AnUser
#9
There is a limit how low you can lower LDL with diet, I don’t think if Michael decreased his sardine intake or Bryan increased his fiber intake it would decrease. There are ancestral factors limiting us and the only way around it to say “No!”. Only people who are born in perfect health are unwilling to modify themselves pharmaceutically.
2 Likes
Authoritarians having a go: https://youtu.be/yHFxYjTeMPY?t=4727
Lustgarten spots someone buying a can of Pringles
4 Likes
scta123
#11
Excuse you. No money in it? Just statins:
1 Like
scta123
#12
btw do you know if Luigi Fontana takes rapamycin?
I really enjoyed this interview, he is so insightful and down to earth. I bought both his books yesterday. 
Cookbook has some pretty good recipes on first glance. It is really similar to what I normally eat except I add some cheese, milk products like mozz or ricotta, yogurt… and eggs to my diet. Do you know what his protein recommendations are? I eat around 1,6g/kg protein per day which comes to just over 100 g… but I believe he advocates low protein diet? 0,8-1g/kg? I was indoctrinated by “bro science” that you can not keep muscle mass if CR(ON) if you don’t eat enough protein… maybe I need to revise this…
2 Likes
arugula
#13
1 Like
It struck me like a bolt of lightning when he said the rats that died of starvation in CR experiments were “perfectly healthy”. They died of too much autophagy.
Not too little and not too much (“U shaped curve”) applies to everything?
6 Likes
AnUser
#16
I don’t understand how people can eat like Lustgarten.
Taking a multivitamin and a statin or something, seem much more interesting. And on top of that rapamycin. Can still continue to eat in a way that someone likes, which can include pringles. There is little to no downside, you just basically have to take some pills. If someone has trouble with their weight - there are pills for that too nowadays.
2 Likes
AnUser
#17
My Crestor cost me about $5 a month right now.
10 mg Rosuvastatin on Costplusdrugs costs $5.90 for one month, if you take half that’s very low cost.
I don’t know how they’re making 1 billion a year. But they’ve earned it.
scta123
#18
You are so data driven when it comes to studies on causality and here you fail big time. Lipid lowering medicines are one of the most profitable medicines. Do you know how much of this money went into marketing? Do you have any idea how marketing works in medicine?
Like in all drug segments, the drugs are highly profitable while you’ve got the patent protection. Once thats gone and it goes generic, the profits are like any highly competitive business; low.
Typically new drugs are patented soon after the are discovered, but then it takes a number of years to do the clinical trials to validate the drug works and the side effect profile is acceptable. The result is that the “patent life” of a drug, from a revenue-producing standpoint is typically 13 to 15 years. This is when the Pharma company’s legendary profit margins are maximal.
scta123
#20
You are missing the point I was trying to make. Sure drugs are more profitable while patented but that doesn’t mean they are worthless or not profitable after the patent expires. In case of statins they still bring billions in revenue and since most of the marketing and was done when they were most profitable they are selling by itself now. Doctors are “indoctrinated”, they are part of insurance and national guidelines… when patents expire same companies go and develop another class of drugs for the same purpose and the cycle continues.
And marketing in medicine is really strong. Not just that you get monthly visits from company representatives, but also they are paying directly or indirectly a lot of medical research, conferences etc. They lobby insurance and national health policies. Pharma interests are everywhere and one need to take this into consideration. I am not saying just cause it is pharma you need to stay away, but some due diligence is always in order.
AnUser
#21
Okay I accept your argument. Pharma is making money from statins and they do marketing, so what. I don’t think Peter Attia is bought and paid for, that makes no sense. And if a pharma rep markets their drug with their study, that doesn’t change anything? If the consumer has to pay a lot for a drug, then I am annoyed.
1 Like
arugula
#22
He’s had and continues to have some very unholy alliances.
There’s no royal road. Some things are non-negotiable. You can find ways to make a whole foods plant based diet less torturous. It doesn’t have to be 100% plants and it doesn’t have to be 150 g/day of plant fibers.
