Thank you so much,as always Micheal. You are an example of what we need to know about ourselves. We are all different,but much the same. Great video, enjoyed reading the files and hearing your results. Thanks again!!
Thx prof.Lusgarten for this fascinating work. All the the correlations you discover inside your specific data help us tremendously to understand some times hidden trends in our bodies and apply proactively the needed corrections to our diet or lifestyle.
Thanks Abdelilah. You'll probably also like one of my next videos, too, which involves comparing published study data for AST, ALT, and RBCs vs my own biomarker data. Sometimes the published data isn't true at the n=1 level!
Great approach and great video. Thanks for producing. Question: it looks like you are weighting all bookmarkers equally. Are certain bookmarkers more heavily correlated with ACM than others? If so, would you then weight your approach to favor those that are more likely to affect ACM?
Thanks David. Right now I weigh them equally, as I'm looking to get as close to a youthful internal profile as possible. By weighing them equally, they can all be potentially optimized, and not a few at the cost of others (whigh would be weighted less), which may limit health (and potentially longevity). That said, I obviously keep a keen eye on glucose and CRP, as insulin sensitivity and inflammation are 2 clear drivers of aging.
I wonder if the data would look different if the calorie intake was the same but the distribution was different e.g early I.F. or FMD a few times a year
Hi Micheal, thanks for the excellent analytical presentation as always. When you say “average calorie intake”, how did you calculate yours? which activity level did you use in Cronometer to get this calorie number? “None” or “lightly active “? thanks.
Thanks Ariel. I didn't use cronometer's activity settings, as I don't enter my exercise status there. In the video, I mentioned that if I blood test on day 1 and again on day 60, the average daily dietary intake for 59-day period in-between blood tests corresponds to the blood test on day 60. If you know the date of the last blood test and the next test, you can program cronometer to give you the average macro- and micronutrient intake during that period.
Thank you. I understand we all are unique. I appreciate your approach. What influences my study of one is not only my blood work but the studies on "longest lived populations" and some if not all suggest to eat less. I am tackling individual test results (@10 yrs, now) For example keeping my Lpa in range. Or weight under 115 @70yrs old I'm 5'6"etc. How this affect all cause mortality and morbidity a work in progress primarily because when my Lpa is within range my ast/alt may be off. Looking at the whole of it I'm nudging in the right direction. Work in progress 😉
Hey Deb, that's a good point, and why I find value in comparing biomarkers vs other biomarkers in addition to looking at the published studies. I'll have more on that in future videos-the platelet comparisons vs other biomarkers was just the start of this.
I'm always thinking about my activity level. I love being active but then I have to force feed myself to not lose weight (I'm 5ft7 male, 56kg). I wonder if it's better to be less active so I need to eat less. I can't rely on calorie dense foods anymore since moving to whole food plant based, so it's alot ofwork eating when you do time restricted feeding
Is it a matter of low bodyweight or low calories driving lifespan? In other words, if someone increases caloric expenditure and increases caloric intake to match (no weight change) are they shortening their lifespan? Any studies on the matter?
Thanks. It looks like your ACM data source for BUN has changed since your July 2020 video. At that time risk was flat below 15 mg/L , down to about 7 mg/dL , whereas you now show a U shaped curve which shows a sharp increase by the time 7 mg/dL is reached. Poit at which hazrd ratio exceeds 1 is now somewhat higher as well. Assuming you consider this to be much better data?
Good catch, Peter. in the 2020 video, it included data from a study of 30,000 people. In contrast, the newer data in today's video includes 425,000 people. Larger studies > smaller studies for getting closer to the truth.
I think it would be interesting to see the same stufy but on Body Weight and percentage muscle/fat etc. Technically your calories could be stable but if your in a deficit or excess, I image your biomarker would be impacted?
I have body weight data, that's a straightforward analysis. Maybe I'll make a relatively short video for that, especially if it turns out to match the same pattern for the calorie intake-big picture biomarker data. Unfortunately, I don't have regular, tracked data for body composition.
Dr. Lustgarten, what would you do if you were with a BMI of ~18.7-19.0 like me but your biomarkers were looking very good overall? I know that my BMI is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality but I think it's impossible for me to gain weight with non-processed foods. Even when I ate junk as an 18 years old my BMI was 21.2.
