to get into the flow of the interview and relax (Peter and Matt have a strong professional friendship)

  2. Peter prescribes Rapamycin with patients based on AĪ²40 AĪ²42 https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxI1qtF5dLRt70xrbTdtqiAFmgl1xHCEgo?si=x-StjR87fqlekaiJ

  3. Alcohol - They diminish the recent thinking of risk with moderate alcohol use (cancer etc). Peter makes the case alcohol use is instead a dosage issue. (Like Tylenol - believe it or not)

Enjoyable - they reveal their thought processes and importantly, the evolution of their thinking on a range of topics.

9 Likes
#8

I really like Peter Attia and his perspectives on everything. Heā€™s a very balanced guy and keeps it real. I actually appreciate him more and more each year as Iā€™ve been listening to him. Hopefully he comes back on as a guest.

6 Likes
#9

I too enjoyed their ratings after minute 50:00. Hereā€™s is an AI-redacted summary for quick reference. I double-checked the answer, quite a few items were missing, it should be reasonably accurate now.

Dr. Attia and Dr. Kaeberlein discuss their ratings on various supplements and interventions in a ā€œlightning roundā€ format. Hereā€™s a summary of their ratings.

  • Resveratrol: Dr. Attia gave a grade of 6.Kaberlein a grade of 5. Donā€™t bother.
  • Healthy diet: Dr. Attia gave a grade of 2.Kaberlein a grade of 1.
  • Rapamycin: Dr. Attia gave Rapamycin a grade of 2.This indicates that he acknowledges its potential but emphasizes the need for more data and caution in its use.
  • follastatin gene therapy: Dr. Attia gave a grade of 5.Kaberlein a grade of 3.
  • A-Ketoglutarrate: Dr. Attia gave a grade of 4.Kaberlein a grade of 5. Donā€™t bother.
  • Probiotic Supplements: Both rate these a 3, acknowledging that the quality of the supplement significantly impacts its effectiveness.
  • Chronic Caloric Restriction in Humans: Dr. Attia rates this a 3-4, while Dr. Kaeberlein rates it a 5, believing it would lead to a miserable existence and potentially have harmful side effects.
  • Spermidine Supplements: Both rate this a 2-3, recognizing its potential but acknowledging the need for further research.
  • Close Friendships: Both rate this a 1, emphasizing its importance for quality of life.
  • Sleep Tracking: Both rate this a 2-3, acknowledging its potential benefits for awareness but also the risk of anxiety.
  • Sauna: Both rate this a 2-3, recognizing both potential health benefits and social benefits.
  • Vitamin D: Dr. Attia rates this a 3, emphasizing the need for proper study design to determine optimal dosage. Dr. Kaeberlein rates this a 1, suggesting supplementation only after measuring individual levels.
  • NAD Boosters: Both rate this a 5-3, acknowledging potential but emphasizing the lack of strong evidence for benefits in the average person.
  • Hormone Therapy (HRT): Both rate HRT for women a 1, recognizing its significant benefits. For men, they rate it a 1-2, acknowledging potential benefits but recognizing a lower magnitude of effect compared to women.
  • Vegan diet: Dr. Attia rates this a 3, while Dr. Kaeberlein rates it a 4,
  • Carnivore diet: Dr. Attia rates this a 3, while Dr. Kaeberlein rates it a 4,
  • Hyperbaric chamber: Dr. Attia rates this a 1 for would healing, 2-3 for concussion and trauma, 5 for longevity.
  • Metformin for Non-Diabetics: Dr. Attia rates this a 3-4, while Dr. Kaeberlein rates it a 4, expressing some skepticism due to potential limitations in how itā€™s metabolized.
  • SGLT2 Inhibitors for Non-Diabetics: Both rate this a 2, recognizing its potential benefits.
  • Growth Hormone in Elderly: Both rate this a 3, acknowledging potential benefits but emphasizing the need for more data and caution in its use. Attia gives a 4 to Dr. Faheyā€™s TRIIM protocol of thymic regeneration.
  • Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Dr. Kaeberlein rates this a 1, while Dr. Attia rates this a 3, acknowledging its potential benefits for behavior modification but also the risk of increased distress.
  • BPC 157: Both rate this a 2-4, acknowledging its potential if pure but emphasizing the lack of high-quality data and concerns about quality control.
  • GP1 Agonists for Non-Obese Individuals: Both rate this a 2-3, recognizing its potential but emphasizing the need for more data.
  • TR Activators: Both rate this a 5, recognizing the lack of significant potential.
  • Young Blood Therapeutic Plasma Exchange: Both rate this a 3, acknowledging its potential but emphasizing the need for further research.
  • Fatty 15: Both rate this a 4, expressing skepticism about its effectiveness.
  • Epigenetic Age Tests (Direct-to-Consumer): Both rate this a 5, expressing skepticism about their clinical utility.
  • NMN: Both rate this a 5, expressing skepticism about its effectiveness.

