Life Extension and Great Health Regimen Stack

Decent holistic reasoning, but while Jiaogulan has ben shown to improve insulin sensitivity and reduce HbA1c, it doesn't have any evidence for it's longevity effects. You could pick something like rapamycin, selegiline, metformin, or aspirin for more assured increases in lifespan. I'd even pick reishi, another 'immortality herb' over jiaogulan, but ideally both need to be studied more... I hope we can secure some funding for such research in the near future!

Turmeric + Black Pepper is probably not doing much for you, considering you have a plant-based diet already. The clinically meaninful effects are seen with high doses of mixed curcuminoids, not plain turmeric.

Otherwise... good approach!

Decent holistic reasoning, but while Jiaogulan has ben shown to improve insulin sensitivity and reduce HbA1c, it doesn't have any evidence for it's longevity effects. You could pick something like rapamycin, selegiline, metformin, or aspirin for more assured increases in lifespan. I'd even pick reishi, another 'immortality herb' over jiaogulan, but ideally both need to be studied more... I hope we can secure some funding for such research in the near future!

Turmeric + Black Pepper is probably not doing much for you, considering you have a plant-based diet already. The clinically meaninful effects are seen with high doses of mixed curcuminoids, not plain turmeric.

Otherwise... good approach!

OK, let me take these one at a time.  First with regard to mushrooms, I agree, which is why I specifically mentioned them in my write up, although I could have gone into more detail.  Shiitake and Reishi are fine choices, I recommend a wide variety, and even the plain old cheap white button mushroom is very good for you.  Oyster mushrooms contain natural LDL lowering compounds.

With regard to jiaogulan - there are a large number of published studies from reputable sources demonstrating its health benefits, if you take that alone, its pretty logical to assume it would help with longevity, anecdotally, the people groups that consume it daily are known for their comparative longevity (admittedly, that alone is not great evidence).  Its very hard to scientifically prove ANYTHING is good for human longevity, we just know what improves biomarkers of health.  Mouse studies are interesting but not always relevant.  

"You could pick something like rapamycin, selegiline, metformin, or aspirin for more assured increases in lifespan"

I consider these myths, mostly debunked, although still under active scientific scrutiny. There is even less evidence that these will result in longevity than exists for jiaogulan, in fact taking these drugs is more likely to harm an otherwise healthy person. Rapamycin is well known for compromising the immune system and promoting cancer, metformin has an enormous list of negative side effects and has never been shown to increase max lifespans (more on this below).  Aspirin is a terrible idea for healthy people (primarily due to increased chance of gastrointestinal bleeding):Aspirin Bleeding Risks Outweigh Benefits - ABC News

"The following critique was authored by a Professor of Applied Statistics at the Open University in the UK ("Professor" is a much more senior position in the UK than the USA, denoting something like a department head), and seems cogent and consistent with a slightly cryptic phrase in the abstract, in which case the study is likely not worth paying much attention to:
 

Quote

Expert reaction to study looking at type 2 diabetes, metformin and lifespan

 

The title of this paper itself is not helpful in that anyone reading it might get the wrong idea – this study cannot actually answer the question it poses (“Can people with type 2 diabetes live longer than those without?”) for reasons discussed below, and it sounds almost as if there are grounds to advise people without diabetes to take metformin. But in fact the study isn’t saying that at all.

In the press release, Craig Currie says “People lose on average around eight years from their life expectancy after developing diabetes” and goes on to explain why. So if the life expectancy of people with type 2 diabetes is so much shorter, how on earth can they “live longer than people without the disease”, as the title of the release and the paper both say?

The answer is that the comparison in the paper runs only over the time period when the patients with diabetes were on first-line treatment with metformin, on its own (and there’s a similar comparison involving patients whose first-line treatment is with sulphonylureas). At some point after this first-line treatment starts, many of the patients with diabetes would be switched from metformin alone onto a second-line treatment, and this switch is (or should be) necessary because the diabetes or its effects have got worse. But at that point the comparison in this study simply stops.

So the quote in the press release about an eight year reduction in life expectancy, in people who develop type 2 diabetes, is talking about the entire rest of a person’s life after the diagnosis, including the time when they might be on a more aggressive second-line treatment. But the comparison in the paper is looking only at the time before the treatment changes. ...