If all your biomarkers are good (using the Lustgarten optimal ranges, not the reference range), and you also feel good at that BMI, then I wouldn't change anything.
Strange that the age calculators showed no negative impact but upon closer inspection it appears there was impact, i guess the age calculators have blind spots?
As another commenter noted, I wonder if average calorie intake alone doesn't necessarily matter as much as regular feasting and fasting that would mimic evolutionary conditions. This could be some combination of intermittent fasting such as time-restricted eating, maybe even OMAD, and extended fasting on a less regular basis such as a one day fast once a week or a several day fast once a month. Maybe we need both occasional excess calories and occasional deficient calories to keep the body flexible and adaptable, to cyclically activate both mTOR and AMPK at higher levels without getting too much of either in isolation.
Hey Ben, fasting plays a role on CR's benefits, and I made a video about it recently: ruclips.net/video/xkMYJs4JmXE/видео.html That said, I eat almost all of my food by 3PM every day, 6-7h before bedtime, which is a 14-15h daily fast.
@@MarmaladeINFP Extended fasting doesn't work for me-I'm very active, both with structured workouts and otherwise, so going long periods without food sets up a binge cycle where I overeat, then fast, then overeat, fast, etc., which for me is difficult to maintain, as eventually I give up on the fasts and then are left with an overeating pattern.
@@MarmaladeINFP That said, the extended fasts, and how long/how often can also be tracked in conjunction with the biomarkers, and whether it's neutral, beneficial, or detrimental can be evaluated.
Haha, you did it again. In your article about BUN you showed that below 15 is optimal (Solinger and Rothman (2013)) and here it's a U-shape with 15.9 at nadir.
Hey Obi z, that's older data, and in a smaller study. Note the BUN study in the video included 425,000 subjects, whereas the Solinger data only included 30,000.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Thanks! And doesn't it make sense that the optimal BUN changes by age? 15.9 which was found to be optimal for 40-69 years old is what the typical ~59 years old man, and ~69 years old woman would have. In contrast, an 18 years old have much lower BUN than 15.9: 12.5 for men and 11 for women. So maybe older people need more protein and men need more than women?
@@ok373737 I don't doubt that older people may need more protein, but BUN increases during aging not because of higher protein intakes, but decreased kidney function. So if the older person has suboptimal kidney function, increasing protein intake is probably not a good idea, as BUN will rise.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Not sure I understand you there - Can we say that the typical 18 years old woman with a typical 125 eGFR which has typical BUN of only 11.5 is in increased risk of mortality because her BUN is lower than 15.9? I don't think so. So how can we know if we should raise or lower or protein given a certain eGFR?
@@ok373737 The all-cause mortality risk difference for a BUN of 11.5 vs 15.9 is still very close to low risk (HR = 0.1-0.2). However, if she has a BUN of 6 mg/dL, that would suggest increased risk, as the hazard ratio is ~1, so 5x increased risk relative to 11 mg/dL. As an example, for someone with an eGFR of 60 and a BUN of 22, it's probably a bad idea to increase protein intake, as BUN increases in proportion to protein intake. However, for the woman with a BUN of 6 and eGFR > 90, then increasing protein intake may be a good idea.
Hi sir My age 41 ( male) My height 177cm My weight 93kg I am suffering this kind of problems 1.gallbladder stones 16mm multi 2.triglycerides 249 3. creatin 1.5 4. mild prostate enlargement 5. little bit protein in urine 6. homocysteine 25 Could you please give me suggestion How can I get healthy please 🙏
@@ravichandranagam9102 These height and weight stats point to obesity - start with losing weight. Supplements won't fix the metabolic havoc the obesity wreaks.
For now, but the take-home message is to follow the biomarkers. if my data suggested that eating my average intake had no effect on the biomarkers, then I wouldn't eat less.
Thank you so much,as always Micheal. You are an example of what we need to know about ourselves. We are all different,but much the same. Great video, enjoyed reading the files and hearing your results. Thanks again!!
