Hamishm00, I'm glad that long QT theory makes sense to you as well, so I'm not crazy lol. I think we all forget sometimes that a major hallmark of health is homeostasis. It's easy to want to drive a seemingly bad thing down to 0, but processes don't work like that. Both extremes can cause disease, even if one end of the spectrum is more often seen than the other 90% of the time, for evolutionary (anti-cancer bias) or cultural reasons (abundant food).
The interesting case of cardiovascular disease is a case study in this. As we know the very beginnings of cardio disease, sometimes quite early in life, it looks a lot like hyperfunction. A very strong immune response, strong sympathetic activation and response, obesity/growth. These and lots of other examples are processes that could easily be cast as "too much" of a good thing. Too much growth, too much fat storage, too much immune reaction, and so on. But then really late in the disease process, you get the opposite on every one of these counts. Frailty is the opposite of growth, people often lose a lot of weight when they are in the later disease states, immunosenescence, slow reaction times. All of this sounds like the "hyperfunction theory of aging". The problem I have with that theory is that it describes something real, but I'm not convinced of the entire package that comes with it. It's not clear that slowing down these functions will get you to radical life extension. mTOR inhibition does exactly this for all of my examples, which is why it's a major example used by the hyperfunction theory. And mTOR , as well as other nutrient-sensing pathways, are pretty amazing interventions, arguably still the best we have. But are we to believe that tamping down these hyperactive systems will lead to a permanent homoestasis and youthful state? I do not believe that for a minute. The hyperfunction theory is really just an addition to other classic theories. For example, if we had upregulated DNA repair mechanisms throughout life, would hyperfunction happen at all? I doubt that it would, in which case hyperfunction is an artifact, and DNA damage (lack of repair) is a major theoretical cause of aging, If the immune system were truly just hyperfunctioning, would it not continue to clear senescent cells at the same rate throughout life, thus benefiting the organism? The selection shadow implies that we lack something functional later in life, not that we gain something. If it were true that the unchecked continuation of the developmental plan caused all of these problems, then it would be true that we would continue to grow in a healthy state until it overwhelmed us, not in a disease state. Lobsters are a great example of this. Arguably, the hyperfunction theory works for them because they continue to grow, grow, grow and then die of some consequence of that growth. They should also have a selection shadow because they certainly do not live forever. But their growth is in no way detrimental to them except at the very end and for trivial reasons. Their growth is a boon. Our continued growth would also be a boon if our repair mechanisms did not decline with age. For the lobster it's telomeres, and maybe some other things. For Naked Mole rats it's upregulated redox pathways throught life. In all cases like this, we can find something that has not declined with age.
Back to Berberine. We are very much overcomplicating this as usual. Take it if you have the beginnings of a metabolic condition. And although there is absolutely no evidence that it causes B12 deficiency, take a B12 supplement if you feel it necessary. B12 deficiency is something that is easily noticed and corrected if you know the signs, so it's not all that scary. Berberine has an excellent safety profile. Longecity is notorious for cynicism, negativity and digging out any and all possible negatives of a given supplement. The fact that this all we can drum up probably makes it one of the safest supplements on the planet. Finally, lets keep up with the times. Calorie restriction mimetic (nutrient-sensing pathways) are almost ancient technologies. At this point, we can just read the vast literature, make a decision but then please move on. These pathways are not the answer, they are just very helpful in keeping us healthier until better technologies come along. They won't keep you healthy if you engage in analysis paralysis. Even senolytics is fast becoming an established biotechniology, at least for all of us on the cutting edge. IF you are of a certain age or disease status and are serious about sticking around in a healthy state, then you should already be taking both of these categories. But then you should move on. They are like the smart phone. We largely know what they do, we know we want them and even need them, but no one is all that excited anymore about the next iphone because it's an established technology of known value. Now come join the cool kids on the epigenetics frontier. Even David Sinclair has done so. There's lots to do and learn, and y'all are too smart to waste your time tweaking smartphones to be .0000001% better. Got it?
Edited by OP2040, 08 December 2019 - 02:56 PM.