84 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

such as vitamin d.
...

Different people have different viewpoints. We are simply presenting ours.

 

Vitamin D is indeed endogenously produced through exposure to sun-shine. The only one.

 

Since I don't get sunburned, I experimented extensively with sun-shine exposure. My experience through many years with varying sun-shine hours and sunbathing - while regularly monitoring blood levels of 25(OH)D serum levels - is, its endogenous production with sunshine only didn't get down regulated by supplementation.
 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 04 November 2024 - 06:00 PM.

[alphachn]

 

Vitamin D is indeed endogenously produced through exposure to sun-shine. The only one.

 

Since I don't get sunburned, I experimented extensively with sun-shine exposure. My experience through many years with varying sun-shine hours and sunbathing - while regularly monitoring blood levels of 25(OH)D serum levels - is, its endogenous production with sunshine only didn't get down regulated by supplementation.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Such as：Vitamin K: A portion of vitamin K can be synthesized by bacteria in the human gut, particularly vitamin K2.

Such as：Vitamin B3 (Niacin, Nicotinic Acid): The body can synthesize a small amount of niacin from the metabolism of tryptophan.

Such as：Vitamin A (Retinol): vitamin A can be produced from precursor substances like beta-carotene that are ingested through diet and converted within the body.

[alphachn]

 

 

Scientific papers are indeed often manipulated. However, with scrutiny looking at the raw data of the study, such manipulation is possible to uncover. And properly designed randomized controlled trials do prevent bias.

 

 

Ok, if no scientific work proved (your words) vitamins are not life-extending. Then what proved it?

 

Just you're believing is no proof either.

 

 

 

Likewise, if no randomized controlled proved your proprietary supplement extents life, it's merely your belief with all the bias and conflict of interests.

 

It's not like the randomized controlled trials in scientific papers, using mice? Please, the differences between humans and mice are too significant.

 

We cannot see the actual research; we can only see what the researchers want us to see.

 

Actually, a significant portion of Western research funding is distributed among private companies like ours, where useful research is conducted and the results are kept confidential. Russia is a country that values practicality and avoids superficial work. It might not appear prominently in world research paper rankings because it does not prioritize publishing papers or following trends. However, in fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, aviation, and space, their level is world-class, especially in aviation and space, where they are on par with the USA and have produced many great scientists.

For example, the Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman never published his work in peer-reviewed journals (by university evaluation standards, he wouldn't even qualify as an associate professor). Instead, he posted a few papers on a website, and he even refused to accept the Fields Medal (the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in mathematics). Yet, none of this hindered him from becoming one of the greatest mathematicians. Prestigious universities like Stanford and UC Berkeley sought to hire him, but he declined.

Someone once tallied that Moscow State University published only 21 papers in CNS (Cell, Nature, Science) from 1950 to 1990. Despite this, it produced 10 Nobel laureates and 3 Fields Medalists.

 

Evidence shows that centenarians typically do not focus on supplementing with vitamins. There are many examples of nutritionists who do not believe in supplementing vitamins themselves but promote them as the fountain of youth. For instance, nutritionists who lift weights themselves but advise you to take vitamins, anti-aging experts who use Botox but tell you how to use supplements, skincare experts with wrinkled faces who teach you about skincare, and even a famous American millionaire who takes 100 supplements daily but looks like he is 60 years old.

 

We use results to prove the efficacy of our supplements; none of our customers who take them have given negative feedback.

[pamojja]

Such as：Vitamin K, Vitamin B3 (Niacin,, Vitamin A (Retinol): vitamin A can be produced from precursor substances like beta-carotene that are ingested through diet and converted within the body.

 

And, as already stated, not enough. For requiring at least the RDA additional to not cause worse deficiency disease.

 

Bleeding with vitamin K, pellagra with vitamin B3, or nigh blindness with vitamin A. Again, that's why they are called essential to get from diet 'vitamins', at least of the amounts saddled in the RDA, from diet. Studies show for examples that almost half of females can't convert beta-carotene from diet into preformed vitamin And microbiome bacteria use the dietary vitamin too, for in turn synthesizing beneficial molecules.

 

 B-metabolism,gif.gif   490.37KB   0 downloads

 

In this simplified graph you can see for what all the B-vitamin are necessary co-factors all in interplay, to be able to synthesize many crucial metabolic functions and their metabolites. Without various disease occurs.

