Eat less and live longer

I'd much rather be dead than live long with either mental or physical deficiency that requires others to take care of me. That's just me.

 

I tend to agree. Plus, there are no family members who are willing or able to be care givers. I can only hope that when the time comes.. I go fast.

 

you where pants to drive?

 

Well, apparently not.

And then this... Went out to the car this morning and found the driver's door ajar, and unlocked. Looked inside and saw the center console lid open. Break-in? I guess not; northing missing. WTH?! I must have never closed the door yesterday afternoon!

Getting forgetful.

 

a good start would be something simple like stopping hair from turning grey, or male pattern baldness.
let's face it science/medicine has a long way to go to increasing longevity.

 

I'm a big proponent of genetics determining everyone's end years. The cards you're dealt have more meaning than anything you can do to counteract it. Obviously, a lifetime of bad habits and poor nutrition will stunt a person's longevity, but I do believe that we're all already faced with an outcome that has little opportunity for alteration - almost regardless of external influence.

 

my grandmother used to say your future was written on your forehead

 

Not so sure if science or people in general are going to let that determinant sit intact. We are already in an era of genetic engineering, and knowledge and technology already exist to manipulate human genome. It would not be too long before someone discover illusive gene(s) to turn on or off to counter our age limit. Current theme of many biomedical research is heavily leaned toward playing with core genetic make up of individuals.

 

'not be too long' is up for debate. also, turning off an 'aging gene' maybe be wishful thinking

 

So how long is not too long? DNA was discovered just 65 years ago, and genetic manipulation in non-human organism is now so trivial, it is already a science fair project. And human are after all biological organism governed by the same genetic principles.The true danger lies within what us human (if not all, but most of us) wish for.

 

You have the same genetics as an infant as you do as an adult. What changes is the epigenetics. Gene activity changes with age and the environment.

The expression of mTOR has been studied recently for anti-aging purposes. mTOR expression is absolutely necessary in growing an infant into an adult. But in aging adults, it is implicated in diabetes, cancer, and the accumulation of senescent cells.

Calorie restriction downregulates mTOR, as does the drug rapamycin. In mice at least, both result in life extension. Whether it does the same for humans is yet to be demonstrated,

The Society for Age Reversal (http://www.rescueelders.org) has identified 4 specific interventions that can be done now. Once a week consumption of rapamycin is the first on the list, at a cost of about $8 a week (offshore UK pharmacy). Or (and?) for a mere $27,000 a year you can get transfusions of young plasma. Dracula was right!

 

Just so that you know Rapamycin or more generic name Sirolimus is a FDA approved drug used as immunosuppressant in preventing the rejection of organ transplants. It can have serious side effect in long term regular use on human body.

 

When used daily at a dose sufficient for immune suppression. Anti-aging use at once a week doesn't experience the same side effects.

 

See Rapamycin Treatment for Age Related Diseases for one doctor's description of how he uses rapamycin.

 

With all due respect, Thanks, but No thanks. Not trying to be contentious, but I have a serious problem treating aging as a disease. For that matter, I have a serious doubt in treating ANY disease by use of any human intervention, be that scientific or hoax.

 

That would put you in the control group.

I'm in the out of control group...

 

If it is to be validated, it has to be a double-blind study.

 

I'm not in the business of studying drugs. I am very interested in treatments that might improve my life. The potential of anyone funding a million dollar, multi year study in order to add an approved usage to an already generic drug is zero. On the other hand, rapamycin is already approved and available at any pharmacy. Off label usage is legal based on the prescribing doctor's professional judgment.

According to Dr. Green's website, anti-aging use of rapamycin was first published in 2006. I would think that 12 years should be enough to develop a reasonable idea of its application. As for double blind studies, they all have a very narrow end point. I guess the proper one for rapamycin would be age at death for humans using it versus humans not using it. Works for mice, but way outside my range of interest for humans.

Identification of rapamycin as a drug doesn't seem proper. It's a natural material found in the dirt on Easter Island. So why isn't it already GRAS?

 

I am not so sure of your logic here. Just because it is found in natural material does not make it safe, nor does it qualify it to be identified as Non-drug. If I follow your logic, cocaine is GRAS, heroin is GRAS, many of potentially harmful drugs used for medical treatment which were derived from natural sources are all GRAS. Without rigorous clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies, any substance, and I mean ANY NATURAL or SYNTHETIC substance can not be regarded as GRAS, IMO.

Problem with use of Rapamycin as generic drug similar to Aspirin is that it is a potent inhibitor of mTOR which is a grand regulator molecule of many cellular functions such as amino acids and glucose metabolism, insulin and other hormones function, basic cellular metabolism of protein and nucleotides, etc. etc. It reside at the top of very complex signaling cascade pathways. Without knowing precise downstream effects of preventing mTOR functions, you can never be sure of safety of use of Rapamycin as anti-aging drug.

 

OK, but the primary advantage of natural substances is that their safety is already known. Rapamycin as collected from the soil on Easter Island was probably fairly innocuous. If it were really dangerous, that would have been obvious by simple observation of the soil. Isolate and concentrate it to the degree used in the drug and you have a potentially dangerous substance. True of aspirin as well. It's hard to get into trouble with Willow Bark, but refine it into aspirin and you can cause dangerous bleeding.

Excess mTOR has been identified as a problem in older people. Adjusting it to a more youthful level would be expected to support more youthful function. The target is to reduce the level, not totally blockade it like is done for immune suppression.

It's not like rapamycin was developed yesterday. It keeps transplant recipients alive, some for a long time. The side effects are known, and have already been managed. Intermittent low dose usage would be expected to show fewer, if any, side effects. And in fact the reports are that side effects have not been an issue.

One of the videos at the rescueelders website describes the history of cowpox vaccination for smallpox. It was successful, but violently opposed on introduction. The SOC was to use actual smallpox, and that had its problems. Understanding why cowpox worked would have to wait for the discovery of viruses. But it worked even without the most basic understanding of why.

Consider the danger of being 71. Is that higher or lower with the addition of a proper dose of rapamycin? Dr. Green's experience is that he was having significant problems at 71. Using rapamycin was like a rebirth for him, so much so that he has dedicated his practice to providing the treatment that worked for him to others. His protocol is a good place to start. Further experience will probably optimize the usage.