Thx prof.Lusgarten for this fascinating work. All the the correlations you discover inside your specific data help us tremendously to understand some times hidden trends in our bodies and apply proactively the needed corrections to our diet or lifestyle.
Thanks Abdelilah. You'll probably also like one of my next videos, too, which involves comparing published study data for AST, ALT, and RBCs vs my own biomarker data. Sometimes the published data isn't true at the n=1 level!
Great approach and great video. Thanks for producing.
Question: it looks like you are weighting all bookmarkers equally. Are certain bookmarkers more heavily correlated with ACM than others? If so, would you then weight your approach to favor those that are more likely to affect ACM?
Thanks David. Right now I weigh them equally, as I'm looking to get as close to a youthful internal profile as possible. By weighing them equally, they can all be potentially optimized, and not a few at the cost of others (whigh would be weighted less), which may limit health (and potentially longevity). That said, I obviously keep a keen eye on glucose and CRP, as insulin sensitivity and inflammation are 2 clear drivers of aging.
I wonder if the data would look different if the calorie intake was the same but the distribution was different e.g early I.F. or FMD a few times a year
Hi Micheal, thanks for the excellent analytical presentation as always. When you say “average calorie intake”, how did you calculate yours? which activity level did you use in Cronometer to get this calorie number? “None” or “lightly active “? thanks.
Thanks Ariel. I didn't use cronometer's activity settings, as I don't enter my exercise status there. In the video, I mentioned that if I blood test on day 1 and again on day 60, the average daily dietary intake for 59-day period in-between blood tests corresponds to the blood test on day 60. If you know the date of the last blood test and the next test, you can program cronometer to give you the average macro- and micronutrient intake during that period.
Thank you. I understand we all are unique. I appreciate your approach. What influences my study of one is not only my blood work but the studies on "longest lived populations" and some if not all suggest to eat less. I am tackling individual test results (@10 yrs, now)
For example keeping my Lpa in range. Or weight under 115 @70yrs old I'm 5'6"etc. How this affect all cause mortality and morbidity a work in progress primarily because when my Lpa is within range my ast/alt may be off. Looking at the whole of it I'm nudging in the right direction. Work in progress 😉
Hey Deb, that's a good point, and why I find value in comparing biomarkers vs other biomarkers in addition to looking at the published studies. I'll have more on that in future videos-the platelet comparisons vs other biomarkers was just the start of this.
I'm always thinking about my activity level. I love being active but then I have to force feed myself to not lose weight (I'm 5ft7 male, 56kg). I wonder if it's better to be less active so I need to eat less. I can't rely on calorie dense foods anymore since moving to whole food plant based, so it's alot ofwork eating when you do time restricted feeding
Is it a matter of low bodyweight or low calories driving lifespan? In other words, if someone increases caloric expenditure and increases caloric intake to match (no weight change) are they shortening their lifespan? Any studies on the matter?
Thanks. It looks like your ACM data source for BUN has changed since your July 2020 video. At that time risk was flat below 15 mg/L , down to about 7 mg/dL , whereas you now show a U shaped curve which shows a sharp increase by the time 7 mg/dL is reached. Poit at which hazrd ratio exceeds 1 is now somewhat higher as well. Assuming you consider this to be much better data?
Good catch, Peter. in the 2020 video, it included data from a study of 30,000 people. In contrast, the newer data in today's video includes 425,000 people. Larger studies > smaller studies for getting closer to the truth.
Mike, do you think that for some of these metrics, like VLDL, there could be survivorship bias in the 70-74 & 75-79 age cohorts?
Hey Alexey, that's definitely possible, and is a potential limitation.
I think it would be interesting to see the same stufy but on Body Weight and percentage muscle/fat etc.
Technically your calories could be stable but if your in a deficit or excess, I image your biomarker would be impacted?
I have body weight data, that's a straightforward analysis. Maybe I'll make a relatively short video for that, especially if it turns out to match the same pattern for the calorie intake-big picture biomarker data. Unfortunately, I don't have regular, tracked data for body composition.
Dr. Lustgarten, what would you do if you were with a BMI of ~18.7-19.0 like me but your biomarkers were looking very good overall? I know that my BMI is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality but I think it's impossible for me to gain weight with non-processed foods. Even when I ate junk as an 18 years old my BMI was 21.2.
