David Sinclair On Extending Lifespan

[tankasnowgod]

All these people obsessed with extending their lifespan by 5 years or 10 years are not even really living

I also wouldn't count that as "real life extension." Roy Wolford wrote a book called "The 120 year diet." That's about 50% longer than the average lifespan, so seemingly worth it. He died at 79, however, so clearly, he couldn't make his ideas around caloric restriction work. Of course, I don't know why anyone would would to live 40 extra years in a state of semi-starvation, anyway.

I also don't know why some of these life extension people don't really go for it, aim for something like 500 or 750 years old. If you fail at your target and only live to be 278, well, that's still quite a bit longer, right?

 

[Tarmander]

I also wouldn't count that as "real life extension." Roy Wolford wrote a book called "The 120 year diet." That's about 50% longer than the average lifespan, so seemingly worth it. He died at 79, however, so clearly, he couldn't make his ideas around caloric restriction work. Of course, I don't know why anyone would would to live 40 extra years in a state of semi-starvation, anyway.

I also don't know why some of these life extension people don't really go for it, aim for something like 500 or 750 years old. If you fail at your target and only live to be 278, well, that's still quite a bit longer, right?

always aim beyond your reach. That is definitely the ticket

 

[Tristan Loscha]

"It is probable that sugar should only energize rapid muscle movements, and

lipid and it's metabolites are the primary driver. A ketogenic diet and a

low carb diet both improved lifespan and healthspan in a genetically neutral

rodent model. That sugar can be the main source of energy production perhaps

stems from the visual narrative of malnourished caged monkey eating banana

boxes. Sugar can be even conceptualized as a metabolite of protein and

triglycerides. But still not sure, i saw healthy Individuals with atleast

moderate/mixed carb:fat intakes, i also saw healthy low fat peeps, atleast

in the short term. For metabolic/mitochondrial damaged people, keto seems

lower ROS, lower lactic acid and lower serotonin to me."

 

[Ableton]

Why are you guys getting all heated up debating caloric restriction when Sinclair talks first and foremost about 1) periodic fasting 2) AMINO restriction

there’s at least one high quality study I can think of, in humans of course, that shows that amino acid restriction + normocaloric drops IGF1 whereas calorie restriction doesn’t. Is igf1 a solid predictor of longer lifespans I can’t tell, I don’t think anyone can at least not in humans. I know it’s massively overrated in bodybuilding, that’s all I know.

Personally I find it very easy and enjoyable to keep protein around 1g/kg at most while upping carbs and sugars. Basically Accidental vegetarian peating. If I do crave meat or fish - every blue moon - I’ll have some. Furthermore, Peat has said that eating muscle meat is a stress trigger.

i intuitively go for this diet. Because of the forum I tried high protein, and more animal protein specifically, but it’s not for me. Plenty of fruit, some veggies, some animal protein, some starches, coke, coffee, little dairy. Here and there an uncharacteristic cheat meal when it’s convenient

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I respect Peat obviously. He is a good example that his own diet is ideal for energy output (his great work) but not for aging more slowly (he at best looks slightly younger than his age despite top 0,0001%il diet and lifestyle optimization.
People will bring up roddy now, who does look younger than his age, but he gives low energy vibes to me.
Obviously genes play a role here too no doubt.

I don't think that's really true, though.

Even by Peat's own standards, he hasn't really eaten a perfect diet, nor taken the perfect supplements long term.

You look at his diet, and in the last couple ot decades it's contained tons of PUFA (he's said he east lots of butter and beef fat). He said he eats tons of egg yolks. His dietary protein is based a lot on milk and animal protein alone, which isn't that bad, but in terms of amino acid composition it has lots of tryptophan and methionine/homocysteine, and when that's your main source of protein that's not great, by his own standards. Sure he has lots of gelatin but that's not enough to counterbalance it enough.

The only supplements he takes nowadays are small doses of steroids like pregnenolone or DHEA. Iirc, he doesn't even take vitamins like ascorbate or the B vitamins, because "the sources are bad".

And that's nowadays. In the past, he used to take in lots of normal foods, used to eat lots of wheat germ oil for the vitamin E (but also lots of PUFA), as well as used to eat lots of wheat germ by itself (which is actually how he lost messed up his teeth).

