That MMC graph, 43% LE - obtains at the 50% cohort survivors? Well, the graph is still shifted nicely as you go further into age, still excellent at 25% survivors, but as you approach max LS, suddenly the shift becomes marginal at best.
To me, this looks like a classic “squaring the curve”, not true max lifespan extension. It doesn’t uniformly shift the curve by a set percentage all along, like in some interventions we’ve seen, say CR. This is more the pattern of exercise - lowers your risk of death at any age, but doesn’t extend max.
In essence, it lowers the risk of death and perhaps robustly extends healthspan, which is very good of course. But there are many interventions which have a similar effect, including, as mentioned, exercise.
However, the holy grail is max lifespan extension, and here this doesn’t seem to be that rare ticket. An ITP trial would be nice.
Of course we’re talking worms, but if for the sake of argument, we assume the same for humans, best case scenario, then one can put it in a bucket with many such interventions.
My issue is that many of us already do interventions that square the curve provably in humans (exercise), which is a big deal, considering that this hasn’t been proven in humans. But ok, let’s assume the best.
My thought is that if I already use a proven “curve squaring” intervention, then adding more of them might be problematic insofar as it is redundant at best, and might be polypharmaceutically cancelling at worst.
I guess the idea is if you’ve got one intervention that accomplishes the goal, more might be better. However, everything hangs on how confident we are that a given treatment accomplishes that goal. If I have a parachute that gives me 99.999% odds of survival, I would not want to strap myself with a lot of additional experimental parachutes as additional help, because there’s a huge danger of many parachutes opening at once having the effect of disastrous interference. Better stick to the one that already gives me close to 100% and not worry about strapping on more at great monetary cost and increased risk.
Meanwhile, interventions like rapa, which hint at increasing max LS, are a different category of very rare interventions, and for some of us worth the uncertainty and risk. The size of reward vs risk makes rapa a worthwhile intervention (for those of us who are more risk tolerant), whereas the broccoli extract is not a reward that justifies the risk (for those of us who think we’re already getting that reward from a whole bunch of other interventions, both lifestyle and drugs/supps).
Now, of course if there’s a lot of research showing it’s not only safe, but doesn’t interfere with other interventions that accomplish roughly the same goal, or if it’s shown to have some unique benefits, then that changes the calculus completely. But it seems the research is not quite there at this point in time as yet, though perhaps in the future.
Finally, if the monetary cost is great, then given the uncertainty, some may decide that those funds can be more useful elsewhere. YMMV.