 

And again no indication, the body would down-regulate an anyway deficient endogenous vitamin synthesis. Good enough only to die from deficiency disease.

 

 

 

 

 

[pamojja]

It's not like the randomized controlled trials in scientific papers, using mice? Please, the differences between humans and mice are too significant.

 

That's why I said you have no data, only your belief, that vitamins would not extend life. There are no randomized controlled trials in humans with long term vitamin use. Only your unsubstantiated doubt.

 

We use results to prove the efficacy of our supplements; none of our customers who take them have given negative feedback.

 

You're caught in faulty circular thinking. You have no long-term results of your supplements in respect of prolonging life. Likewise, you didn't study the metabolic long-term effects of your supplements in various populations. The feedback received is not negative, but you do not have sufficient positive feedback from centenarians.

 

Merely belief, based on assumptions..

 

Edited by pamojja, 05 November 2024 - 11:01 AM.

[alphachn]

That's why I said you have no data, only your belief, that vitamins would not extend life. There are no randomized controlled trials in humans with long term vitamin use. Only your unsubstantiated doubt.

 

 

You're caught in faulty circular thinking. You have no long-term results of your supplements in respect of prolonging life. Likewise, you didn't study the metabolic long-term effects of your supplements in various populations. The feedback received is not negative, but you do not have sufficient positive feedback from centenarians.

 

Merely belief, based on assumptions..

 

I am not basing my beliefs on assumptions, but on factual results.

 

 

1. Dr. Robert Atkins： An American physician famous for the Atkins Diet, a low-carbohydrate diet.He passed away in 2003 due to a fall at the age of 72. While his diet program is globally popular, his personal health status and weight issues raised some concerns.

2. Gillian McKeith:A British television host and self-proclaimed nutrition expert, known for her program "You Are What You Eat." Although she is still alive, some of her health advice and her health status displayed in the show have sparked controversy.

3. Adelle Davis: Adelle Davis was a prominent American nutritionist who authored several books on nutrition and health, advocating for balanced diets to maintain health. However, Adelle Davis passed away from cancer in 1974 at the age of 70.
4. Nathan Pritikin: Nathan Pritikin was a renowned nutritionist and health activist, known for his high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. He founded the Pritikin Longevity Center in 1976, but he himself committed suicide due to leukemia in 1985 at the age of 69.

5.Aging editor-in-chief Mikhail Blagosklonny has passed away at the age of 63.

6.Ray Walford:Ray Walford was a renowned American gerontologist and longevity researcher known for his experiments in the BIOSPHERE 2 project, which studied the effects of caloric restriction on health and lifespan.He passed away in 2004 at the age of 79.

7.Dr. Roy Walford:Dr. Roy Walford was a professor at UCLA, famous for his research on caloric restriction and longevity. He authored several books on health and longevity. He passed away in 2004 at the age of 79.

Additionally, there are centenarians in China today who, due to lower levels of education, are not even aware of basic vitamins and generally do not take any supplements.There are no renowned centenarians in the world who are nutritionists. 

[alphachn]

 

And, as already stated, not enough. For requiring at least the RDA additional to not cause worse deficiency disease.

 

Bleeding with vitamin K, pellagra with vitamin B3, or nigh blindness with vitamin A. Again, that's why they are called essential to get from diet 'vitamins', at least of the amounts saddled in the RDA, from diet. Studies show for examples that almost half of females can't convert beta-carotene from diet into preformed vitamin And microbiome bacteria use the dietary vitamin too, for in turn synthesizing beneficial molecules.

 

B-metabolism,gif.gif

 

In this simplified graph you can see for what all the B-vitamin are necessary co-factors all in interplay, to be able to synthesize many crucial metabolic functions and their metabolites. Without various disease occurs.

 

And again no indication, the body would down-regulate an anyway deficient endogenous vitamin synthesis. Good enough only to die from deficiency disease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Famous nutritionists do not believe that vitamins can extend lifespan, so why do their followers believe that vitamins can extend lifespan? This isn't based on unfounded skepticism.