Peat himself eats basically normal foods, foods that normal healthy people would have eaten in the 1930s. The only things he does differently is that he supplements with thyroid, takes small doses or pregnenolone, and takes certain vitamins (like A/E/D, C, or the B's) every now and then. Plus he drinks lots of coffee. That's it.

So not even optimal by his own theoretical standards, which is why he has liver spots, but still better than the majority of people.

And you know what? He is kinda proving his point. Living to 80 isn't a small feat, 95%+ of people die before the age of 80, so he's already kinda proving his diet/lifestyle correct, especially with how active he is.

Compared that to the average person, who has a major medical disaster before the age of 70. There are shittons of people getting cancer by 60, or bad diabetes, or strokes, or heart attacks, or radical dementia/Alzheimers so bad they can't remember anyone, and this is happening to them by age 65 or even under. This is happening more and more to everyone under 70. This is happening to 60 year olds.

And that's the result you get when you eat and live the modern diet and lifestyle. Eat only vegetable oils for decades, eat 1g of aluminum a week in your baking powder, take the estrogen, statin, or SSRI your doctor prescribes, and that's the result you get. A radical, life crushing disease by 55-65, and death before 70-75.

I mean, that's the result I've seen for basically every old person I know, including relatives. Cancer, aneurysms, dementia, etc. And then death by 75. Hell, I have two friends with fathers that are only in their mid 50s, and both have been diagnosed with Parkinson's. Another relative, had a extremely bad stroke at age 50.

This is the result you get when you eat how the government recommends, and live how the government recommends.

On the other hand, Peat is 81 or 82, hasn't been diagnosed with anything bad, hasn't had any surgeries, and is active.

But again, he's basically just eating a 1930s diet, with a few extra vitamins and hormones, and coconut oil, but with the downside being that he's probably exposed to more toxins. So overall he's probably going to get 1930s results. He's doing maybe ever so slightly better than people did in the 30s.

This should fill you with Hope, though. Because looking at Peat vs modern normies, we see massive differences, even though Peat still got 5g-10g of PUFA a day, not taking the perfect supplement/vitamin regiment, not taking the perfect hormones daily, not breathing an atmosphere or CO2, etc.

Peat has gotten pretty decent results doing basically a slightly better than 30s normal diet/lifestyle. So imagine how you could do if you didn't eat more than 1g of PUFA your entire lifetime. If you took the right vitamins and steroids/hormones daily. Lived a stress free life. If you completely avoided toxins/heavy metals. Etc etc.

It wouldn't be crazy to think we could get to 100. And that's just with the tools and supplements we have right now. Imagine how much we're going to discover in the next 50 years.

 

[MitchMitchell]

I posted a reply in Abelton's thread. When I did a forum search, I found a Ray quote that made me stop and think. I can't get my head around "cooking = bad" -- cooking increases digestibility and palatability, and reduces parasites, and the body has ways of dealing with the carcinogenic compounds.

Vegetables, etc.—Who Defines Food?

"Many types of phytochemicals are mutagenic, and some of those are carcinogenic. Bruce Ames, at the University of California, devised a method of screening for mutagens, using bacteria. One of his graduate students using the technique found that the flame retardants in children's pajamas and bedding were powerful mutagens, and were probably causing cancer. That event made Ames a celebrity, and in the 1980s he went on a lecture tour supported by the American Cancer Society. His lectures reflected the doctrine of the A.C.S., that industrial chemicals aren't responsible for cancer, but that individual actions, such as smoking or dietary choices, are the main causes of cancer. He used a fraudulently "age adjusted" graph of cancer mortality, that falsely showed that mortality from all types of cancer except lung cancer had leveled off after the A.C.S. came into existence. He described tests in which he had compared DDT to extracts of food herbs, and found DDT to be less mutagenic than several of the most commonly used flavoring herbs. His message, which was eagerly received by his audience of chemistry and biology professors, was that we should not worry about environmental pollution, because it's not as harmful as the things that we do to ourselves. He said that if everyone would eat more unsaturated vegetable oil, and didn't smoke, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

For me, the significance of his experiment was that plants contain natural pesticides that should be taken more seriously, without taking industrial toxins less seriously."
​

Here are the three Ames studies (plus another on cytotoxicity of herbs) cited in the article:

Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother 1990;7(2-3):69-85. Dietary carcinogens, environmental pollution, and cancer: some misconceptions. Ames BN, Gold LS Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley 94720. Various misconceptions about dietary carcinogens, pesticide residues, and cancer causation are discussed. The pesticides in our diet are 99.99% natural, since plants make an enormous variety of toxins against fungi, insects, and animal predators. Although only 50 of these natural pesticides have been tested in animal cancer tests, about half of them are carcinogens. About half of all chemicals tested in animal cancer tests are positive. The proportion of natural pesticides positive in animal tests of clastogenicity is also the same as for synthetic chemicals. It is argued that testing chemicals in animals at the maximum tolerated dose primarily measures chronic cell proliferation, a threshold process. Cell proliferation is mutagenic in several ways, including inducing mitotic recombination, and therefore chronic induction of cell proliferation is a risk factor for cancer.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Aug;77(8):4961-5. Fecalase: a model for activation of dietary glycosides to mutagens by intestinal flora. Tamura G, Gold C, Ferro-Luzzi A, Ames BN Many substances in the plant kingdom and in man's diet occur as glycosides. Recent studies have indicated that many glycosides that are not mutagenic in tests such as the Salmonella test become mutagenic upon hydrolysis of the glycosidic linkages. The Salmonella test utilizes a liver homogenate to approximate mammalian metabolism but does not provide a source of the enzymes present in intestinal bacterial flora that hydrolyze the wide variety of glycosides present in nature. We describe a stable cell-free extract of human feces, fecalase, which is shown to contain various glycosidases that allow the in vitro activation of many natural glycosides to mutagens in the Salmonella/liver homogenate test. Many beverages, such as red wine (but apparently not white wine) and tea, contain glycosides of the mutagne quercetin. Red wine, red grape juice, and tea were mutagenic in the test when fecalase was added, and red wine contained considerable direct mutagenic activity in the absence of fecalase. The implications of quercetin mutagenicity and carcinogenicity are discussed.

Nutr Cancer 1988;11(4):251-7. Cytotoxicity of extracts of spices to cultured cells. Unnikrishnan MC, Kuttan R Amala Cancer Research Centre, Kerala, India. The cytotoxicity of the extracts from eight different spices used in the Indian diet was determined using Dalton's lymphoma ascites tumor cells and human lymphocytes in vitro and Chinese Hamster Ovary cells and Vero cells in tissue culture. Alcoholic extracts of the spices were found to be more cytotoxic to these cells than their aqueous extracts. Alcoholic extracts of several spices inhibited cell growth at concentrations of 0.2-1 mg/ml in vitro and 0.12-0.3 mg/ml in tissue culture. Ginger, pippali (native to India; also called dried catkins), pepper, and garlic showed the highest activity followed by asafetida, mustard, and horse-gram (native to India). These extracts also inhibited the thymidine uptake into DNA.

J Toxicol Sci 1984 Feb;9(1):77-86. [Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity tests of garlic]. [Article in Japanese] Yoshida S, Hirao Y, Nakagawa S Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of fresh juice and alcohol extract from garlic were studied by Ames' test, Rec assay, Micronucleus test and the check of the influence to HEp 2 and chinese hamster embryo (CHE) primary cultured cells. No evidence of mutagenicity of these samples were observed in Ames' test and Rec assay, while there was dose dependent increase of micronucleated cells and polychromatocytes on the bone marrow cells of mice and chinese hamsters treated with garlic juice. There were severe damages, e.g. growth inhibition and morphological changes of both cultured cells due to garlic juice, but no or slightly cytotoxic signs were observed even in high concentration of garlic extract. A higher sensitivity to the cytotoxic effects of garlic was seen by the present findings with CHE primary cells than HEp 2 cell line.​

Seen both posts, thank you for the resource sharing.

Counterpoints: traditional cooking was never about overheating foods (whether via frying or baking in an oven)

it’s certainly a fact that our body has a potent detox system for carcinogens, yet that doesn’t mean you should blast it with those molecules year round just because “it’s fine”.

 

[Ableton]

I don't think that's really true, though.

Even by Peat's own standards, he hasn't really eaten a perfect diet, nor taken the perfect supplements long term.

