Seems like you two have very different goals. One wants to maximize the potential for each individual. And one wants to pick the low hanging fruit to give the average person a leg up.
Every time I watch one of your videos, I'm both shamed and inspired to do better with my measurements, my intentionality of marker tweaking, and my consistency. You've shown me again and again that I need to graph my data to be able to visually see my direction trends. That's going to mean a LOT of key marker graphs! But you've inspired me to get off my butt and get it done!
Since people walked more than 12k steps throughout most of human existence, there may be bodily processes that rely on walking to work optimally because walking was the “normal” bodily state. For example, glymphatic drainage increases with walking. Maybe there are many, many processes like this. So running 5 miles every morning wouldn’t substitute because the processes may work optimally during the hour you're running, but the would work suboptimally the rest of the day. And maybe even running wouldn’t help them because they were made to function best with walking, which people used to do most of their waking hours.
Definitely-I'm pro-walking, it's a big part of my approach, I just would like to see a head-to-head matchup for how they compare for average lifespan extension, especially within the context of VO2 max...
Super video! Thank you very much. My mom is 94 now, healthy and lives by herself in her apartment in Shanghai. She eats normally and takes no supplements. She does not do too much exercise. She usually walked to supermarket by herself for shopping, but she is no longer doing this since last year. She has been taking wisconsin ginseng for over last 35 year though. She suggested me to take wisconsin ginseng as well. She takes intermittently. Take far less frequently during summer. During winter I think she takes 5 to 10 times a month. I have no clue how/what of wisconsin ginseng actually helps her long health span. I wonder if you can add wisconsin ginseng in your diet to do correlation analysis on bio markers to figure out. There is no such data or research being done yet. That will help me to make a decision if I will take the wisconsin ginseng or not. Thanks again.
Berries was missing from the list. I prefer berries over fruits, because they have more of the good stuff, and not as much sugar. A ,ot of people eat real yogurt. That's Greek or Turkishs yoghurt wit 10% fat. Combining yogurt with berries (raspberries and blueberries) is almost a breakfast!
I really like these Sunday drops. With mice its easy to do a controlled study. People are so variable. For healthspan/lifespan optimization we need to get individulized. We are getting better at tracking data and making adjustments. I can see one day Ai in near future telling us what we need to do day to day to hit our best mark. I just sent in my latest blood to TruDiagnostic for current pace. Last one I hit .72 , hoping to break into 6s. Age 59. I have a physical this week, and getting my blood tested. Hitting everything I can and feel I'm doing pretty good with my regimen. But always open mind for anything I can improve. Omnivore Mediterranean-ish, 2MAD, no processed, no added sugar, no snacking, low carb. Fast 16/8 daily, 24 hr weekly, 72 monthly. Workout 5 days a week, all body weight exercises.
On walking, I recall one study which indicated, in older people, that more steps was accolated with increased NAD+ with getting up around 12K steps (but mixed with vigorous walking or equivalent exercise) reversed NAD+ by 2 to 3 decades. Will try to find the study citation (I think the Houtkooper lab ciica 2022). Also studies which show that long term older cyclist had much younger immune function (Ref. Jant Lord PhD). Many positive biochemical changes come with physical activity.
Thanks for the heads-up @peterz53, here's the paper: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37118369/ "NAD+ abundance positively correlated with average number of steps per day"
Interesting. For walking, the studies are clear that the benefit is from non-aerobic effort, so the "vigorous walking" you mention wouldn't count, and overdoing it could be causing the NAD+ reduction.
@CrissmanLoomis I communicated with the first author, janssens, who claimed that the 12000 steps weren't simple walking, but overall were more vigorous than regular walking. Granted that is not very quantitative. But there are studies in interval walking which show improvements in blood pressure over a steady walking pace. But BP is not necessarily a life span measure though it does impact atherosclerosis.
I don't understand why consumption of fibers is not included in the list. There are several observational studies which shows a correlation between increased fiber intake and lowered risk for all cause mortality, and the more fibers consumed is correlated with a lesser and lesser risk of all cause mortality. According to Layne Norton every 10 grams of fibers correlate with a 10 % decreased all cause mortality.
Fiber appears many places on the list, in whole grains, nuts, and legumes, but it's typically a marker for other benefits. This is supported by studies focusing on fiber supplementation do not show reduced premature death. Eat foods with fiber first.
@@CrissmanLoomis Indeed it does. Though the 10% decrease in risk for every 10 grams of fiber that I mentioned above should as far I can see put it as a top tier intervention? With that said I applaud your logic to put different interventions in different tiers! It's some times hard to navigate all information about longevity and how to prioritize interventions. I believe this way of discussing interventions will be more common in the future. @conqueragingordietrying123 Perhaps you could make a similar tiering on longevity interventions based on your understanding?
@@axelr7787 Thanks for the applause! 10%-20% would be B Tier, and I'm not sure there's enough evidence to show the 30% reduction for 30g of fiber daily, which would hit A Tier. In any case, as you note, it would bump with the other categories, and I've tried to keep the interventions separate (aside from some like coffee/tea) so they add up correctly.