[alphachn]

paper:  https://onlinelibrar....1002/ijc.35226

 

Omega-6: ~2% reduction in overall cancer incidence.
Omega-3: ~1% reduction in overall cancer incidence.
Omega-3 and prostate cancer: ~3% increase in prostate cancer incidence.

What's the cost of a few % reduction in probability of getting cancer in a lifetime? 

These observational studies are almost completely worthless. Who knows what sorts of things -- genes, behaviors, environments -- affect both cancer rates and omega intake or omega levels? Seriously -- these kinds of studies are ok as exploratory work suggestive of new hypotheses, but treating them as evidence that one should take some supplement is just bad science and seems to be endemic in nutrition studies.

[pamojja]

Seriously -- these kinds of studies are ok as exploratory work suggestive of new hypotheses, but treating them as evidence that one should take some supplement is just bad science and seems to be endemic in nutrition studies.

 

Exactly. Even more worthless is anecdotal evidence of shorter lifespan in famous nutritionists, you listed.
 
I'll explain with my experience: When young, I thought my immunity to recover from disease invincible. Supplements and diet (beyond ethical considerations) therefore of not much use. But with a walking-disability from PAD and nothing more to lose at later age, I gave it a try and - long story short - it worked even for remission of a number of successive incurable chronic diseases.
 
In my case, it is clear. It prevented for sure bodily-disability, and probably by some time earlier demise, usual with so many degenerative diseases. It might help me get to 80 instead of 70 years of age. If not something unexpected else happens.
 
With the listed nutritionists, the same self-medication con-founder and original bad health has always to be considered, too.
 
Therefore, well-designed and expensive controlled randomized trials would be necessary to be certain. Where each age group or precondition, etc,, would be matched with someone equal, without the intervention in question.
 

... but treating them as evidence that one should take some supplement is just bad science and seems to be endemic in nutrition studies.

 

Exactly. But how is taking your belief in your products, even without any non-telling observational studies, not even worse than just bad science?
 
In my case only, I've got unshakable evidence: even remissions of chronic diseases are possible with nutrition and life-style changes. Since I experienced firsthand the healing power of such high dose nutrient-intake. I'm regretting being so inconsiderate at a younger age. Where I now must hypothesize, that much lower doses would have prevented the worse.
 
I know, however enough, who ate a very bad diet, smoked, drunk, never supplemented and still reached 100 years of age. Therefore, I don't tell anyone what to do, but only offer my story particular to myself for consideration. There are just too many different biochemical individualities, with too different genetic susceptibilities, medical histories or present conditions, deficiencies or overload, varying toxic exposures, different metabolism, etc. - for any certainty.
 
And here we both differ: I offer my anecdote to consider in similar circumstances. You push your product merely on faith in a thereby assumed longer life. With full conflict of interest. But not even an anecdote.
 

These observational studies are almost completely worthless.

 

These observational studies are so completely worthless too, because they are not done with comprehensiveness and individualized high doses. Simply nonexistent that way. There is for example absolutely not 1 study on omega-3, where participants took in average 4 g/d of EPA/DHA constituents for 16 years as I successfully did (along with all the other nutrients and comprehensive life-style changes).

 

But as totally worthless like your mere belief of an 80% life extension effect of your products due to similiar worthless animal studies, with clear conflict of interests? - Let's agree to disagree.

 

Edited by pamojja, 14 November 2024 - 01:55 PM.

[alphachn]

With the listed nutritionists, the same self-medication con-founder and original bad health has always to be considered, too.
 
Therefore, well-designed and expensive controlled randomized trials would be necessary to be certain. Where each age group or precondition, etc,, would be matched with someone equal, without the intervention in question.
 

 
And here we both differ: I offer my anecdote to consider in similar circumstances. You push your product merely on faith in a thereby assumed longer life. With full conflict of interest. But not even an anecdote.
 

There is for example absolutely not 1 study on omega-3, where participants took in average 4 g/d of EPA/DHA constituents for 16 years as I successfully did (along with all the other nutrients and comprehensive life-style changes).

 

But as totally worthless like your mere belief of an 80% life extension effect of your products due to similiar worthless animal studies, with clear conflict of interests? - Let's agree to disagree.

 

1.These experiments are basically worthless because it is impossible to find two completely identical individuals in experimental design. The correlation exists between the plasma levels of nutritional elements in each person's body and health, rather than the intake of supplements. It is possible that regardless of the intake of supplements, people with higher levels of these molecules in their plasma also have higher levels of health.