You look at his diet, and in the last couple ot decades it's contained tons of PUFA (he's said he east lots of butter and beef fat). He said he eats tons of egg yolks. His dietary protein is based a lot on milk and animal protein alone, which isn't that bad, but in terms of amino acid composition it has lots of tryptophan and methionine/homocysteine, and when that's your main source of protein that's not great, by his own standards. Sure he has lots of gelatin but that's not enough to counterbalance it enough.

The only supplements he takes nowadays are small doses of steroids like pregnenolone or DHEA. Iirc, he doesn't even take vitamins like ascorbate or the B vitamins, because "the sources are bad".

And that's nowadays. In the past, he used to take in lots of normal foods, used to eat lots of wheat germ oil for the vitamin E (but also lots of PUFA), as well as used to eat lots of wheat germ by itself (which is actually how he lost messed up his teeth).

Peat himself eats basically normal foods, foods that normal healthy people would have eaten in the 1930s. The only things he does differently is that he supplements with thyroid, takes small doses or pregnenolone, and takes certain vitamins (like A/E/D, C, or the B's) every now and then. Plus he drinks lots of coffee. That's it.

So not even optimal by his own theoretical standards, which is why he has liver spots, but still better than the majority of people.

And you know what? He is kinda proving his point. Living to 80 isn't a small feat, 95%+ of people die before the age of 80, so he's already kinda proving his diet/lifestyle correct, especially with how active he is.

Compared that to the average person, who has a major medical disaster before the age of 70. There are shittons of people getting cancer by 60, or bad diabetes, or strokes, or heart attacks, or radical dementia/Alzheimers so bad they can't remember anyone, and this is happening to them by age 65 or even under. This is happening more and more to everyone under 70. This is happening to 60 year olds.

And that's the result you get when you eat and live the modern diet and lifestyle. Eat only vegetable oils for decades, eat 1g of aluminum a week in your baking powder, take the estrogen, statin, or SSRI your doctor prescribes, and that's the result you get. A radical, life crushing disease by 55-65, and death before 70-75.

I mean, that's the result I've seen for basically every old person I know, including relatives. Cancer, aneurysms, dementia, etc. And then death by 75. Hell, I have two friends with fathers that are only in their mid 50s, and both have been diagnosed with Parkinson's. Another relative, had a extremely bad stroke at age 50.

This is the result you get when you eat how the government recommends, and live how the government recommends.

On the other hand, Peat is 81 or 82, hasn't been diagnosed with anything bad, hasn't had any surgeries, and is active.

But again, he's basically just eating a 1930s diet, with a few extra vitamins and hormones, and coconut oil, but with the downside being that he's probably exposed to more toxins. So overall he's probably going to get 1930s results. He's doing maybe ever so slightly better than people did in the 30s.

This should fill you with Hope, though. Because looking at Peat vs modern normies, we see massive differences, even though Peat still got 5g-10g of PUFA a day, not taking the perfect supplement/vitamin regiment, not taking the perfect hormones daily, not breathing an atmosphere or CO2, etc.

Peat has gotten pretty decent results doing basically a slightly better than 30s normal diet/lifestyle. So imagine how you could do if you didn't eat more than 1g of PUFA your entire lifetime. If you took the right vitamins and steroids/hormones daily. Lived a stress free life. If you completely avoided toxins/heavy metals. Etc etc.

It wouldn't be crazy to think we could get to 100. And that's just with the tools and supplements we have right now. Imagine how much we're going to discover in the next 50 years.

good points overall but getting less than a gram of pufa a day is just madness in practice, and not stress free in the slightest if you like any cortisol in your system that is.
I am also skeptical about the notion of supplementing being unproblematic (especially hormones), even when the sources are good. I would advise against making supplementing a routine, with the exception of maybe aspirin and vit d if you are absolutely unable to get sun.
All Supplements Are Estrogenic

People reaching old ages usually strike me as individuals who follow their instincts, are not following diets or health forums, and are spiritually and psychologically very well rounded, have meaning in their lives, which you can’t learn on an online forum either.

Like you point out, even peat isn’t too dogmatic about applying his principles, and I am not sure if this is a negative like you claim, for his longevity.

the emotional toll of a hardcore diet approach is likely not worth it

if you apply 80% of it to your live you‘ll reap 95% of the benefits without the toll

my grandma is 91 and still wants to try new stuff. Sticking to routines, and repetition for that matter, are not good for longevity. You need some novelty

 

[tankasnowgod]

On the other hand, Peat is 81 or 82, hasn't been diagnosed with anything bad, hasn't had any surgeries, and is active.