I looked at this, but didn't find much support for it. Being sedentary appears harmless until over 12 hours a day. I find it unlikely that 11 hours of sitting is fine, but 13 hours is suddenly harmful. It's more likely that someone who's sitting for 13 hours isn't walking much, and that's the cause.
On diet, suggest looking at the work of Gary Fraser PhD, one of the few researchers who's done decades of work in this area. Especially his deconstruction of the various tiers in the Adventists studies.
Hmm, probably not... Ideally outside is the whole food, inside LED, red or infra red would be the supplement Generally, whole food nutrition > supplements (at least that's my position)
@ 52 min: There is a problem with using the word "significant" as most people assume that means large or impactful. Often not the same as statistically significant which is what scientists typically mean without adding the qualifier "statistically".
51:50 the terminology hes grasping for is "effect size" i think :P none of u 2 were wrong, just that he considered the effect size of the relative risk increase of glucose (outside of the non-sus range) to be not significant in the colloquial sense (which could be described as "relevant effect size" to meet midway between science talk and normal-ppl talk without having overlapping terminology)
54:51 why does Cris use the Median Fasting Glucose, that's pretty sneaky, wonder what the average says. Also 20% higher chance of dying seems pretty significant in the colloquial way too.
Average glucose would be heavily impacted by outliers, which drive the mortality effects. If your glucose level is closer to the median, then the health benefits of dropping it a few more points are small.
You can see in the original paper there isn't much difference between mean and median. You would not normally present both in a paper, but the authors used the median for the end cases in the hazard ratio plot (fig 2). Of course they should have run a normality test to figure out which to use, but of course that wasn't done.
Like puberty, aging seems to be a planned process (I believe). Improving biomarkers will probably push a person to reach the maximum potential that nature has set for them, but to go beyond this limit they need to "play" with hormones or, to find out how to switch off this internal clock.
Concerning epigenetic tests, they seem to be very inaccurate. Matt Kaeberlein has tested 4 companies, 2 identical blood tests per company and the results are all over the place. The truediagnostics results were 47.8 and 60.73 for the 2 tests. The video is: "I Took 4 Different Biological Age Tests & Compared the Results..."
I saw that-but that's not how accuracy is measured. All it says is that they don't agree, as they're likely using different genes in terms of methylation status. In published studies with lots of people, DunedinPACE is the least variable, and compared similarly with PhenoAge and GrimAge for associations with all-cause mortality risk. That said, I have other issues with epigenetic clocks, which are an estimation of what can happen, rather than what actually is happening (cells, proteins, metabolites being a part of what's actually happening, in contrast).
I also saw that and put some comments in that video. He's confused accuracy with an ensemble of different models. In the trudiagnostics he used an age 20 years younger in the lower number, essentially using fake data. The criticisms regarding algorithm transparency are however sound, as we don't know what most companies are using.
@@maestroharmony343 That's because the algorithm uses age in the calculation and Matt gave a false age, which he should not have done. Age acts as a constraint similar to phenoage that Mike uses.
I appreciate the effort Chris put into his analysis, but the effects of residual confounding for most of the interventions he has analyzed will be large (e.g. healthy user bias) For any specific intervention there may be 100's of confounders, most of which cannot be corrected for. Even the very best observation studies can only "correct" for a dozen confounders at most. This is a core reason for the existence of the RCT, because confounding can NEVER be fully "corrected for" in observational data.
I prefer looking at the final mortality record instead of biomarkers. Unfortunately, it's not practical to conduct RCTs on healthy individuals. Funding costs are prohibitive and occasionally unethical. You can't conduct an RCT on smoking because that would require asking people to smoke.
Yeah, but there are also significant issues with RCTs. The biggest that come to mind are ethics, duration, and 'over'-controlling, thereby creating an environment that's more akin to a laboratory than the real world. I mean, just look at the rodent studies, the vast majority don't even translate to humans, and even within their own species, study results often don't translate from inbred lab rodents to wild rodents. Going back to humans, even if you could ethically lock people up for their entire lifetimes so that you can control for every variable, would this data even apply to free-roaming humans? This is becoming an unhinged rant, I apologize. But even then, every single intervention (stress, diet, sleep, exercise, supplements/drugs) has such a small effect size on longevity when you compare someone that's already doing well versus the top 1%. Now, maybe, as they said on the podcast, that may be because there are so few people doing everything perfectly that they do get drowned out by the unhealthy vs. even more unhealthy crowd. But personally, I don't believe that. Long story short, I'm with @CrissmanLoomis on this one. I'd rather go for the biggest bang for the buck, going for habits/interventions with the biggest effect size while admiring those who dedicate their lives to chasing the asymptote. Real rejuvenation will come from some other form of intervention (maybe cellular reprogramming or genome editing) and not from managing stress, diet, sleep, exercise, and/or current supplements/drugs.
I second this as someone who has worked on such studies. In practise only around 6 max before overcorrection occurs and any results wash out. The "solution" in an applied sense is to gather different types of evidence and use a triangulation approach, or where the data is good enough a Bayesian framework. Cost and time then enter for an economic and practicality analysis.