2.We are not without anecdotes; we introduced the n=5 human experiments that yielded excellent results, as well as an 83-year-old man on the verge of death who, after taking our supplements, is now over 90 years old.

3.We understand that our product will face a lot of skepticism, such as being labeled "snake oil," "fraud," and so on. That's okay; time will eventually prove everything.Just like those cases will prove everything.

[alphachn]

1.These experiments are basically worthless because it is impossible to find two completely identical individuals in experimental design. The correlation exists between the plasma levels of nutritional elements in each person's body and health, rather than the intake of supplements. It is possible that regardless of the intake of supplements, people with higher levels of these molecules in their plasma also have higher levels of health.

2.We are not without anecdotes; we introduced the n=5 human experiments that yielded excellent results, as well as an 83-year-old man on the verge of death who, after taking our supplements, is now over 90 years old.

3.We understand that our product will face a lot of skepticism, such as being labeled "snake oil," "fraud," and so on. That's okay; time will eventually prove everything.Just like those cases will prove everything.

 

By the way, I am not a young man.  I am a professor, similar to Bryan Johnson, both over 40 years old. Do you think he would be younger than me?

[pamojja]

3.We understand that our product will face a lot of skepticism, such as being labeled "snake oil," "fraud," and so on. That's okay; time will eventually prove everything.Just like those cases will prove everything.

 

Skepticism of health claims is always advised with commercial operations. With nutritional supplements just as well.

 

Name-calling can somewhat be avoided, by mentioning the limitations of your own research. And not promising what your product hasn't shown to provide yet.

It also doesn't help, if you don't apply the same scientific scrutiny to your own product, like you do to users of other approaches. As you did here against nutritional therapies, by the mere incidence of me having had success with it, and happen to be skeptical of your promises - by your own skepticism understood as unscientific - here.

 

2.We are not without anecdotes; we introduced the n=5 human experiments that yielded excellent results, as well as an 83-year-old man on the verge of death who, after taking our supplements, is now over 90 years old.

 

A good start, congrats. Your scientific skepticism for your own results is just still very far from that, with which you wanted to deny the effectiveness of other than your approaches. With far more anecdotes.

 

1.These experiments are basically worthless because it is impossible to find two completely identical individuals in experimental design. The correlation exists between the plasma levels of nutritional elements in each person's body and health, rather than the intake of supplements. It is possible that regardless of the intake of supplements, people with higher levels of these molecules in their plasma also have higher levels of health.

 

Again, you're devaluing everything not having rigorous science, but your own.

 

Besides a perfect randomized trial with blood-levels (which won't ever happen, because there isn't any money to be made with non-patentable natural nutrients), there are pharmacological studies of most nutrients. Which do show serious pharmacological health effects in vivo. You still need to do.

 

Like for example this one, which looked at the effects of oral doses of vitamin C up to 20 g/d. The only study to my knowledge testing such high intakes:

 

 

 

Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 23-August-2002, Vol 115 No 1160

Glycohaemoglobin and ascorbic acid

Copplestone et al1 (http://www.nzma.org....al/115-1157/25/) identified misleading glycohaemoglobin (GHb) results due to a haemoglobin variant (Hb D Punjab) and listed a number of other possible causes for such false results (ie, haemolytic anaemia, uraemia, lead poisoning, alcoholism, high-dose salicylates and hereditary persistence of foetal haemoglobin).

We have observed a significant "false" lowering of GHb in animals and humans supplementing ascorbic acid (AA) at multigram levels. Mice receiving ~7.5 mg/d (equivalent to > 10 g/day in a 70 kg human) exhibited no decrease in plasma glucose, but a 23% reduction in GHb.2 In humans, supplementation of AA for several months did not lower fasting plasma glucose.3,4 We studied 139 consecutive consenting non-diabetic patients in an oncology clinic. The patients had been encouraged as part of their treatment to supplement AA. Self-reported daily intake varied from 0 to 20 g/day. The plasma AA levels ranged from 11.4 to 517 µmol/L and correlated well with the reported intake. Regression analysis of their GHb and plasma AA values showed a statistically significant inverse association (eg, each 30 µmol/L increase in plasma AA concentration resulted in a decrease of 0.1 in GHb).

