#42

I have had an HbA1c of 4.18%, but that is not necessarily healthier than 5.0.

1 Like
#43

Not a very persuasive study though.

Sun_1-s2.0-S2212267222008747-main.pdf (323.7 KB)

2 Likes
#44

Is this good, bad, or irrelevant?

big one
big one718Ɨ394 27.6 KB

1 Like
#45

If the spike at 9am is either when you woke up or ingested something with carbs or sugar I would say it looks normal personally.

1 Like
#46

Blood glucose levels can remain elevated for 2-3 hours after waking up due to the dawn phenomenon.

3 Likes
#47

I commented on that study in a thread here about a year ago.

Last page, penultimate paragraph before the conclusion, last sentence:

Fifth, this study focused on meal skipping regardless of snack
consumption, thus the evidence provided for healthy effects
of intermittent fasting is limited.

So snack does not count as a meal. So did the participants have a snack instead of breakfast, and it was considered skipping breakfast? What was the snack? A McMuffin and Coke? Remember the study population was comprised of Americans.

Dud.

2 Likes
#48

But fun fact that both Longo and Fontana (I regard them highly in the nutrition research and opinion) are referencing it. Ahā€¦

#49

That is exactly how my body works. I donā€™t get hungry in the morning till noon and can easily skip breakfast which I was doing for years. But now I decided to change that habit to see if it would help me to gain more weight. Iā€™m stuck at 110 lb and want to reach 115. I have coffee as my first meal, and then a glass of smoothie (kefir + other good stuff) 30 min later. After that I eat my next meal between 11 and noon.

1 Like
#50

Thanks. Didnā€™t know that. If that study is what informed Longoā€™s opinion in the video, it allays my fear of skipping breakfast.

@LaraPo: Iā€™ve read that you gain more weight redistributing the calories so more is consumed at dinner. Will have to hunt down that study.

2 Likes
#51

This is another study Longo is referencing. It is European this time, but again maybe skipping breakfast is used as a proxy of unhealthier lifestyle (smoking, drinking alcohol, overweight, high protein diet, high fat diet, sugar consumption, etc.). Is leading healthy lifestyle and skipping breakfast equally detrimental?

Clinical studies report that consuming a high-calorie meal in the morning would result in a significant decrease in fasting glucose and insulinā€¦

This is the only pro breakfast sentence that stuck with me and I will research it a bit more.

1 Like
#52

It is the diet, not the fact of skipping breakfast that made the SBF group tend to have CVD.

Below is the full text:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109717393178?via%3Dihub

the SBF (skipping breakfast) group consisted of mostly men, who were currently smokers, reported having changed their diet in the past year to lose weight (overweight) , and consumed the highest percentage of energy at lunch. Compared with HBF, LBF participants were more likely to be a man with a lower education level, a current smoker, and also consume a greater proportion of calories at lunch (Table 1). In terms of nutritional quality, SBF participants were more likely to consume more energy, protein (particularly from animal sources), and dietary cholesterol; have the lowest fiber and carbohydrate intakes; and tended to consume more alcoholic and sugar-sweetened beverages, as well as red meat.

Smoking, excess weight, red meat, alcohol, sugar sweetened beverages. That explains the CVD risk, not the fact of skipping breakfast.

Next study.

5 Likes
#53

The simple upshot Brad is RTC focused and not an n=1 engineer.

Biohacking is the opposite of western medicine which tries to get enough of a signal on an intervention so it can push this on anyone with a diagnosed pathology and hope you are one of the people it will do more good than harm.

Biohacking is not a belief nor following the latest influencer podcast or social media post it is a focus on foundational metrics that can then be measured and improved to meet the needs and goals of each individual person.

Biohacking is what every high level cyclist does every day. Track power, HR, HRV, Co2, lactate threshold, glucose levels during training etc. But the biohacking for a MTB professional performance is not the same as somebody interested in living healthfully for many years.

As a medical clinician and longevity coach, I have seen far too many people being led a stray and in their enthusiasm not getting the effects they are hoping to achieve. These include among many othersā€¦

Fasting and taking rapamycin and AMPK activators all at one time.
Taking rapamycin and anabolic agents at the same time.
Taking over 50 supplements a day with no clue of the interaction but overlook clear metabolic dysfunction or the fact they only sleep 5 hours a day or clear signs of loss of muscle.
Performing HIIT, sauna, cold plunge, deep breathing consecutively on a regular basis without adequate recovery time.
Not routinely tracking key markers.

Yes we all want to hang around and enjoy life for many many year, but it is important to keep in mind there is major diminished returns to health/lifespan interventions. Adding more than needed most likely wonā€™t move the needle much and almost certainly wonā€™t get you to 110. The goal should be to find the most important interventions for YOU and then AVOID what will kill you off early.