@@Andromeda-fd4ns I guess the question is whether there is one or a few root causes of aging in which case those interventions will come and dramatically increase lifespan, but if it's a leaky boat with 1000s of tiny holes, then going after every leak is going to be needed.
For sure, I'm not ant-walking, it's a big part of my approach, I just question the ACM risk reduction for a walker with a VO2max of 40 vs an endurance athlete of 50+
@ So you’re saying it’s too separate mechanisms; walking doesn’t improve us metabolically like hiit does. However, it does improve our bone and immunological wellness which can absolutely help keep us metabolically healthy because we will be less likely to fall as well as stay outside longer for the NIR wavelengths.
@@keithmarshalldds511 I'm not sure if that's true, was just asking the question... It could be that walking is superior, i.e. less wear and tear for the long run.
Thanks James,@@jamesgilmore8192, even better! CRONBBCF Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition, Biomarkers, Body Composition, And Function Ha, CRONBBCF doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, though
Hi, do you think that the most important things that increase longevity on a calorie restriction diet is due to the mtor suppression or is it for other mechanisms? or maybe we don't really know the real mechanism that makes it possible for calorie restriction to increase lifespan?
Glucosamine is interesting. The argument against is that it's correlated to a healthy population of users and it's almost impossible to completely extract it's benefits from other confounding variables in the population. That certainly makes sense logically. However, why don't other supplements show up more highly on the list for all cause mortality pushed by the same correlations with healthy users? I find it unlikely that such a health conscious population is only taking this one fairly obscure supplement.
The people taking glucosamine are more likely to take it for joint issues than longevity, so I doubt they would be taking other longevity supplements. Most other supplements (rapamycin, metformin, even multivitamins) do not show longevity benefits for healthy individuals.
Great video and congratulations for the channela. Just 2 minor notes: The fact that an intervention had results in female mices doesn't mean that won't translate to human males. I believe you got wrong the reference range for healthy HbA1C (If I heard right you said that it's healthy in the range 5-6%)
How is your correlations software coming along? Are you planning to use it to do some science? It would be great if all of us had a place to put all our data for science and to learn from each other. Oh Did I mention Science!! 😂
Hi @NicholasDunbar, it's coming along slowly, unfortunately. Our developers are still in uni, which is delaying full launch. I agree with everything that you said, especially because I'm still using the old school (and time consuming) way to calculate correlations...
In the discussion about glucose. I think you are both missing a lot here. Glucose cannot be looked at independently related to ACM. Some things, like cancer are going to have a different optimal glucose level vs dementia vs sarcopenia. There is also a difference in two people based on calorie consumption (energy). Fat adapted, higher calorie glucose at xx is very different than the same glucose level but low calorie or a body that is not utilizing fats the same way.
Hi Zoom, glucose isn't being evaluated independently for its association with ACM risk-the model was adjusted for sex, age, BMI, smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity (at least once a week, yes/no), systolic blood pressure, and serum total cholesterol
@@conqueragingordietrying123 I understand. If you look at 50:16 and see the U shaped chart, I don't know that this is going to be specifically accurate. It will be close but for the sake of the debate, I think lower (like BJ) is going to be better if you remove situations of problematic nature. In other words...if the patient is healthy, I think lower will nearly always be better. Similar to the LDL debate where people show the same curve and conclude that low ldl causes high mortality. This is just my speculation, not sure it matters a lot. Splitting hairs
@@zoomiwuagwu8979 Lower glucose (< 80) can be a sign of impaired liver function, via less gluconeogenesis. In Bryan's case, his liver enzymes don't show that pattern, so his 74 and 4.5% for glucose and HbA1c might be good...
@@CrissmanLoomis Periods of... I tend to focus on zone 2 because zone 5 doesn't work that well for me. Age and genetics may be factors. Others are probably different.
@@willnitschke Understandable. The Unaging challenge early adopters talked about how they had expected the high-intensity to get easier, but it never does. Max intensity is max, whatever your ability is.
@@CrissmanLoomis For me at least, it eventually becomes impossible. As you get fitter and fitter doing zone 5, it gets less stressful, so then you have to move even faster, but there are physical limits to how fast you can move. So your only alternative is to move longer, and that ups the pain factor massively.
@@willnitschke I don't recommend longer. The total weekly high-intensity for me now is six minutes, interspersed with low-intensity. As a leisure athlete, that's enough, and maintains the HIIT benefits.
Actually, the idea of eggs being bad comes from the cholesterol myth. That should make you ignore unsubstantiated beliefs about it. When they do research about that, they seems to be good for you, or close to neutral. But actually, no one really know. Too much junk research!
Eggs didn’t raise my LDL but did raise my particle count by over 500, including my small dense particles. I went from 1100 to over 1600. And yes, that was the only thing I changed. Oats didn’t. As someone with really high LpA, I had to stop eating eggs for that reason, so for someone like me, oats are better for cardiovascular health.
Yes. virtually all the studies his chart is based on are subject to large amounts of healthy user bias, and study writer bias. Suana, lol, all the studies are done in Finland, I live in Florida.