I think Peat is 85 now.

 

[cjm]

Seen both posts, thank you for the resource sharing.

Counterpoints: traditional cooking was never about overheating foods (whether via frying or baking in an oven)

it’s certainly a fact that our body has a potent detox system for carcinogens, yet that doesn’t mean you should blast it with those molecules year round just because “it’s fine”.

Counterpoints taken. I was going to mention hormesis as the silver lining to irritant/toxin exposure.

 

[Quelsatron]

What's the point in going on the forum and arguing against peat and clearly not even having read him? Disagreeing is of course fine, but without even responding to his arguments? Caloric restriction without being aware of the amino acid theory? High elevation is hypoxic? I swear everyone on both sides would have their forum experience improved if you had to complete a multiple-choice exam based on Peats articles to post.

 

[grithin]

I posted a reply in Abelton's thread. When I did a forum search, I found a Ray quote that made me stop and think. I can't get my head around "cooking = bad" -- cooking increases digestibility and palatability, and reduces parasites, and the body has ways of dealing with the carcinogenic compounds.

Vegetables, etc.—Who Defines Food?

"Many types of phytochemicals are mutagenic, and some of those are carcinogenic. Bruce Ames, at the University of California, devised a method of screening for mutagens, using bacteria. One of his graduate students using the technique found that the flame retardants in children's pajamas and bedding were powerful mutagens, and were probably causing cancer. That event made Ames a celebrity, and in the 1980s he went on a lecture tour supported by the American Cancer Society. His lectures reflected the doctrine of the A.C.S., that industrial chemicals aren't responsible for cancer, but that individual actions, such as smoking or dietary choices, are the main causes of cancer. He used a fraudulently "age adjusted" graph of cancer mortality, that falsely showed that mortality from all types of cancer except lung cancer had leveled off after the A.C.S. came into existence. He described tests in which he had compared DDT to extracts of food herbs, and found DDT to be less mutagenic than several of the most commonly used flavoring herbs. His message, which was eagerly received by his audience of chemistry and biology professors, was that we should not worry about environmental pollution, because it's not as harmful as the things that we do to ourselves. He said that if everyone would eat more unsaturated vegetable oil, and didn't smoke, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

For me, the significance of his experiment was that plants contain natural pesticides that should be taken more seriously, without taking industrial toxins less seriously."
​

Here are the three Ames studies (plus another on cytotoxicity of herbs) cited in the article:

Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother 1990;7(2-3):69-85. Dietary carcinogens, environmental pollution, and cancer: some misconceptions. Ames BN, Gold LS Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley 94720. Various misconceptions about dietary carcinogens, pesticide residues, and cancer causation are discussed. The pesticides in our diet are 99.99% natural, since plants make an enormous variety of toxins against fungi, insects, and animal predators. Although only 50 of these natural pesticides have been tested in animal cancer tests, about half of them are carcinogens. About half of all chemicals tested in animal cancer tests are positive. The proportion of natural pesticides positive in animal tests of clastogenicity is also the same as for synthetic chemicals. It is argued that testing chemicals in animals at the maximum tolerated dose primarily measures chronic cell proliferation, a threshold process. Cell proliferation is mutagenic in several ways, including inducing mitotic recombination, and therefore chronic induction of cell proliferation is a risk factor for cancer.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Aug;77(8):4961-5. Fecalase: a model for activation of dietary glycosides to mutagens by intestinal flora. Tamura G, Gold C, Ferro-Luzzi A, Ames BN Many substances in the plant kingdom and in man's diet occur as glycosides. Recent studies have indicated that many glycosides that are not mutagenic in tests such as the Salmonella test become mutagenic upon hydrolysis of the glycosidic linkages. The Salmonella test utilizes a liver homogenate to approximate mammalian metabolism but does not provide a source of the enzymes present in intestinal bacterial flora that hydrolyze the wide variety of glycosides present in nature. We describe a stable cell-free extract of human feces, fecalase, which is shown to contain various glycosidases that allow the in vitro activation of many natural glycosides to mutagens in the Salmonella/liver homogenate test. Many beverages, such as red wine (but apparently not white wine) and tea, contain glycosides of the mutagne quercetin. Red wine, red grape juice, and tea were mutagenic in the test when fecalase was added, and red wine contained considerable direct mutagenic activity in the absence of fecalase. The implications of quercetin mutagenicity and carcinogenicity are discussed.

