Honestly, I think living longer is all about preventative maintenance and stopping/postponing damage/decay for as long as possible. I view taking Rapa as changing your oil in your car every month vs. never changing your oil at all. Which car will last longer?
I would love to see how long our 20-somethings on Rapa end up living for, but I doubt I will live that long! I hope you guys break the 150 barrier.
5 Likes
Iām interested in health span only. I donāt want to be old and suffer and feel worthless. I think itās possible to dramatically increase health span. True life Extension will probably take something like what David Sinclair is doing with those mice.
3 Likes
LaraPo
#63
Healthspan extension would most likely extend your life span as well. Logically, both have to be connected.
4 Likes
Yes but chronic CR would make being old very miserable. I suspect frailty would be a real problem. I also suspect chronic CR would be a very low energy, low enjoyment state to be in. I want to feel good. So I just started Rapamycin about a week and a half ago, I do extended fasts already with profound results. Exercise. I eat a nutrient dense diet with a comfortable calorie intake and what I think is a sufficient amount of protein to prevent sarcopenia at 63.
4 Likes
Thanks Iām curious as well! Iām 27 and been taking rapa for a 2 weeks now. 150 would be awesome!
2 Likes
If you think about it I think youāll see that youāre caught in a circular argument: āno one has ever lived longer than the longest people have ever livedā 
. Suppose there were verifiable people that had lived to be 130. Then this argument would have you saying āYou would think that after the billions of people who have lived since recorded history, we would have had several if not many instances of real longevity, i.e., people who have lived longer than the current paltry 130 years.ā And the same for 140, or 150, or 1000 years.
Also, while many billions of people have lived, the average life expectancy until 1860 was consistently under 40 years and generally under 30. You canāt expect an anti-aging intervention to lead to huge longevity gains in people living in the pre-antibiotic, pre-sanitation era. Heck, you donāt see mice living more than one year in the wild: only in the lab do you see 3-year-old mice. And you only see 1400-day-old mice after a lifetime of CR or a slow-aging mutation.
Youāre again thinking about this backward. The maximum lifespan for the general population is 100 or less: this is statistically obvious from the survival curves of even long-lived countries like Japan. The Okinawans and the genetic centenarians are breaking this hoi polloi maximum lifespan because they are aging slowly thanks to CR and slow-aging genes (respectively).
Youāre falling into the Tithonus error. Putting aside trivial cases like putting people on life support or defibrillating people, lifespan can only increase because of an increase in healthspan. If you donāt preserve your health as you age, youāll die: thatās what it means to have age-related disease.
If the animal evidence translates, itās going to āprevent the intervertebral disc degeneration via inhibiting differentiation and senescence of annulus fibrosus cellsā in a culture model and āAmeliorate Age-Associated Intervertebral Disc Degeneration in Male Marmosetsā ā a nonhuman primate. And as you know, rapamycin combats peridontal disease in mice, which would save some of those teeth.
But, OK, we may still need knee replacements and 21st century replacement teeth. Fine by me, and not a counterargument to rapa being a longevity therapy.
3 Likes
Not to sound fatalistic or disrespectful to old age, especially considering where the OP is coming from, but I take stack not to die early and for health span (energy/youthful looks/libido), primarily. If health span isnāt rapidly increased, whether Iām in an old folks home at 82 or 97 isnāt my primary concern.
Wow, it was merely an observation and conversation. Not meant to be a scientific fact. Dug out that old logic 101, book?
2 Likes
