That is the question as to 80% of what. Is it possible to achieve more in improving than what you seem to think is possible. The key question here is what evidence would be required to prove more is possible today with interventions used today.
My own view is that we need to identify functional tests to monitor this.
1 Like
Exercise, proper diet and sleep account for 80-90% of what one can do to increase one’s lifespan based on current best evidence. (I gave him 80% because he did not elaborate on the diet) This is of course a very rough estimate and of course IMHO.
4 Likes
That’s a good response. I think more can be done by hitting the core aging pathways, but only time will tell.
3 Likes
AnUser
#38
I think starting a statin or other medication early in life rather than later when heart disease have already developed is important as well.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree and remain hopeful, especially with RAPA. However I have been studying and reviewing the science on supplements for the past 25 years and it just feels like it was one disappointment after another. Whereas diet and exercise seemed to always meet the endpoints of the study.
5 Likes
I don’t know who or what is behind the push against statins but people who don’t treat their apoB aggressively are doing a mistake that’ll cost them their life.
4 Likes
AnUser
#42
Yeah and what I meant wasn’t secondary prevention, but primary prevention, more specifically preventing atherosclerosis building up.
3 Likes
The fact that Brad Stanfield, MD put himself on a statin at age of 27 is pretty telling. HOWEVER twenty five years ago I have known cardiologists that were putting themselves on beta-blockers and aspirin prophylactically… and I am pretty sure no cardiologist would that now without a good indication.
Personally I don’t have FH of CAD and but I managed to keep my LDL in the 70-80 range with just lifestyle changes. I will have to check my ApoB and (a) one day.
5 Likes
jnorm
#44
So for someone to proclaim that their 100+ supplement stack is effective and safe because they did their “research” is a combination of hubris and foolishness. Animal studies mean nothing. Observational studies mean nothing. Show me a 1000+, multi-center, long term RCT - then we can talk.
That’s great you have such high epistemic standards, but the reality is that such evidence doesn’t exist for the vast majority of interventions being discussed on this site.
We have limited information, and we have to try to and make our best judgement of what to do with it. I hope you’re joking to say animal studies mean nothing. If that were actually the case, nobody would waste time doing them.
2 Likes
Wild he posted this on a site called rapamycin.news
2 Likes
AnUser
#46
Statins, BPA/EZET/PCSK9i, BP-lowering meds, SGLT2i… What did I miss?
1 Like
ng0rge
#47
Did you look back on the original post? It was about Vitamin E…not a pharmaceutical.
And yes rapamycin is a pharmaceutical but that’s not what was being talked about.
It’s about SUPPLEMENTS…get it?
AnUser
#48
I was just asking what intervention I missed.
1 Like
ng0rge
#49
Vitamin E, it’s the greatest thing ever…we all know that.
What kind of a complete moron would add a supplement in a 100+ stack that didn’t show at least some efficacy in an animal study ? That has be the lowest of low bars of inclusion.
1 Like
The question is which supplement will become the next Vitamin E. So far Niacin is winning. NMN might be next.
2 Likes
Rapamycin is an FDA approved pharmaceutical, however only a complete idiot would create a 100+ stack of off label pharmaceuticals to “experiment” on, right? But supplements? They MUST be safe because they are “natural”. 
3 Likes
There are advantages to taking molecules with a long track record in that there are likely to be some records as to when there are adverse responses. Eg ashwagandha has a track record of exacerbating liver disease.
3 Likes
Most supplements are placebos. So, taking 100 placebos should give you the benefit of 30. 
Although those with scientific studies may provide a better return.
3 Likes