@@plants_and_wellness1574 I eat 3-4 eggs per day. I should get ready to die any second now. Despite eating so many of that "unhealthy" food, my lipid markers are pretty good. Trig 57, HDL 80, LDL 102, ApoB 89. I stopped watching the video when the expert said more than 1 egg every other day is bad for longevity. I don't know if there was anything intelligent said in this video after that. But to each his own. Lp(a) is supposedly genetic but could be modified. Mine is 21. You would want to ensure LDL pattern is A. Also check the inflammatory markers such as MPO, Lp PLA2 Activity, oxLDL.
Walking is better for longevity than HIIT or aerobics? Citation f'ing needed, please! Also for every other claim in this video, other than the obvious ones such as smoking...
1:30:47 u r in fact he most scientifically accurate (and literate) one here on yt but mirror mirror at the wall, is he the best of them all? actually, solely from intuitive-sensory perception id say no (sorry) look at markus rothkranz - i know his lighting and camera setup is better, which may give him a bit of an edge, but even disregarding that - he does look younger than ud say (and hes like 10 years or so older), he does a lot (biggest understatement xD) of things right as well but he seems to have some edge that gives him a bit more crispness in his gaze than u (not trying to be mean, i know u r trying very hard and r extremely good at what u do, im just stating observations) may wanna collab with him, hes that "sciency" and more the artsy type but i think u 2 would vibe well together
Thanks @sooooooooDark I'm not suggesting that I'm the one-I look at this space as "and", not "or". There's plenty of room for many ideas, different approaches, and I welcome and appreciate that...
Help me understand something. Looking younger? How does that equate to living longer and healthier? Is this a beauty channel? Strange how people look at longevity. How will having a few lesser wrinkle help you when you reach that 100 mark and are as frail as a stick? Please entertain me. Explain,
@@LongevityVerse its a pretty "duh" answer that looking younger (without cheats like editing and make up and whatnot (i hope thats obvious) equate to an increased likelyhood of living longer there is even studies "to proof" this (not like it needed that) - u look at someone whos 90 year old looking vs 20 year old looking, guess who will live longer :P
@@sooooooooDark Your logic is warped. You are comparing a 90-year-old to a 20-year-old. Uh? Compare a 90-year-old with fewer wrinkles to another 90-year-old with more wrinkles. Do you actually believe that the younger-looking 90-year-old will automatically live longer? If you do, you need to go back to the drawing board. It means nothing if you look younger at any given age Smooth skin will not help that frail stick body you'll be carrying. You better wake up. Because all of you are ignoring this!!! You then mention markus rothkranz. Seriously? He actually has the mobility of a 70 plus year old. We shall see how that will help him in a few years
@@LongevityVerse While the person you respond to does come off a little hostile, I think, all else being equal, it's fair to assume that someone looking younger would live longer. Why would that apply to measures of every other organ in your body but not to the skin?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
01:37 Tiers Of Longevity Interventions
30:27 Calorie Restriction-Beneficial For Humans?
48:32 Biomarker Changes vs Habit Tuning-Which Is Better?
1:30:54 Unaging Challenge-2025 Update
timings needs to be on the description to create chapters
Listening to almost all his videos, I noticed Dr. Lustgarten has many great qualities, one of them is patience.
Thanks @mannmstorm!
LOL, more info is always good but Crissman is insufferable to listen to. He sounds like a car salesman.
I think you're both stellar. The musicality in Chris's
voice signals playfulness which is critical in a debate.
Seems like you two have very different goals.
One wants to maximize the potential for each individual. And one wants to pick the low hanging fruit to give the average person a leg up.
A good summary 👍
These collaborative videos are fantastic... I'm 10 minutes in and already loving it!
Thanks @adamd9418! The best part (imo) starts at 30:18...
He's way off on diet.
@@joannajohnson5570 Why do you say that?
It's 3am, here on Long Island NY. I couldn't sleep. So I'm gonna watch this!
Every time I watch one of your videos, I'm both shamed and inspired to do better with my measurements, my intentionality of marker tweaking, and my consistency. You've shown me again and again that I need to graph my data to be able to visually see my direction trends. That's going to mean a LOT of key marker graphs! But you've inspired me to get off my butt and get it done!
Thanks Dave!!!
Since people walked more than 12k steps throughout most of human existence, there may be bodily processes that rely on walking to work optimally because walking was the “normal” bodily state. For example, glymphatic drainage increases with walking. Maybe there are many, many processes like this. So running 5 miles every morning wouldn’t substitute because the processes may work optimally during the hour you're running, but the would work suboptimally the rest of the day. And maybe even running wouldn’t help them because they were made to function best with walking, which people used to do most of their waking hours.
Definitely-I'm pro-walking, it's a big part of my approach, I just would like to see a head-to-head matchup for how they compare for average lifespan extension, especially within the context of VO2 max...
Can it be the near infrared light exposure that is the main benefit of walking?
I agree but the vibrational impact is important too.
As a component, possibly
Walking ( outdoor) stimulates your lymphatic system and improves coordination because it incorporates a variety of ancillary skills.