A 1 g oral dose of AA can raise plasma AA to 130 µmol/L within an hour and such doses at intervals of about two hours throughout the day can maintain ~230 µmol AA/L.5 Similar levels could also be achieved by use of sustained-release AA tablets. This AA concentration would induce an approximate 0.7 depression in GHb. The GHb assay used in our study, affinity chromatography, is not affected by the presence of AA.3 Thus, unlike the case with Hb D Punjab, our results were not caused by analytical method artifact. More likely, the decreased GHb associated with AA supplementation appears related to an in vivo inhibition of glycation by the elevated plasma AA levels, and not a decrease in average plasma glucose.3 If this is true, the effect has implications not only for interpretation of GHb but also for human ageing, in which glycation of proteins plays a prominent role in age-related degenerative changes.

A misleading GHb lowering of the magnitude we observed can be clinically significant. Current recommendations for diabetics suggest that GHb be maintained at 7, a level that is associated with acceptable control and decreased risk of complications; when GHb exceeds 8, re-evaluation of treatment is necessary.6 Moreover, relatively small increases in average blood sugar (ie, GHb) can accompany adverse reproductive effects. A difference in mean maternal GHb of 0.8 was found for women giving birth to infants without or with congenital malformations.7 In either of these circumstances, an underestimation of GHb could obscure the need for more aggressive intervention.

Vitamin usage is common in New Zealand and after multivitamins, AA is the most often consumed supplement.8 Moreover, diabetics are encouraged to supplement antioxidants, including AA. Thus, it seems prudent for primary care health providers to inquire regarding the AA intake of patients, especially diabetics, when using GHb for diagnosis or treatment monitoring.

Cheryl A Krone
Senior Research Scientist
John TA Ely
Director
Applied Research Institute
PO Box 1925
Palmerston North

References:

• Copplestone S, Mackay R, Brennan S. Normal glycated haemoglobin in a patient with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and haemoglobin D Punjab: implications for assessment of control. NZ Med J 2002;115(1157). URL: http://www.nzma.org....al/115-1157/25/
• Krone CA, Ely JTA. Vitamin C and glycohemoglobin revisited. Clin Chem 2001;47(1):148.
• Davie SJ, Gould BJ, Yudkin JS. Effect of vitamin C on glycosylation of proteins. Diabetes 1992;41(2):167–73.
• Paolisso G, Balbi V, Bolpe C, et al. Metabolic benefits deriving from chronic vitamin C supplementation in aged non-insulin dependent diabetics. J Am Coll Nutr 1995; 14(4):387–392.
• Lewin S. Vitamin C: Its Molecular Biology and Medical Potential. New York: Academic Press; 1976.
• Kenealey T, Braatvedt G, Scragg R. Screening for type 2 diabetes in non-pregnant adults in New Zealand: practice recommendations. NZ Med J 2002;115(1152):194–6.
• Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Dignan PS, et al. Minor congenital malformation in infants of insulin-dependent diabetic women: association with poor glycemic control. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:745–9.
• Allen T, Thomson WM, Emmerton LM, Poulton R. Nutritional supplement use among 26-year-olds. N Z Med J 2000;113(1113):274–7.

 

So there are far more scientific studies of in-vivo showing significant effects of nutrients in human metabolism, than for your product.

 

Be scientifically rigorous, and do not promise for which you haven't had any rigorous evidence yet.
 

 

[pamojja]

By the way, I am not a young man.  I am a professor, similar to Bryan Johnson, both over 40 years old.

 

Fasten your seat-belt . That was the young age when my serous chronic degenerative diseases started. Soon you might have the evidence that your approach might be as - or even more effective - for remissions as mine.
 

 

 

[alphachn]

Fasten your seat-belt . That was the young age when my serous chronic degenerative diseases started. Soon you might have the evidence that your approach might be as - or even more effective - for remissions as mine.
 

I feel like I'm in my 20s. With the appearance and physical fitness of a 20-year-old. There's an old Chinese saying that goes, "The best treatment is to prevent diseases before they occur."

I'm not against everything here.Testing the effectiveness of supplements requires a different study.And such research, due to high costs and time investment, is unlikely to happen.