If all your biomarkers are good (using the Lustgarten optimal ranges, not the reference range), and you also feel good at that BMI, then I wouldn't change anything.
Strange that the age calculators showed no negative impact but upon closer inspection it appears there was impact, i guess the age calculators have blind spots?
Definitely, which is why I separately track BP, FEV1, metabomics, etc
As another commenter noted, I wonder if average calorie intake alone doesn't necessarily matter as much as regular feasting and fasting that would mimic evolutionary conditions. This could be some combination of intermittent fasting such as time-restricted eating, maybe even OMAD, and extended fasting on a less regular basis such as a one day fast once a week or a several day fast once a month. Maybe we need both occasional excess calories and occasional deficient calories to keep the body flexible and adaptable, to cyclically activate both mTOR and AMPK at higher levels without getting too much of either in isolation.
Hey Ben, fasting plays a role on CR's benefits, and I made a video about it recently:
ruclips.net/video/xkMYJs4JmXE/видео.html
That said, I eat almost all of my food by 3PM every day, 6-7h before bedtime, which is a 14-15h daily fast.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 - Do you also occasionally combine that with extended fasting? Or do avoid extended fasting?
@@MarmaladeINFP Extended fasting doesn't work for me-I'm very active, both with structured workouts and otherwise, so going long periods without food sets up a binge cycle where I overeat, then fast, then overeat, fast, etc., which for me is difficult to maintain, as eventually I give up on the fasts and then are left with an overeating pattern.
@@MarmaladeINFP That said, the extended fasts, and how long/how often can also be tracked in conjunction with the biomarkers, and whether it's neutral, beneficial, or detrimental can be evaluated.
Haha, you did it again. In your article about BUN you showed that below 15 is optimal (Solinger and Rothman (2013)) and here it's a U-shape with 15.9 at nadir.
Hey Obi z, that's older data, and in a smaller study. Note the BUN study in the video included 425,000 subjects, whereas the Solinger data only included 30,000.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Thanks! And doesn't it make sense that the optimal BUN changes by age? 15.9 which was found to be optimal for 40-69 years old is what the typical ~59 years old man, and ~69 years old woman would have. In contrast, an 18 years old have much lower BUN than 15.9: 12.5 for men and 11 for women. So maybe older people need more protein and men need more than women?
@@ok373737 I don't doubt that older people may need more protein, but BUN increases during aging not because of higher protein intakes, but decreased kidney function. So if the older person has suboptimal kidney function, increasing protein intake is probably not a good idea, as BUN will rise.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Not sure I understand you there - Can we say that the typical 18 years old woman with a typical 125 eGFR which has typical BUN of only 11.5 is in increased risk of mortality because her BUN is lower than 15.9? I don't think so. So how can we know if we should raise or lower or protein given a certain eGFR?
@@ok373737 The all-cause mortality risk difference for a BUN of 11.5 vs 15.9 is still very close to low risk (HR = 0.1-0.2). However, if she has a BUN of 6 mg/dL, that would suggest increased risk, as the hazard ratio is ~1, so 5x increased risk relative to 11 mg/dL. As an example, for someone with an eGFR of 60 and a BUN of 22, it's probably a bad idea to increase protein intake, as BUN increases in proportion to protein intake. However, for the woman with a BUN of 6 and eGFR > 90, then increasing protein intake may be a good idea.
Hi sir
My age 41 ( male)
My height 177cm
My weight 93kg
I am suffering this kind of problems
1.gallbladder stones 16mm multi
2.triglycerides 249
3. creatin 1.5
4. mild prostate enlargement
5. little bit protein in urine
6. homocysteine 25
Could you please give me suggestion
How can I get healthy please 🙏
Hey Ravi chandra Nagam, it's probably best to consult with your usual physician.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 can't possibly to get health with supplements sir
@@ravichandranagam9102 These height and weight stats point to obesity - start with losing weight. Supplements won't fix the metabolic havoc the obesity wreaks.
TL;DR: eat less, 14:57
For now, but the take-home message is to follow the biomarkers. if my data suggested that eating my average intake had no effect on the biomarkers, then I wouldn't eat less.