Super video! Thank you very much. My mom is 94 now, healthy and lives by herself in her apartment in Shanghai. She eats normally and takes no supplements. She does not do too much exercise. She usually walked to supermarket by herself for shopping, but she is no longer doing this since last year. She has been taking wisconsin ginseng for over last 35 year though. She suggested me to take wisconsin ginseng as well. She takes intermittently. Take far less frequently during summer. During winter I think she takes 5 to 10 times a month. I have no clue how/what of wisconsin ginseng actually helps her long health span. I wonder if you can add wisconsin ginseng in your diet to do correlation analysis on bio markers to figure out. There is no such data or research being done yet. That will help me to make a decision if I will take the wisconsin ginseng or not. Thanks again.
It's likely mainly her genetics that allow her to live a long time.
Wish you would do a video on the monetary cost of all of your measurements and what ones give the best value.
The CBC + standard chemistry panel = $35USD and provides a wealth of info. That's the foundation...
$18 at ownyourlabs
This is fucking amazing, would love more content like this.
Thanks @musicmonsterman8395, and stay tuned!
Michael is very well aware and thorough with his findings.
Thanks @thomastoadally!
Berries was missing from the list.
I prefer berries over fruits, because they have more of the good stuff, and not as much sugar.
A ,ot of people eat real yogurt. That's Greek or Turkishs yoghurt wit 10% fat.
Combining yogurt with berries (raspberries and blueberries) is almost a breakfast!
I'm not convinced that berries have greater health benefits than other fruits, but Greek yogurt with berries is delicious!
Well strawberries are a significant part of Mike's diet
I really like these Sunday drops. With mice its easy to do a controlled study. People are so variable. For healthspan/lifespan optimization we need to get individulized. We are getting better at tracking data and making adjustments. I can see one day Ai in near future telling us what we need to do day to day to hit our best mark.
I just sent in my latest blood to TruDiagnostic for current pace. Last one I hit .72 , hoping to break into 6s. Age 59.
I have a physical this week, and getting my blood tested. Hitting everything I can and feel I'm doing pretty good with my regimen. But always open mind for anything I can improve.
Omnivore Mediterranean-ish, 2MAD, no processed, no added sugar, no snacking, low carb. Fast 16/8 daily, 24 hr weekly, 72 monthly. Workout 5 days a week, all body weight exercises.
Maybe walking is rated so high because people would typically be outside getting sunshine while walking this far. Just a thought.
Definitely possible!
12000 steps will get you about 20lbs leaner than the average sedentary worker. That may be enough right there to make walking s tier
i love the bromance, never had a godfather or uncle so this duo is like the uncles i never had 😂!
On walking, I recall one study which indicated, in older people, that more steps was accolated with increased NAD+ with getting up around 12K steps (but mixed with vigorous walking or equivalent exercise) reversed NAD+ by 2 to 3 decades. Will try to find the study citation (I think the Houtkooper lab ciica 2022). Also studies which show that long term older cyclist had much younger immune function (Ref. Jant Lord PhD). Many positive biochemical changes come with physical activity.
Thanks for the heads-up @peterz53, here's the paper:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37118369/
"NAD+ abundance positively correlated with average number of steps per day"
Interesting. For walking, the studies are clear that the benefit is from non-aerobic effort, so the "vigorous walking" you mention wouldn't count, and overdoing it could be causing the NAD+ reduction.
@CrissmanLoomis I communicated with the first author, janssens, who claimed that the 12000 steps weren't simple walking, but overall were more vigorous than regular walking. Granted that is not very quantitative. But there are studies in interval walking which show improvements in blood pressure over a steady walking pace. But BP is not necessarily a life span measure though it does impact atherosclerosis.
@@conqueragingordietrying123 thanks Michael. That it.
I hope you can find the NAD study. I would really like to read that one.
I don't understand why consumption of fibers is not included in the list. There are several observational studies which shows a correlation between increased fiber intake and lowered risk for all cause mortality, and the more fibers consumed is correlated with a lesser and lesser risk of all cause mortality. According to Layne Norton every 10 grams of fibers correlate with a 10 % decreased all cause mortality.
💯agree!
Fiber appears many places on the list, in whole grains, nuts, and legumes, but it's typically a marker for other benefits. This is supported by studies focusing on fiber supplementation do not show reduced premature death. Eat foods with fiber first.
@@CrissmanLoomis Indeed it does. Though the 10% decrease in risk for every 10 grams of fiber that I mentioned above should as far I can see put it as a top tier intervention? With that said I applaud your logic to put different interventions in different tiers! It's some times hard to navigate all information about longevity and how to prioritize interventions. I believe this way of discussing interventions will be more common in the future. @conqueragingordietrying123 Perhaps you could make a similar tiering on longevity interventions based on your understanding?
@@axelr7787 Thanks for the applause! 10%-20% would be B Tier, and I'm not sure there's enough evidence to show the 30% reduction for 30g of fiber daily, which would hit A Tier. In any case, as you note, it would bump with the other categories, and I've tried to keep the interventions separate (aside from some like coffee/tea) so they add up correctly.