[pamojja]

Testing the effectiveness of supplements requires a different study.And such research, due to high costs and time investment, is unlikely to happen.

 

Your product in this respect is probably in a much worse situation. Since it even lacks most basic pharmacological studies which were done for essential nutrients. Even more unlikely to happen.

 

And any study, as perfect as possibly designed, will only show an average effect. Some might even worsen, some improved much more than most, since no large enough study can take biochemical individuality sufficiently enough into consideration.
 

But there is the experimental approach, which did work for me. Individually testing supplements, while monitoring regularly as many laboratory markers possible. Thereby, beneficial or worsening effects to metabolism are becoming obvious long before they manifest as health benefits, or even remissions years down the road of incurable diseases.

 

Then additional studies, even the most unlikely perfect ones with contrary results, become superfluous. From a patient perspective.

 

For a supplement inventor and producer, like yourself, that of course is a difficulty hard and expensive to solve. Since very few consumers would take such additional efforts in monitoring years of effects.

   

 

[alphachn]

 

Your product in this respect is probably in a much worse situation. Since it even lacks most basic pharmacological studies which were done for essential nutrients. Even more unlikely to happen.

 

And any study, as perfect as possibly designed, will only show an average effect. Some might even worsen, some improved much more than most, since no large enough study can take biochemical individuality sufficiently enough into consideration.
 

But there is the experimental approach, which did work for me. Individually testing supplements, while monitoring regularly as many laboratory markers possible. Thereby, beneficial or worsening effects to metabolism are becoming obvious long before they manifest as health benefits, or even remissions years down the road of incurable diseases.

 

Then additional studies, even the most unlikely perfect ones with contrary results, become superfluous. From a patient perspective.

 

For a supplement inventor and producer, like yourself, that of course is a difficulty hard and expensive to solve. Since very few consumers would take such additional efforts in monitoring years of effects.

   

 

I mean efficacy testing, currently no one is investing expensive costs and time for experiments, not the lack of basic pharmacological studies on essential nutrients.

[pamojja]

That's what I said.

[alphachn]

Bryan Johnson, a 47-year-old, has a grand ultimate goal: to reverse aging and achieve immortality. He spends $2 million annually on various supplements to fight aging, but now he has embarked on the path of plastic surgery.He believes that taking supplements alone cannot achieve immortality.Millionaires believe that taking supplements is futile, let alone ordinary people.

 

Attached Files

•  微信图片_20241118151729.jpg   97.96KB   0 downloads
•  微信图片_20241118151735.jpg   93.49KB   0 downloads
•  微信图片_20241118151740.jpg   76.75KB   0 downloads

Edited by alphachn, 18 November 2024 - 07:21 AM.

[pamojja]

Again a mere anecdote, which could go either way, and still doesn't ascertain anything. Not considering individual circumstances or goals.

 

He believes that taking supplements alone cannot achieve immortality.

 

Who in his sober mind can postulate anything, achieving immortality?

 

There is not one immortal human in this world, also not by any millionaires means. All humans have died until now, without exceptions.
 

Besides, you are postulating he's allegedly having left supplements behind - but it seems this guy still is a fervent supplement user.

 

 

Bryan Johnson Supplement List – Why He Takes All 40 Daily (over 100 pills!)

• Last Updated: August 16, 2024
• 5 Comments

 

Believe me, organizing and taking so many supplements daily is an extraordinary effort. Nobody would keep doing, without believing in their benefits for health span.

 

How could plastic surgery ever do something close to supplements?

 

 

We are not without anecdotes; we introduced the n=5 human experiments that yielded excellent results, as well as an 83-year-old man on the verge of death who, after taking our supplements, is now over 90 years old.

 

What were the excellent results for the other n=4?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alphachn]

Again a mere anecdote, which could go either way, and still doesn't ascertain anything. Not considering individual circumstances or goals.

 

 

Who in his sober mind can postulate anything, achieving immortality?

 

There is not one immortal human in this world, also not by any millionaires means. All humans have died until now, without exceptions.
 

Besides, you are postulating he's allegedly having left supplements behind - but it seems this guy still is a fervent supplement user.

 

Believe me, organizing and taking so many supplements daily is an extraordinary effort. Nobody would keep doing, without believing in their benefits for health span.

 

How could plastic surgery ever do something close to supplements?

