Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I still think that calorie restriction is the safest bet for extending lifespan because there is evidence for it. University of Wisconsin study kind of shows that monkeys lived longer. My unscientific gut intuition tells me that calorie restriction is the way to go until there is more evidence that opposite is true.
I personally would rather feel slightly worse but live longer.
Well, Roy Walford was all about CR in humans, even wrote the book "The 120 Year Diet," and he died at 79-I still think that calorie restriction is the safest bet for extending lifespan because there is evidence for it. University of Wisconsin study kind of shows that monkeys lived longer. My unscientific gut intuition tells me that calorie restriction is the way to go until there is more evidence that opposite is true.
I personally would rather feel slightly worse but live longer.
methionine depletion achieves the same without calorie reduction.
Thanks for your input guys. I believe in longevity escape velocity, so to me it's worth torturing myself with CR with short eating window just in case that would turn out to be important. I can just stop doing CR whenever there will be no danger from dying of an old age or science will be 100% sure that it isn't necessary. We need to hit longevity escape velocity guys, life in the next few centuries is going to be awesome, especially on Mars.Well, Roy Walford was all about CR in humans, even wrote the book "The 120 Year Diet," and he died at 79-
Roy Walford - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That should give anyone pause. If one of the biggest proponents of caloric restriction can't make it work........ why would you think any average human could?
Yeah, those Monkey studies might be evidence for CR.......... but they are also evidence for protein restriction, methionine restriction, tryptophan restriction, iron restriction, toxin restriction, PUFA restriction, and on and on. If you are restricting calories, by definition, you are restricting all those things..... and more.
But who wants to starve and live forever? Sounds freaking miserable.
Also, CR studies have only been done on captive animals. It's never been replicated in the wild. Prolly cause any starving animal would get killed as prey pretty quickly, or you know....., maybe eat something.
I think the best bet is doing things like donating blood, lowering PUFA, restricting methionine and/or adding a lot of glycine, and so on. Or betting on the bioenergetic theory, like many of us here are. More evidence that those techniques would work, and if they don't...... hey, at least you didn't starve yourself for 30+ years or so.
I used to think the same, you might find these posts interesting;I still think that calorie restriction is the safest bet for extending lifespan because there is evidence for it. University of Wisconsin study kind of shows that monkeys lived longer. My unscientific gut intuition tells me that calorie restriction is the way to go until there is more evidence that opposite is true.
I personally would rather feel slightly worse but live longer.
Thanks for your input guys. I believe in longevity escape velocity, so to me it's worth torturing myself with CR with short eating window just in case that would turn out to be important. I can just stop doing CR whenever there will be no danger from dying of an old age or science will be 100% sure that it isn't necessary. We need to hit longevity escape velocity guys, life in the next few centuries is going to be awesome, especially on Mars.
I think that next few centuries are going to awesome because of all technological progress humanity is going to make. Flying to other solar systems, having all kinds of cool gadgets and stuff like that. Maybe it will get boring quickly, I don't know. I just like living.Again, there is only very limited evidence that CR works in captive animals (like Monkeys), and zero evidence it works in humans, captive or free living.
But if you want to live to 79 like Walford, fall into a deep depression, have "freezing" episodes, by all means, go for it.
Why do you think the next few centuries will be "awesome?" This year sucked royally. I have zero desire to increase the time I spend on this prison planet in this lifetime, especially if starvation is the ticket. And starvation that would last for several decades, to boot.
I see no evidence that life on Mars would be awesome, either. They just have a bunch of red dirt. At least in the Vegas desert, they have awesome casinos.
I think that next few centuries are going to awesome because of all technological progress humanity is going to make. Flying to other solar systems, having all kinds of cool gadgets and stuff like that. Maybe it will get boring quickly, I don't know. I just like living.
I think that next few centuries are going to awesome because of all technological progress humanity is going to make. Flying to other solar systems, having all kinds of cool gadgets and stuff like that. Maybe it will get boring quickly, I don't know. I just like living.
My unscientific gut intuition tells me that calorie restriction is the way to go until there is more evidence that opposite is true.
But the "positivity" is normal as all respiratory virus after "infection" can be detected, and even long after the fact. It's the interpretation of this all that makes it seem like there is warranted investigation to understand the "PCR positive test." I think this is a mistake because again it fuels the narrative of some special, novel extremely problematic virus. What we are detecting would have held true 20 years ago; 30 years ago; like 3 weeks ago, etc. It's business as usual with the [intentional] obfuscation of PCR thrown in for good measure. Of which the father of the test implored should not be used for diagnosis or implying infection. Now if you want to use that implication in the direction of understanding PCR, that's a different story.In the interview at 01:07:053 , Ray says "I just saw a recent publication validating the fact that we do have the reverse transcriptase enzymes that can turn viral RNA into DNA which can then be integrated into our genome" I found this study entitled, " SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome" . In the abstract, they say this, " To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed." This is pure uninformed speculation, but I wonder if the HIV positive results in Australian vaccine trials were due to the intentional use of HIV RT as a means of delivering new "code" into the body. Also, the abstract points out "the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests." (!!!!) Huge implications there!!!!
Yes, I know the test is being intentionally misused. The study just shows another means of testing "positive" while not actually having an infection. And if the hypothesis is accurate, the "positive" could be permanent.But the "positivity" is normal as all respiratory virus after "infection" can be detected, and even long after the fact. It's the interpretation of this all that makes it seem like there is warranted investigation to understand the "PCR positive test." I think this is a mistake because again it fuels the narrative of some special, novel extremely problematic virus. What we are detecting would have held true 20 years ago; 30 years ago; like 3 weeks ago, etc. It's business as usual with the [intentional] obfuscation of PCR thrown in for good measure. Of which the father of the test implored should not be used for diagnosis or implying infection. Now if you want to use that implication in the direction of understanding PCR, that's a different story.
Only issue is the dynamics of such results. A person can be negative one week, and positive the following. My sig. other who works in a test lab sees this day in and day out.Yes, I know the test is being intentionally misused. The study just shows another means of testing "positive" while not actually having an infection. And if the hypothesis is accurate, the "positive" could be permanent.
I emailed him, he said "In a big plastic bag, not breathing it"Ray says in this interview he always keeps a tank of C02 around, and that he in fact had one sitting by him as he spoke. Does anyone know how he uses it? I know he's filled up large plastic bags and taken C02 baths but, if he keeps a tank by his desk or easy chair, I'd imagine he also uses it in less involved ways. He said once he prevented his smashed hand from swelling up by enclosing it in a plastic bag and filling the bag with C02, but since he keeps his tank so conveniently located, I can't help but wonder if he simply inhales it too. Pure C02 can kill as it has from eruptions from Lake Nyos in Africa, yet death there is from suffocation as the C02 displaces all the O2. It doesn't seem like an occasional hit, maybe not direct from the tank but rather by decanting some into a paper bag and taking a couple breaths, would be all that dangerous. Very curious as to whether Ray does this.