Great podcast and good questions!
Thanks Olya!
Maybe the benefit is not so much the walking, but avoiding long periods of being sedentary
I looked at this, but didn't find much support for it. Being sedentary appears harmless until over 12 hours a day. I find it unlikely that 11 hours of sitting is fine, but 13 hours is suddenly harmful. It's more likely that someone who's sitting for 13 hours isn't walking much, and that's the cause.
We need that app Michael. I'm an app developer. Happy to consult for free.
Thanks @whatthefunction9140, I'll keep that in mind!
It shouldn't be too long for the app, sometime in 2025...
On diet, suggest looking at the work of Gary Fraser PhD, one of the few researchers who's done decades of work in this area. Especially his deconstruction of the various tiers in the Adventists studies.
Will do, thanks @peterz53!
Also, is walking indoors under LED light the same as walking outdoors, where there is infrared spectrum light?
Hmm, probably not...
Ideally outside is the whole food, inside LED, red or infra red would be the supplement
Generally, whole food nutrition > supplements (at least that's my position)
@ 52 min: There is a problem with using the word "significant" as most people assume that means large or impactful. Often not the same as statistically significant which is what scientists typically mean without adding the qualifier "statistically".
Yup, many results are statistically significant, but not practically useful.
51:50
the terminology hes grasping for is "effect size" i think :P
none of u 2 were wrong, just that he considered the effect size of the relative risk increase of glucose (outside of the non-sus range) to be not significant in the colloquial sense (which could be described as "relevant effect size" to meet midway between science talk and normal-ppl talk without having overlapping terminology)
Correct. The effect size of tuning within the target range doesn't justify the effort.
@@CrissmanLoomis Ha, we'll see!
indoor and outdoor walking -> sunlight
Often times cleaner air too.
54:51 why does Cris use the Median Fasting Glucose, that's pretty sneaky, wonder what the average says. Also 20% higher chance of dying seems pretty significant in the colloquial way too.
Average glucose would be heavily impacted by outliers, which drive the mortality effects. If your glucose level is closer to the median, then the health benefits of dropping it a few more points are small.
You can see in the original paper there isn't much difference between mean and median. You would not normally present both in a paper, but the authors used the median for the end cases in the hazard ratio plot (fig 2). Of course they should have run a normality test to figure out which to use, but of course that wasn't done.
Like puberty, aging seems to be a planned process (I believe). Improving biomarkers will probably push a person to reach the maximum potential that nature has set for them, but to go beyond this limit they need to "play" with hormones or, to find out how to switch off this internal clock.
Not just hormones or the internal clock, but real rejuvenation tech...
Concerning epigenetic tests, they seem to be very inaccurate. Matt Kaeberlein has tested 4 companies, 2 identical blood tests per company and the results are all over the place. The truediagnostics results were 47.8 and 60.73 for the 2 tests. The video is:
"I Took 4 Different Biological Age Tests & Compared the Results..."
I saw that-but that's not how accuracy is measured. All it says is that they don't agree, as they're likely using different genes in terms of methylation status. In published studies with lots of people, DunedinPACE is the least variable, and compared similarly with PhenoAge and GrimAge for associations with all-cause mortality risk.
That said, I have other issues with epigenetic clocks, which are an estimation of what can happen, rather than what actually is happening (cells, proteins, metabolites being a part of what's actually happening, in contrast).
I also saw that and put some comments in that video. He's confused accuracy with an ensemble of different models. In the trudiagnostics he used an age 20 years younger in the lower number, essentially using fake data. The criticisms regarding algorithm transparency are however sound, as we don't know what most companies are using.
He sent out 2 kits of the same blood draw for each of the tests. They were like 13 years apart for the same test for the same blood sample.
@@maestroharmony343 True. I wonder how one can expect to have confidence in their result...
@@maestroharmony343 That's because the algorithm uses age in the calculation and Matt gave a false age, which he should not have done. Age acts as a constraint similar to phenoage that Mike uses.
I appreciate the effort Chris put into his analysis, but the effects of residual confounding for most of the interventions he has analyzed will be large (e.g. healthy user bias)
For any specific intervention there may be 100's of confounders, most of which cannot be corrected for.
Even the very best observation studies can only "correct" for a dozen confounders at most.
This is a core reason for the existence of the RCT, because confounding can NEVER be fully "corrected for" in observational data.
I prefer looking at the final mortality record instead of biomarkers. Unfortunately, it's not practical to conduct RCTs on healthy individuals. Funding costs are prohibitive and occasionally unethical. You can't conduct an RCT on smoking because that would require asking people to smoke.
Yeah, but there are also significant issues with RCTs. The biggest that come to mind are ethics, duration, and 'over'-controlling, thereby creating an environment that's more akin to a laboratory than the real world. I mean, just look at the rodent studies, the vast majority don't even translate to humans, and even within their own species, study results often don't translate from inbred lab rodents to wild rodents.