[MR: This is evidently what the abstract means by using a "censored followup:" they ONLY looked at deaths occurring WHILE the person was on metformin or sulfonylureas: if your disease progressed, and they added on a secnd drug to bring your glucose back under control, you were simply "censored" out of further followup. This would obviously greatly bias the resulting mortality rates (and note: it is for sure from the abstract that they did not actually look at life expectancy, despite the press release AND the title of the abstract: explicitly , they ONLY looked at mortality rates of people while they were only on one drug (or, during the matched number of years of the nondiabetic controls). This means, by definition, that people who were put on the drug most usually used for the mildest diabetes (metformin) and who remained stable and healthy on it, were being compared to more severe patients at outset (on sulfonylureas), and as soon as they got sick they vanished from the analysis! Comparing even average nondiabetic people to unusually successful diabetics is, from the get-go, comparing elite diabetics to merely average aging people. Returning to the critique:]

The researchers did match the controls with patients with diabetes in certain ways, and in their statistical analysis they try to allow statistically for other differences between the people with diabetes and the controls. But the paper itself points out some issues. The researchers could not take into account certain possible confounders (other variables that might affect the comparison) because they did not have data on them for enough of the controls. Even without that important issue, statistical adjustment for confounders is never perfect. The difference in survival between people with diabetes on metformin, and controls without diabetes, was statistically significant but in fact rather small, and probably within the range where it could be explained by residual confounding ...

Further, the paper itself also points out that people with diabetes are more likely be monitored for, and receive interventions for, problems with the heart and circulation. This extra intervention and monitoring, and the possibility of residual confounding, between them cast huge doubt on the possibility that the better survival in the patients taking metformin, compared to controls without diabetes, was simply because they were taking metformin. ...

http://www.scienceme...n-and-lifespan/

And, as a reminder: metformin has been tested now at high and low doses in normal, healthy mice, and also in a somewhat flawed study in rats, and in no case has metformin increased maximum lifespan;there was a very mild increase in average LS in the mouse studies, which might well be due to residual effects of a diet of lab chow and no exercise." [Credit to Michael Rae on that metformin info].

"Turmeric + Black Pepper is probably not doing much for you"

Like Jiogulan, there is a mountain of scientific evidence for the benefits of small amounts of turmeric in one's diet, among many other things, its a very powerful anti-inflamatory.  Slightly off topic, but its also a phenomenal tool for recovery improving postoperative pain and fatigue.

-Gordo

Great job, Gordo. That takes a lot of dedication. I read your thread on CE as well. Excellent work.

You've thoroughly embraced CE. What's your opinion of saunas? I do two sets of 12 min. sauna followed by 5 min. cold bath (only 68 F, but that's what the local bath has) three times a week.

I see you've covered all the basics for plant food -- 1/2 oz. nuts, >5 oz. beans, veggies, fruits, etc. Have you considered adding fish? It's the only food category that adds longevity you don't have covered yet.

Probably don't need that inulin with how much plant-based food you're getting.

A Brazil nut a day? Shiver. I tried eating like three of those a week, and they made me light-headed. Ended up throwing away the pound I had bought.

You mention daily HIIT, which is solid. What do you do for low intensity physical activity and resistance training? Do you include sprint interval training or Tabata protocol or otherwise exceed 100% VO2max with your training?

Honestly, my comments would be minor tweaks. You have a solid routine, and have gone deep both on the plant-based diet and CE. Nice!

Hey Cloomis, sorry I don't check in here very often but I'd love to respond even if late...

• I think saunas are a great addition - I wish I had access to one.  There is good evidence for health benefit there.
• Regarding fish - I have actually started eating wild caught salmon occasionally (good source of Omega-3s).  The evidence of fish increasing longevity is mixed though.  In detailed analysis of California adventists, the longest lived cohort ever extensively studied as far as I know, researchers found that fish consumption (but otherwise vegetarian) was associated with optimal longevity in WOMEN but not in men where vegan was best (however it was very close and maybe not statistically significant in men).  Full study is here.
• I actually stopped eating Brazil nuts due to concerns about possible overdose of selenium based on: https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/28805450/ (I wish I could edit the stack but I don't see that option). I also stopped consuming olive oil, the science seemed mixed on that matter and not convincing to me.
• For low intensity physical activity I do lots of walking, bike riding, gardening.  I also do pull-ups, dips, and various weight machine exercises.  I have in the past done sprints as part of my routine, but I found it "risky", I pulled a hamstring doing that and started to feel like it was overly intense (risk of injury high) although that could probably be mitigated if I had a track to run on and did proper stretching beforehand.

I've stopped sprint interval training (20-30 second sprints) and replaced with typical HIIT routine -- 10 min warmup, (2 min full out run, 3 min jog) x3 for a 25 minute workout twice a week. Results have been great, and I've, uh, recovered my VO2max (according to Apple Watch) from the drop I had when I replaced all runs with Sprint Intervals.

Wild-caught salmon, great! Looked at the study. I think you have it reversed. Pesco best for men, didn't reach statistical signficance for women.