This summary provides a general overview of their ratings. Itā€™s important to note that these are just their personal opinions and further research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and risks of these interventions.

16 Likes
#10

Yes, I concur, at the beginning, it was like beating around the bush, I was almost giving up listening, fortunately, they made up for it in the second half

4 Likes
#11

Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this summary!

3 Likes
#12

LOL on the phrasing. A rating of 5 means they see zero value in a given intervention. So, both see zero value, but recognize its significant potential?

What a wonderful tool! It really saves you a lot of time and effort - and you absolutely can not rely on it for accuracy at all.

I think I know how to evaluate such a tool: I see zero value in it, recognizing its significant potential.

Instead, I actually went ahead and listed to the podcast like a human being. YMMV.

2 Likes
#13

Cronos, yes, I was aware of that flaw, that is weird since the AI seems to have grapsed the meaning of grades at the beginning. Also, it missed for some reason Rapamacyn, which was graded 2 by Peter Attia, maybe because I chose 50:00 time as a starting point and it was a little too late.

I find such tools to be useful after listening to the podcast, in such a way to review the discussion and remember the details. I must see why it missed rapamycin, Itā€™s undoubtedly a serious fault in this forum!

3 Likes
#14

Gemini seems to have missed Rapa for some reason, he only mention it after I asked specifically. This is why it is necessary to listen to the videos before summarizing them.

You are absolutely right! I apologize for the omission.

Dr. Attia gave Rapamycin a grade of 2.

This indicates that he acknowledges its potential but emphasizes the need for more data and caution in its use.

I am still under development and learning to be more comprehensive and accurate. Thank you for pointing out this error!

I edited the complete list in the previous post, adding rapa, correcting the AI comments on epigenetic age test

6 Likes
#15

This is for those who are curious about the experiment. Gemini also missed the healthy diet and resveratrol, just at the beginning of the lightning questions. Surprisingly, Peter Attia gave 6 to resveratrol, Kaberlein 5, but Gemini reported 2-3, showing a case of hallucinations.
Since I started all this, Iā€™m going to review it all and provide a final corrected edition.

Resveratrol: Likely a moderate rating (e.g., 2-3) given its potential benefits but also the need for more conclusive evidence.

5 Likes
#16

I mean, mccoy, you had to listen to the podcast to see where the tool ā€œhallucinatedā€, that is, was blatently wrong, or invented things out of nowhere. This means you simply cannot trust this tool. Itā€™s like relying on the words of someone who is a habitual, proven liar. You simply cannot. Because I cannot know ahead of time just when this tool will ā€œhallucinateā€, it is unpredictable and untrustworthy. And spoiler alert: this will never change, because it is inherent in the very technology and its methodological foundations. To change this, we will have to abandon this approach, and adopt a radically different one, and that is something that we have not developed as yet.

For practical purposes, I honestly cannot see any use for this tool. If I cannot trust the accuracy, not just in minor details, but profound distortions, and cardinal mistakes, and must therefore doublecheck everything to see where it may have gone wrong, then what is the point of this? I have to listen to the whole thing anyway, so why do I need this tool? It only doubles my work, first I have to listen to the whole podcast and make notes, and then I have to check the garbage this tool puts out so that Iā€™m not leaving in total nonsense. Itā€™s like having a worker who is an enemy agent sabotaging the work, not only do you have to do the work itself to make sure itā€™s done right, but you have to doublecheck the work of the agent, so you can undo all the sabotage. I choose not to hire the enemy agent in the first place.

I donā€™t use this tool at this time, and have no plans to do so. YMMV.

4 Likes
#17

@cronos tempi, all sensible objections, this tool presently can be used after listening to the podcast to fix things in the memory in the parts more interesting to us (we may remind omitted details, I remembered a couple of the most important like Rapa and Urolithin), or even before listening to the podcast, to make sure it is interesting to us.

Clearly, the details must be double-checked.

Last, at present I find it can be perhaps useful in videos of moderate length.

4 Likes
#18

A great experiment - thanks for posting. I was planning to do something similar, but youā€™ve saved me the time.

4 Likes
#19

Nothing about Senolytic treatments which is by far the largest segment in anti-ageing therapies.

1 Like
#20

They didnā€™t discuss taurine either, which I found disappointing, though I guess I already know both Mattā€™s view (from his optispan podcast), and Attiaā€™s from his newsletter. Matt has a good opinion, if I had to guess, heā€™d score it 2-3, though he himself doesnā€™t take it at this point allowing he might in the future. Peter is entirely skeptical and dismissive. Given their somewhat differing views on taurine, it wouldā€™ve been interesting to hear them discuss it. Alas, it was not to be.

4 Likes