Going back to humans, even if you could ethically lock people up for their entire lifetimes so that you can control for every variable, would this data even apply to free-roaming humans? This is becoming an unhinged rant, I apologize. But even then, every single intervention (stress, diet, sleep, exercise, supplements/drugs) has such a small effect size on longevity when you compare someone that's already doing well versus the top 1%. Now, maybe, as they said on the podcast, that may be because there are so few people doing everything perfectly that they do get drowned out by the unhealthy vs. even more unhealthy crowd. But personally, I don't believe that.
Long story short, I'm with @CrissmanLoomis on this one. I'd rather go for the biggest bang for the buck, going for habits/interventions with the biggest effect size while admiring those who dedicate their lives to chasing the asymptote. Real rejuvenation will come from some other form of intervention (maybe cellular reprogramming or genome editing) and not from managing stress, diet, sleep, exercise, and/or current supplements/drugs.
I second this as someone who has worked on such studies. In practise only around 6 max before overcorrection occurs and any results wash out. The "solution" in an applied sense is to gather different types of evidence and use a triangulation approach, or where the data is good enough a Bayesian framework. Cost and time then enter for an economic and practicality analysis.
@@Andromeda-fd4ns I guess the question is whether there is one or a few root causes of aging in which case those interventions will come and dramatically increase lifespan, but if it's a leaky boat with 1000s of tiny holes, then going after every leak is going to be needed.
Walking improves bones ability to produce production of immune cells as well as bone strength
For sure, I'm not ant-walking, it's a big part of my approach, I just question the ACM risk reduction for a walker with a VO2max of 40 vs an endurance athlete of 50+
@
So you’re saying it’s too separate mechanisms; walking doesn’t improve us metabolically like hiit does. However, it does improve our bone and immunological wellness which can absolutely help keep us metabolically healthy because we will be less likely to fall as well as stay outside longer for the NIR wavelengths.
@@keithmarshalldds511 I'm not sure if that's true, was just asking the question...
It could be that walking is superior, i.e. less wear and tear for the long run.
Any benefit to hill walking running, rucking, how many years for those? Living in higher elevation? Living in colder vs hotter climate?
Yep, all great questions
I love this fight, had I known before I'd bought some popcorn, take him down Mike!!
Ha, @allurbase, I'm gonna post that as a clip on Wednesday!
38:11 Spot on.
Thanks Vedran!
CRONOB!!!
@@conqueragingordietrying123 CRON-OB-OC-OF, that is with optimal body composition and optimal function.
Thanks James,@@jamesgilmore8192, even better!
CRONBBCF
Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition, Biomarkers, Body Composition, And Function
Ha, CRONBBCF doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, though
Hi, do you think that the most important things that increase longevity on a calorie restriction diet is due to the mtor suppression or is it for other mechanisms? or maybe we don't really know the real mechanism that makes it possible for calorie restriction to increase lifespan?
Hi @alessandroVenturini-n6d, it could be lots of mechanisms. For example, ruclips.net/video/y-a616nWQfc/видео.html
Glucosamine is interesting. The argument against is that it's correlated to a healthy population of users and it's almost impossible to completely extract it's benefits from other confounding variables in the population. That certainly makes sense logically. However, why don't other supplements show up more highly on the list for all cause mortality pushed by the same correlations with healthy users? I find it unlikely that such a health conscious population is only taking this one fairly obscure supplement.
The people taking glucosamine are more likely to take it for joint issues than longevity, so I doubt they would be taking other longevity supplements. Most other supplements (rapamycin, metformin, even multivitamins) do not show longevity benefits for healthy individuals.
@@CrissmanLoomis Thank you and I enjoy your work.
the upgraded version is you with supplements included. Also you should measure some type of mitochondrial function.
Perhaps, but not yet...
Great video and congratulations for the channela.
Just 2 minor notes:
The fact that an intervention had results in female mices doesn't mean that won't translate to human males.
I believe you got wrong the reference range for healthy HbA1C (If I heard right you said that it's healthy in the range 5-6%)
How is your correlations software coming along? Are you planning to use it to do some science? It would be great if all of us had a place to put all our data for science and to learn from each other. Oh Did I mention Science!! 😂
Hi @NicholasDunbar, it's coming along slowly, unfortunately. Our developers are still in uni, which is delaying full launch.
I agree with everything that you said, especially because I'm still using the old school (and time consuming) way to calculate correlations...
In the discussion about glucose. I think you are both missing a lot here. Glucose cannot be looked at independently related to ACM. Some things, like cancer are going to have a different optimal glucose level vs dementia vs sarcopenia. There is also a difference in two people based on calorie consumption (energy). Fat adapted, higher calorie glucose at xx is very different than the same glucose level but low calorie or a body that is not utilizing fats the same way.
Hi Zoom, glucose isn't being evaluated independently for its association with ACM risk-the model was adjusted for sex, age, BMI, smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity (at least once a week, yes/no), systolic blood pressure, and serum total cholesterol
@@conqueragingordietrying123 I understand. If you look at 50:16 and see the U shaped chart, I don't know that this is going to be specifically accurate. It will be close but for the sake of the debate, I think lower (like BJ) is going to be better if you remove situations of problematic nature. In other words...if the patient is healthy, I think lower will nearly always be better. Similar to the LDL debate where people show the same curve and conclude that low ldl causes high mortality. This is just my speculation, not sure it matters a lot. Splitting hairs
@@zoomiwuagwu8979 Lower glucose (< 80) can be a sign of impaired liver function, via less gluconeogenesis. In Bryan's case, his liver enzymes don't show that pattern, so his 74 and 4.5% for glucose and HbA1c might be good...