I guess I am lucky in that I find most animal foods repugnant in so many ways and that I actually like vegetables. I also have decades behind me–decades in which the gap between myself and normals becomes increasingly evident, suggesting that I am probably doing some things right.
I don’t think that pharmaceuticals will ever replace eating right and exercising appropriately. They have their uses, though.
3 Likes
scta123
#23
He is just a salesman trying to sell his products.
And regarding pharma and medical profession you need to understand that pharma basically funds medical education, do you think that comes just as a philanthropic gesture? You need highly ethical doctors that have plenty of time and integrity and are willing to understand the other side. Mostly doctors are just underpaid, have no time and too many patients and are obliged to respect guidelines, scared to be sued or endanger their license and when they have most energy that are usually in debt because they had to fund their education and later their life(style) and so on… it is not that every doctor is that way but this is part of reality.
1 Like
AnUser
#24
He is of course not just a salesman trying to sell his products, that is just a pessimistic over-simplification, you know that isn’t true.
3 Likes
Peter seems to be eschewing endorsements and relying more on direct funding from followers. He certainly is entitled to profit from his work. Initially, I was very skeptical of him, but now I am more inclined to take his advice seriously.
3 Likes
AnUser
#26
I think my biggest problem is involuntary massive caloric restriction. It makes me go nuts, pun not intended. I just have to figure out how to eat like Michael Lustgarten. He seems to have 50-100 kcal of everything, and it adds up. Small caloric restriction over time probably okay. Not a 50% caloric restriction.
2 Likes
scta123
#27
Protein restriction is bad for you
When started very very early in life protein restriction may slow mTOR-driven developmental growth, increasing longevity. Thus, methionine restriction in childhood (MR) increases lifespan in numerous species but data are conflicting. Now we know why. Lifespan may be limited either by poor fitness or by aging. MR decreases fitness but slows mTOR-driven aging. MR decreases body temperature, IGF-1 and glucose levels and deactivates the AKT/mTOR pathway in normal mice {Barcena, 2018 #87}. MR decreases fitness but slows aging. In normal mice, MR slows growth and weight gain and increases risk of death in the first year of live (Fig in Miller). Some MR mice died from rectal prolapse, which is not an age-related disease {Miller, 2005 #71}. But surviving mice lived longer because MR slows growth and aging, which is a contituation of growth. (Note: the authors’ conclusion was different but their data support my re-interpretation). Similarly, sulfur amino acid restriction (SAAR) decreases levels of Insulin and IGF in rats {Nichenametla, 2020 #88}, thus slowing growth and aging. SAAR-induced lifespan extension occurs at the cost of growth. It prolongs life span dramatically, when started early in life. In old mice group, its longevity effect is not even statistically significant ( p=0.0504) and 5 times less than in young mice group {Nichenametla, 2020 #88}. This result is consistent with the notion that aging is a quasi-program of developmental growth. (Note: the authors’ conclusion was different but their data support my re-interpretation). In Drosophila essential amino acids (EAA) shortens lifespan and rapamycin prevented this effect. In other words, EAA decrease longevity by activating mTOR. Yet, EAA increases fitness and heat stress resistance, also by activating mTOR-dependent (abrogated by rapamycin) {Emran, 2014 #77}
For us, adult humans: Combine protein diet with rapamycin
https://x.com/blagosklonny/status/1703353087795019783?s=46
7 Likes
I don’t know why protein would be different than so many other factors in health and aging. Too little and too much are suboptimal. So what is the right amount of protein?
What life do you want to live, and what body do you need to live it? There is more to life than having massive muscles just like there is more to life than living as long as possible.
I choose to live as long as I can as a strong, energetic athletic man. I need more than the minimum amount of protein that a less active, less strong person would need, I’d guess. But eating more than I need for my goal is probably too much and detrimental in one or more ways without any advantages in building / maintaining the body I want.
I don’t think this perspective gets discussed enough.
5 Likes
