Todd Allen

I think it highly unlikely a person seeking longevity through CRON and other lifestyle optimizations would place among the elite longevity record holders but not because lifestyle optimizations are of such limited effect as you hypothesize with respect to some gene controlled longevity limit. Rather I suspect it is merely a numbers game which in a sense boils down to luck. Imagine a graph of the age at death of all Americans last year with age on the X-axis and the number who died at that age on the Y-axis. I'd expect a roughly bell shaped curve with a gently rounded peak at something like 77 years falling increasingly steeply through the 80s and 90s rounding off in a small very shallow tail in the 100s terminating at roughly 112 years. Now imagine the graph of the optimizers. I'd expect a roughly similar shaped curve but right shifted significantly. Maybe the peak is at 87 years instead of 77. That would be roughly a 13% gain of average lifespan which I'd consider a decent worthwhile result. But if 1 in 1,000 were longevity optimizers that peak at 87 would be roughly 1/1000 the height on the graph of the peak at 77 for the total population and quite likely a small fraction of the height of the total population graph at 87. It is very easy to imagine the comparatively tiny graph of optimizers curving down rounding off with the tail terminating all fully underneath the total pop graph many years before the tail of the vastly larger total pop graph terminates. I do not consider those achieving extreme longevity as winners of a gene lottery. Common polymorphisms involve tradeoffs. They remain common because they are helpful under some circumstances and don't get weeded out at the rate of universally inferior variations. Life is cut short when ones genes align poorly with ones environment and circumstances. Our longevity interventions such as exercise and diet also involve tradeoffs as evidenced by sweetspots for dosing curves where too much of a good thing is harmful. The tradeoffs and sweetspots differ person to person depending on how our lives and interventions align with our genes. The luck factor is basically how well our lives align with the strengths and weaknesses of our genes. Our tools for optimizing that alignment are fairly crude although I believe it is a skill which some of us develop to a bit better degree than others. But due to the limited numbers blindly optimizing lifestyle based on dodgy statistics of what is commonly best and the even smaller number making serious effort to develop the skill of determining what is best for themselves the optimizers are unlikely to achieve the longevity results of the "luckiest" of the vastly larger population making little effort to optimize longevity. As tools mature and improve for longevity optimization and personalizing optimization and it becomes easier to achieve compelling results especially for gains in health and health span which are more immediately compelling than gains in longevity I expect increasing numbers will play the game and the increasing number of players is a multiplier impacting longevity records. This should soften the perception of our genetic limitations.

I've got quart bags and gallon bags. I have little need for bigger ones.

I use reusable silicone food storage bags. They come in many shapes and sizes. Plenty of places online carry them.

This supercentenarian did not talk about his genes or the exceptional longevity of family. Rather he claims to have been very lucky. If you get hit by a meteor great genes don't matter.

It's not really rapa or nothing. Most agree there are fundamentals such as diet, sleep, exercise, stress management, toxin avoidance, positive relationships, etc. which can get one pretty far despite a lack of agreement on the precise details. I didn't mean to say no one should self experiment with rapa but rather I think getting this particular vet to prescribe it for your dog and buying pills from him is a really bad idea. Especially if one doesn't have the capacity to verify what exactly is in the capsules one might get. Does he expect repercussions if his pills do nothing and people's dogs still age and die at the same rate? I have more confidence a major brand horse paste will have the ingredients claimed. I am also mocking the FDA and I place no value on anything that corrupt incompetent agency says or does.

According to the FDA, you are not a horse. And probably not a dog either. So all you longevity peeps don't go getting any bright ideas about achieving escape velocity with dog paste...

$105 for 12 0.5 mg capsules or $112 for 12 3.0 mg capsules. Considering the empty capsules cost maybe $0.20 and filling them can be automated suggests to me the pricing has little to do with costs. I'm guessing the calculation is that even at $10 the market would be tiny so let's make as much per customer as possible.

Yikes! I just found this: https://helpingpetslivelonger.com/ I don't think Matt has any connection to it other than providing data and visibility but it does illustrate how easy it can be to cash in on any longevity related research.

Indeed, I was a bit swayed by your arguments but hoped you were overstating your case. Unfortunately now I'm increasingly inclined to believe you were right on the money. I also am less concerned about Matt's research with rapa and dogs. If it leads to him profiting from pet foods, supplements or medicines then I will reconsider but for the moment I have the impression he is more interested in science then self enrichment.

https://www.thelongevitynewsletter.com/p/david-sinclair-matt-kaeberlein

This is Nick Norwitz. pic taken from:

No it isn't. It is considered an example of the idiocy or evil dishonesty of a vegan. HFDs are not keto and all of the ingredients are things people considering keto are warned not to eat. The HFD is a research diet designed to produce disease in mice and it is much closer to your diet than mine.

This is a summary by Neal Barnard, a vegan advocate, who likely lacks significant personal experience with ketogenic diets and someone who has little credibility among the cohort of physicians who follow ketogenic diets and those prescribing ketogenic diets for their patients.

Your BMR and protein intake strike me as low although both might be reasonable and perhaps even conducive to longevity for a smaller, elderly woman. I would point out though that the commonly given advice towards limiting protein to about 20% of calories on a ketogenic diet is based on helping a very wide range of people including those who are in poor metabolic health achieve ketosis. I am currently doing well with protein at about 25% of caloric intake on about 1900 calories/day at a body weight of 125 lbs. I know many do well at significantly higher intakes of both calories and protein with respect to body weight.

You started with a statement about people becoming insulin resistant on a ketogenic diet. I believe practically the polar opposite and that LMHRs are in general exquisitely insulin sensitive. Our viewpoints are so completely divergent that discussion is pointless. Is it even possible for either of us to provide sources or evidence for our beliefs that the other is likely to accept or even seriously consider? The years of covid have left me jaded about the value of discussing strongly held divergent views. It generates a poor return on the invested time and energy.