I average 16000 steps and cardiovascular and lifting...
Good stuff. Does the cardiovascular include high-intensity?
@@CrissmanLoomis Periods of... I tend to focus on zone 2 because zone 5 doesn't work that well for me. Age and genetics may be factors. Others are probably different.
@@willnitschke Understandable. The Unaging challenge early adopters talked about how they had expected the high-intensity to get easier, but it never does. Max intensity is max, whatever your ability is.
@@CrissmanLoomis For me at least, it eventually becomes impossible. As you get fitter and fitter doing zone 5, it gets less stressful, so then you have to move even faster, but there are physical limits to how fast you can move. So your only alternative is to move longer, and that ups the pain factor massively.
@@willnitschke I don't recommend longer. The total weekly high-intensity for me now is six minutes, interspersed with low-intensity. As a leisure athlete, that's enough, and maintains the HIIT benefits.
Observational studies...granola is good...eggs are bad...😂😂😂
Actually, the idea of eggs being bad comes from the cholesterol myth. That should make you ignore unsubstantiated beliefs about it.
When they do research about that, they seems to be good for you, or close to neutral. But actually, no one really know. Too much junk research!
Eggs didn’t raise my LDL but did raise my particle count by over 500, including my small dense particles. I went from 1100 to over 1600. And yes, that was the only thing I changed. Oats didn’t. As someone with really high LpA, I had to stop eating eggs for that reason, so for someone like me, oats are better for cardiovascular health.
Yes. virtually all the studies his chart is based on are subject to large amounts of healthy user bias, and study writer bias. Suana, lol, all the studies are done in Finland, I live in Florida.
@@plants_and_wellness1574 I eat 3-4 eggs per day. I should get ready to die any second now. Despite eating so many of that "unhealthy" food, my lipid markers are pretty good. Trig 57, HDL 80, LDL 102, ApoB 89.
I stopped watching the video when the expert said more than 1 egg every other day
is bad for longevity. I don't know if there was anything intelligent said in this video after that. But to each his own. Lp(a) is supposedly genetic but could be modified. Mine is 21. You would want to ensure LDL pattern is A. Also check the inflammatory markers such as MPO, Lp PLA2 Activity, oxLDL.
@@robertdaymouse3784 Totally understand the tolerability of saunas is less when it feels like a sauna when you walk out your front door
Walking is better for longevity than HIIT or aerobics? Citation f'ing needed, please! Also for every other claim in this video, other than the obvious ones such as smoking...
Agreed. We'll add the citations to the notes
1:30:47 u r in fact he most scientifically accurate (and literate) one here on yt
but mirror mirror at the wall, is he the best of them all? actually, solely from intuitive-sensory perception id say no (sorry)
look at markus rothkranz - i know his lighting and camera setup is better, which may give him a bit of an edge, but even disregarding that - he does look younger than ud say (and hes like 10 years or so older), he does a lot (biggest understatement xD) of things right as well but he seems to have some edge that gives him a bit more crispness in his gaze than u (not trying to be mean, i know u r trying very hard and r extremely good at what u do, im just stating observations)
may wanna collab with him, hes that "sciency" and more the artsy type but i think u 2 would vibe well together
Thanks @sooooooooDark
I'm not suggesting that I'm the one-I look at this space as "and", not "or". There's plenty of room for many ideas, different approaches, and I welcome and appreciate that...
Help me understand something. Looking younger? How does that equate to living longer and healthier? Is this a beauty channel? Strange how people look at longevity. How will having a few lesser wrinkle help you when you reach that 100 mark and are as frail as a stick? Please entertain me. Explain,
@@LongevityVerse its a pretty "duh" answer that looking younger (without cheats like editing and make up and whatnot (i hope thats obvious) equate to an increased likelyhood of living longer
there is even studies "to proof" this (not like it needed that) - u look at someone whos 90 year old looking vs 20 year old looking, guess who will live longer :P
@@sooooooooDark Your logic is warped. You are comparing a 90-year-old to a 20-year-old. Uh? Compare a 90-year-old with fewer wrinkles to another 90-year-old with more wrinkles. Do you actually believe that the younger-looking 90-year-old will automatically live longer? If you do, you need to go back to the drawing board.
It means nothing if you look younger at any given age
Smooth skin will not help that frail stick body you'll be carrying. You better wake up. Because all of you are ignoring this!!!
You then mention markus rothkranz. Seriously? He actually has the mobility of a 70 plus year old. We shall see how that will help him in a few years
@@LongevityVerse While the person you respond to does come off a little hostile, I think, all else being equal, it's fair to assume that someone looking younger would live longer. Why would that apply to measures of every other organ in your body but not to the skin?