Nutr Cancer 1988;11(4):251-7. Cytotoxicity of extracts of spices to cultured cells. Unnikrishnan MC, Kuttan R Amala Cancer Research Centre, Kerala, India. The cytotoxicity of the extracts from eight different spices used in the Indian diet was determined using Dalton's lymphoma ascites tumor cells and human lymphocytes in vitro and Chinese Hamster Ovary cells and Vero cells in tissue culture. Alcoholic extracts of the spices were found to be more cytotoxic to these cells than their aqueous extracts. Alcoholic extracts of several spices inhibited cell growth at concentrations of 0.2-1 mg/ml in vitro and 0.12-0.3 mg/ml in tissue culture. Ginger, pippali (native to India; also called dried catkins), pepper, and garlic showed the highest activity followed by asafetida, mustard, and horse-gram (native to India). These extracts also inhibited the thymidine uptake into DNA.

J Toxicol Sci 1984 Feb;9(1):77-86. [Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity tests of garlic]. [Article in Japanese] Yoshida S, Hirao Y, Nakagawa S Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of fresh juice and alcohol extract from garlic were studied by Ames' test, Rec assay, Micronucleus test and the check of the influence to HEp 2 and chinese hamster embryo (CHE) primary cultured cells. No evidence of mutagenicity of these samples were observed in Ames' test and Rec assay, while there was dose dependent increase of micronucleated cells and polychromatocytes on the bone marrow cells of mice and chinese hamsters treated with garlic juice. There were severe damages, e.g. growth inhibition and morphological changes of both cultured cells due to garlic juice, but no or slightly cytotoxic signs were observed even in high concentration of garlic extract. A higher sensitivity to the cytotoxic effects of garlic was seen by the present findings with CHE primary cells than HEp 2 cell line.​

Strange how it seems there is so little consideration within this thread about individual variation on ideal diet. Some people's genetics allow them to avoid cancer rather well. Some peoples microbiota dispose them to carbs, others to protein.

I would expect that charred meat serves as a decent antibiotic. A lot of human cultural diet was around preventing microbial intestinal ailments. For instance, the use of cinnamon in cinnamon rolls might prevent the simple sugars from cause SIBO. And, there are tons of other plant compounds used for similar purposes, despite generally not being acknowledged for such in their dish..

 

[KTownSatfats]

The process of regeneration deteriorates as well

Says who?

 

[KTownSatfats]

What's the point in going on the forum and arguing against peat and clearly not even having read him? Disagreeing is of course fine, but without even responding to his arguments? Caloric restriction without being aware of the amino acid theory? High elevation is hypoxic? I swear everyone on both sides would have their forum experience improved if you had to complete a multiple-choice exam based on Peats articles to post.

 

[KTownSatfats]

Why do you guys think greenland sharks get 500years old? Because they are in ice cold water, eat little, and barely move in comparison to other sharks. Very simple concept.[/QUOTS

Simpleminded, yeah!

 

[KTownSatfats]

Anabolisms ultimate consequence is cancer (formerly known as dying of old age)
We also know that fats cause heart disease.

if you don’t eat, you are basically immune to like what, 90% of natural death causes? (cancer, cardiovascular)

the fact we have to eat is quite simply one of the main reasons we have to die, alongside with having to breath in oxygen and forces like gravity

Simplistic. Doesn't hold water. Give me a break.

 

[lampofred]

I don't think that's really true, though.

Even by Peat's own standards, he hasn't really eaten a perfect diet, nor taken the perfect supplements long term.

You look at his diet, and in the last couple ot decades it's contained tons of PUFA (he's said he east lots of butter and beef fat). He said he eats tons of egg yolks. His dietary protein is based a lot on milk and animal protein alone, which isn't that bad, but in terms of amino acid composition it has lots of tryptophan and methionine/homocysteine, and when that's your main source of protein that's not great, by his own standards. Sure he has lots of gelatin but that's not enough to counterbalance it enough.