 

 

 

What were the excellent results for the other n=4?
 

It's not a mere anecdote, Friend. This is a group with thousands of fans imitating him.

The supplements in the link you provide is what author is promoting, not what Bryan uses. He also use Rapamycin、Trehalose and etc.

 

Results for the other n=4 is as follows:

Genetic Optimization: By regulating gene expression, the transcription and translation efficiency of longevity genes are enhanced, fundamentally combating cellular aging.

Enhanced Cellular Metabolism: Promotes energy generation and waste elimination, boosting cellular vitality.

Immune Enhancement: Enhances the ability of cells to cope with reactive oxygen species (ROS), improving overall immune function.

Cell Membrane Protection: Increases the integrity and function of cell membranes, providing a more stable environment for cells.

 

Our goal is to break this exception and become an immortal person in this world.

[longevitydiary]

Again a mere anecdote, which could go either way, and still doesn't ascertain anything. Not considering individual circumstances or goals.


Who in his sober mind can postulate anything, achieving immortality?

There is not one immortal human in this world, also not by any millionaires means. All humans have died until now, without exceptions.

Besides, you are postulating he's allegedly having left supplements behind - but it seems this guy still is a fervent supplement user.

Believe me, organizing and taking so many supplements daily is an extraordinary effort. Nobody would keep doing, without believing in their benefits for health span.

How could plastic surgery ever do something close to supplements?



What were the excellent results for the other n=4?

In an animal experiment with n=5, lifespan was extended by 80%。 Results from a human trial with n=10.
Cognitive and Physical Enhancement: One user reported clearer thinking and increased physical strength, indicating potential benefits in enhancing cognitive function and physical capacity.
Lightness in the Body: Another user expressed feeling lighter and having noticeably lighter steps when climbing stairs, suggesting the product may positively affect energy metabolism and nervous function.
Menopause Symptom Improvement: A menopausal user shared that her sleep problems significantly improved, going from insomnia to sleeping through the night.
Cellular Anti-aging: A user observed a 13% increase in telomere length, a highly significant result indicating the product's potential in delaying cellular aging.
Biological Age Reversal: Using multiple sets of biological aging clocks, a user saw a reduction in biological age by 3 years, further verifying the product's potential in slowing the overall biological aging process.

[pamojja]

It's not a mere anecdote, Friend. This is a group with thousands of fans imitating him.

 

And this is a wild assumption on your side. Without documentation, even less worth of consideration than an anecdote.
 

Again, I know from my own experience that to take more than 100 supplements every day - as in my example for over 16 years - takes an otherworldly determination. Guess one could count those taking as much for that long on the fingers on one's hands.

 

 

The supplements in the link you provide is what author is promoting, not what Bryan uses. He also use Rapamycin、Trehalose and etc.

 

 

Would be nice if you gave links to your information, as I did. Yes, beside supplements, he also takes medications. In the comment section of this article, answered by its author:

 

 

Amit

 

Reply to  Tej

8 months ago

 

Caution : The supplements in this page is what author is promoting, not what Bryan uses.

 

 

John

Author

 

Reply to  Amit

8 months ago

 

Correct, I have given multiple examples of brands for certain vitamins. This caters to different budgets and needs. For example, some people look for vegan capsules, others look for minimal fillers or custom doses.

It’s worth noting that Bryan was originally taking a range of branded supplements. Since then he’s switched to his own brand, suggesting there was nothing inherantly “special” about the brands he was using, such as a patented ingredient. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been possible for him to switch to his own white labelled versions of the products.

 

 

How is using a different brand, in this case with the options of a millionaire of his own, not taking more than 100 different supplements?

Edited by pamojja, 21 November 2024 - 10:36 AM.

[pamojja]

Results for the other n=4 is as follows:

• Genetic Optimization: By regulating gene expression, the transcription and translation efficiency of longevity genes are enhanced, fundamentally combating cellular aging.
• Enhanced Cellular Metabolism: Promotes energy generation and waste elimination, boosting cellular vitality.
• Immune Enhancement: Enhances the ability of cells to cope with reactive oxygen species (ROS), improving overall immune function.
• Cell Membrane Protection: Increases the integrity and function of cell membranes, providing a more stable environment for cells.

 

Our goal is to break this exception and become an immortal person in this world.