The problem is most clinicians donā€™t have a clue and/or way too busy to move the needle, researchers have a strong deep understanding of a topic but donā€™t have the broad experience, tech companies need to make a profit and focus on just one piece of the puzzle and most enthusiasts donā€™t really have a road map to follow.

However, true age reversal is coming!

Quantum Longevity will be soon able to offer advanced individualized strategies that will let people sequence and synchronize strategies and interventions that our available now.

The technology focus is centered on molecular precision and personalization. Using a core partners proprietary ā€˜pipeline technologyā€™ that uses a very complex algorithmic engineering platform to analyze hundreds of thousands of proteins related to gene transcription to provide a ā€˜high confidence mapping, ranking and selectionā€™ of faulty signal pathways that are at the root causes of aging and age-related diseases at a molecular level.

Our goal is to upend the field of longevity from being driven by researchers, pharmaceutical and technology companies to one driven by a disruptive visionary group of clinical longevity experts with the focus on connecting dots, seeing patterns and pulling the levers needed to address the root causes of aging.

These include sequenced synergistic protocols that include:

First Line Therapies
mTOR Cycling
Optimized Mitochondrial Efficiency
Individualized Polypeptides
Augmented Peptides: GDF11, Klotho, GDF15, MOTSc.
Cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway interventions
Plasma Exchange
Hyperoxia/Hypoxia
PEMF
Red Light
Young Blood Factors
Small Molecules As Needed
Microbiome Manipulation

Advanced Interventions
Platelet Factor 4
VSEL
E5- Porcine Exosomes
hTERT
Gene Therapy-CMV, ADV

Emerging Protocols
Mitochondrial transfer
Bioelectric Signaling
Cellular Reprogramming

Others TBD??

We plan to offer these services by the end of 2024 and begin the process of continually tracking and improving the symphony of instruments needed to make indefinite age reversal a possibility.

I welcome anyone interested in learning more or wanting to help achieve our age reversal vision to reach out to me here and look forward to much more information in the near future.

For a long and healthy life,

Rick Cohen, M.D.

14 Likes
#54

You are probably right about who he is speaking to. But my biggest problem with Dr. Stanfield is that he never makes this explicit. And its not just with this, he has a habit of doing that with almost everything (not explicitly stating the context in which his assertions should be evaluated). This is why have have unsubscribed to his channel multiple times (I periodically re-subscribe hoping this has improved).

2 Likes
#55

The biggest benefit of CGM is behavior modification. Once somebody sees how meals
spike their glucose, if they care at all, it is hard for them to repeat the behavior. If
they donā€™t want to change then nothing is going to help. They can medicate and
hope it offers some benefits. That is not who we are or who I work with.

CGM is also very useful for cyclist, triathletes trying to gauge live fueling needs.

Rick

3 Likes
#56

Why canā€™t similar behavior modification canā€™t also be achieved by simple awareness of foods GI/GLā€™s ? Show me a study comparing both and if CGM leads to better clinical outcomes then you can make those assertionsā€¦ until then they are just unsubstantiated claims. Same goes for athletes. I actually have raced cat 1 mountain biking for the past ten years. I can tell you from personal experience that CGM is especially useless for intense exercise since HIIT will release glucose and Zone 2 will drop it. Also a good endurance athlete will be well fat adapted and there is a limit of how much glucose they intake before having GI issues. For race days itā€™s really about how many carbs are you willing to carry, able to consume and can handle.

1 Like
#57

  1. The glucose response varies with each person. I have seen banana not have an issue with one versus another. Type of apple, How much protein. Order of meals. When used with a motivated person it is one of the most powerful behavior modification tools I and my health coach have every used.

  2. Absolutely not. Some of our pro cyclists load up with wrong carbs and have spikes and dips. Timing can be wrong and during events they donā€™t fuel or fuel too much. Having SuperSapiens was a game changer for a number of the cyclists we work with. Once they figure it out they donā€™t need all the time
    but just like a power meter it was quite beneficial.

1 Like
#58

Just a personal opinion. I think CGM is pure BS when it comes to any actual benefits.

2 Likes
#59

Post deleted by author.

#60

Thatā€™s sounds great, now show me that this sort of behavior adjustment actually results in better outcomes in randomized placebo controlled studies.

1 Like
#61

Thatā€™s it, CGM proponents tend argue about perceived benefits but fail over and over again to provide actual evidence of health benefits in terms of outcomes. Itā€™s almost like they donā€™t understand the concept of evidence based medicine.

1 Like