The only supplements he takes nowadays are small doses of steroids like pregnenolone or DHEA. Iirc, he doesn't even take vitamins like ascorbate or the B vitamins, because "the sources are bad".

And that's nowadays. In the past, he used to take in lots of normal foods, used to eat lots of wheat germ oil for the vitamin E (but also lots of PUFA), as well as used to eat lots of wheat germ by itself (which is actually how he lost messed up his teeth).

Peat himself eats basically normal foods, foods that normal healthy people would have eaten in the 1930s. The only things he does differently is that he supplements with thyroid, takes small doses or pregnenolone, and takes certain vitamins (like A/E/D, C, or the B's) every now and then. Plus he drinks lots of coffee. That's it.

So not even optimal by his own theoretical standards, which is why he has liver spots, but still better than the majority of people.

And you know what? He is kinda proving his point. Living to 80 isn't a small feat, 95%+ of people die before the age of 80, so he's already kinda proving his diet/lifestyle correct, especially with how active he is.

Compared that to the average person, who has a major medical disaster before the age of 70. There are shittons of people getting cancer by 60, or bad diabetes, or strokes, or heart attacks, or radical dementia/Alzheimers so bad they can't remember anyone, and this is happening to them by age 65 or even under. This is happening more and more to everyone under 70. This is happening to 60 year olds.

And that's the result you get when you eat and live the modern diet and lifestyle. Eat only vegetable oils for decades, eat 1g of aluminum a week in your baking powder, take the estrogen, statin, or SSRI your doctor prescribes, and that's the result you get. A radical, life crushing disease by 55-65, and death before 70-75.

I mean, that's the result I've seen for basically every old person I know, including relatives. Cancer, aneurysms, dementia, etc. And then death by 75. Hell, I have two friends with fathers that are only in their mid 50s, and both have been diagnosed with Parkinson's. Another relative, had a extremely bad stroke at age 50.

This is the result you get when you eat how the government recommends, and live how the government recommends.

On the other hand, Peat is 81 or 82, hasn't been diagnosed with anything bad, hasn't had any surgeries, and is active.

But again, he's basically just eating a 1930s diet, with a few extra vitamins and hormones, and coconut oil, but with the downside being that he's probably exposed to more toxins. So overall he's probably going to get 1930s results. He's doing maybe ever so slightly better than people did in the 30s.

This should fill you with Hope, though. Because looking at Peat vs modern normies, we see massive differences, even though Peat still got 5g-10g of PUFA a day, not taking the perfect supplement/vitamin regiment, not taking the perfect hormones daily, not breathing an atmosphere or CO2, etc.

Peat has gotten pretty decent results doing basically a slightly better than 30s normal diet/lifestyle. So imagine how you could do if you didn't eat more than 1g of PUFA your entire lifetime. If you took the right vitamins and steroids/hormones daily. Lived a stress free life. If you completely avoided toxins/heavy metals. Etc etc.

It wouldn't be crazy to think we could get to 100. And that's just with the tools and supplements we have right now. Imagine how much we're going to discover in the next 50 years.

I don't know, eating no muscle meat and getting protein mostly from milk and cheese would have been pretty unusual in 1930s America. Plus getting carbs from only sugars instead of starch is something I doubt was common in any recent civilization.

The main anti-longevity factor that I'm able to see in Peat's diet is the extremely high water content but I think his high use of thyroid plus high intake of copper and avoidance of iron protects against that.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Says who?

hmm, I do not necessarily agree with with other contested opinions here, but what do you mean by that? Do you believe in endless life without serious genetic manipulation, if so, how?

 

[RealNeat]

Ray Peat > Ray Pearl

 

[BestSinceDAYONE]

Wait, did you guys miss this post? Low dose aspirin resulted in the highest caloric intake AND the highest longevity. Metformin resulted in lower caloric intake and decent longevity. The longest living and largest crickets ate the most. Both aspirin and metformin were better than doing nothing.

Crickets Fed Low Dose Aspirin Live 143% Longer, Have Longer Childhoods And Higher Metabolic Rates

"Unlike the reigning dietary restriction paradigm, low aspirin conformed to a paradigm of “eat more, live longer.”"

Humans aren't crickets.

 

[BestSinceDAYONE]

SINCLAIR HAS BEEN DEBUNKED

Explain?