 

 

You have to understand my skepticism for your surreal goals. Until now, my results of remission in 3 chronic diseases (PAD. COPD and ME/CFS) all supersede your results. But from my even better results it would be completely out of touch with reality, to assume even slightly possible immortality already.

 

 

Results from a human trial with n=10.

1. Cognitive and Physical Enhancement: One user reported clearer thinking and increased physical strength, indicating potential benefits in enhancing cognitive function and physical capacity.
2. Lightness in the Body: Another user expressed feeling lighter and having noticeably lighter steps when climbing stairs, suggesting the product may positively affect energy metabolism and nervous function.
3. Menopause Symptom Improvement: A menopausal user shared that her sleep problems significantly improved, going from insomnia to sleeping through the night.
4. Cellular Anti-aging: A user observed a 13% increase in telomere length, a highly significant result indicating the product's potential in delaying cellular aging.
5. Biological Age Reversal: Using multiple sets of biological aging clocks, a user saw a reduction in biological age by 3 years, further verifying the product's potential in slowing the overall biological aging process.

 

All slight results in different users. My lifestyle changes resulted in all of those to a further extent, but all in one person.

 

To 1) Cognitive enhancement: Had remission of constant postexcertional malaise (PEM), characterized by extreme exhaustion. pains and cognitive impairments.

To 2) Climbing stairs: Remission of PAD did not only allow me to climb stairs better, but improved my pain free walking distance from 300 meters to hours of walking.

To 3) Urinary issues: remission from a cystitis improved sleep.

To 4-5) Turning aging for 3 years back: My chronic conditions not in remission would at least mean 10 years less life-expectancy. So even here far ahead of your results, all in one person.

 

 

 

To summarize - through the synergistic effects of lifestyle modifications, nutrient and herbal extract supplementation it was possible:

• first of all - to reverse a 60% walking disability from PAD
• reverse a cystitis circumscripta of the bladder
• .. 2 non-circulated nodules on the right edge of the liver (5 + 8mm)
• .. one additional tubercle (6mm) of the left lung; the older of the right lung (9mm) remaining
• .. and a chronic bronchitis, while the at that time diagnosed COPD remained asymptomatic
• keep prediabetes, hay-fever,
• .. muscle-cramps and CKD stage 1 in check
• cease psoriasis and retinal migraine flare-ups,
• .. and angina-like chest pains
• provide sun-burn protection without suncream
• but overall staying still alive and able to come up for my own living counter the prediction of my initially diagnosing internist

Only left to work on are CFS symptoms..

2 years later its time for an update:

 

No more postexcertional malaise since! Hallelujah :-)

 

Though I kept very strict at pacing, at occasions I couldn't - or with much less sleeping hours - it still caused no real PEM anymore.

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 21 November 2024 - 11:08 AM.

[longevitydiary]

You have to understand my skepticism for your surreal goals. Until now, my results of remission in 3 chronic diseases (PAD. COPD and ME/CFS) all supersede your results. But from my even better results it would be completely out of touch with reality, to assume even slightly possible immortality already.



All slight results in different users. My lifestyle changes resulted in all of those to a further extent, but all in one person.

To 1) Cognitive enhancement: Had remission of constant postexcertional malaise (PEM), characterized by extreme exhaustion. pains and cognitive impairments.
To 2) Climbing stairs: Remission of PAD did not only allow me to climb stairs better, but improved my pain free walking distance from 300 meters to hours of walking.
To 3) Urinary issues: remission from a cystitis improved sleep.
To 4-5) Turning aging for 3 years back: My chronic conditions not in remission would at least mean 10 years less life-expectancy. So even here far ahead of your results, all in one person.

Well done,friend

[longevitydiary]

The past 20 years have been deeply disappointing in most areas of biology. There is a person named Brian Wong who runs a very good blog called "Next Big Future". In this article, he analyzes why AI drug discovery has been so unsuccessful so far. In fact, the low technological content of these algorithms is incredible, looking back, it is clear that in the past two decades, these algorithms had no chance of achieving results.
https://www.nextbigf...o-the-hype.html
For example, a drug invented by an AI pharmaceutical company, TNIK inhibitor, may not be as effective as the deworming drug mebendazole, which is also a TNIK inhibitor.