The Bulletproof Coffee Founder Has Spent $1 Million In His Quest To Live To 180

Beastmode

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,258
I knew of Ray Peat back in 2007 after being introduced and it was so hard to read his articles at the time. What I didn't realize until I came across guys like Dave Asprey was a lot of things I didn't think I remembered or understood from Peat's articles was perculating in my mind somehow and seeing the bull**** guys like Asprey and the "biohacking" community were putting out. Ray made so much sense back then and I couldn't even make sense why until I saw more and more of these biohackers....ha.

I don't understand how someone can claim anything about longevity until they have at least made it to an age (doing the stuff) to an age that is considered somewhat "old."

There were all these cryptocurrency experts that popped out of nowhere. My new favorite besides "longevity" experts are the CBD oil gurus now.
 

Summer

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
851
As deranged as society is becoming, why would anyone want to live to 180?
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
As deranged as society is becoming, why would anyone want to live to 180?
That's a great point! I want to live long enough to see my kids be successful (definition of success is not just having a lot of money to me). I definitely don't want to die of dementia at age 70, but I think I'd be happy if I made it to around 90.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
As deranged as society is becoming, why would anyone want to live to 180?

Maybe at that age we could "3-D print" planets/universes and live in our realistically scaled dreams? Possibly a bit far fetched, but sounds cool to think of.

I notice some people wonder what the purpose of living to 180 or 120 or 80 or etc. would be. The very same could be asked of living to whatever it is now you are/are becoming/etc. Why live to 180? Why live to 10? If the same driving force to want to live and experience are there are 4, why not at 400 too? 4,000? If we find so many reasons to live and do and can properly live and do them (we can) at young ages, what's to say that life has a time limit on enjoyable-ness?

180 could be much more fun or interesting in ways than what we have now -- with time often comes more potential/opportunities usually. Maybe the understanding of age and deterioration warp the idea of living longer or forever -- we cast a negative light on time and experiences and outcomes over the long haul. As Peat has said, nothing really is "stored" like trauma and etc. If we store little/nothing and ideally don't want some things "stored" within us/as a part of us for various reasons, what's to say that time and age must carry some burden or "weight" to it?

Just as things might continue to get worse, the interesting thing is that there might be newer ways in which each individual can learn how to make everything better.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
464
Location
Colorado, USA
I think this has truth to it in a fundamentally physiological, epigenetic sense. No, I don't know all of the details much, but I get the hunch that continuous loneliness brings about (or is more likely to bring about) physiological changes in an organism that make it more self-defeating in a sense/less optimal in "functioning modes." I look to the true "hermits" and see that they have possibly poor metabolisms -- this could be because of some downregulation which affects social ability, goal orientation, etc. The very "serotonin-driven" ideal seems closely mirrored in, say, those with poorer social lives and more of a recluse-type living style. I think of it (the human overall) like something that needs to be regularly "stimulated" or maintained/upkept by "proper" external factors, although to what degree this is necessary and how/why is possibly not fully known. But I think being lonely skips this "step" and allows the higher likelihood of unfolding suboptimal epigenetic changes unbeknownst to the organism itself possibly. There also comes with it the ideal that many see human lifespan or living time as a machine-driven function or predestined thing -- but the body is known to adapt and suit itself to whatever conditions it's in, good or bad, in a more spontaneous sort of way that's very different from a mechanistic outlook. A lonely person will "adapt" to loneliness possibly (slower metabolism; less energy needs; less hunger or possibly more; obesity/disease; etc.), but this is probably not a good thing -- and a social person will adapt to social routines too, which might be a better positive feedback.

From reading of Ray the idea is learned quickly that we aren't fixed machines that follow algorithmic "decay processes" regardless of choices or situations -- we very much live, adapt, and change in to whatever situations we let ourselves be part of/end up a part of, whether we even have the faintest idea of the full scope/range of how this adaptation works. It's very much of interest to keep learning (for me at least) about adaptation, stress, environment, and degenerative/regenerative processes because then we can have more power over our own health, well-being and destiny -- not just go see a doctor and be told what your options are under their limited presumptions or knowledge on health and the human physiology/etc. I put much more faith you could say in research scientists (especially if more "indie") rather than in those who lock themselves on certain rigid understandings of the human physiology and health outcomes/treatments/etc.

I guess one thing for true loners/hermits is that they can capitalize on the subpar situation of their living conditions and try to alter their path physiologically with maybe things like pregnenolone, thyroid, and more optimal metabolic function/diet despite having no social interaction which can then give them an equivalent life at least like those who do have the "luxury" of social support or such arrangements. My guess is that -- if this isn't entirely possible yet -- it will be soon, i.e. mimicking a certain physiological/epigenetic change by way of understanding a more proper approach to certain environmental impacts/outcomes for organisms broadly. The "goal" is probably for everyone -- regardless of situation -- to be able to live at their "best" or at least make headway getting there.

I use the ideal of the "sum life prediction problem" -- a way of looking at life as not a predestined or limited timespan but a system by which you must account for all possible outcomes from external and internal feedbacks endlessly. If you cannot know every thing which can and will go wrong or right or anything in-between -- or can't even make a good prediction on it -- then you simply can't know what the process and depth of life is, will be or should be. When some look at life like a limited time system it might be largely ignoring the very actual "system" they're in and what should or could be done about it in a more idealistic way of humankind/humanity.

Maybe at that age we could "3-D print" planets/universes and live in our realistically scaled dreams? Possibly a bit far fetched, but sounds cool to think of.

I notice some people wonder what the purpose of living to 180 or 120 or 80 or etc. would be. The very same could be asked of living to whatever it is now you are/are becoming/etc. Why live to 180? Why live to 10? If the same driving force to want to live and experience are there are 4, why not at 400 too? 4,000? If we find so many reasons to live and do and can properly live and do them (we can) at young ages, what's to say that life has a time limit on enjoyable-ness?

180 could be much more fun or interesting in ways than what we have now -- with time often comes more potential/opportunities usually. Maybe the understanding of age and deterioration warp the idea of living longer or forever -- we cast a negative light on time and experiences and outcomes over the long haul. As Peat has said, nothing really is "stored" like trauma and etc. If we store little/nothing and ideally don't want some things "stored" within us/as a part of us for various reasons, what's to say that time and age must carry some burden or "weight" to it?

Just as things might continue to get worse, the interesting thing is that there might be newer ways in which each individual can learn how to make everything better.

Scurve is my bro.
 
OP
Mito

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
0521F547-5CE8-4373-94C1-82C7B04770F7.jpeg

The Real-Life Diet of Dave Asprey, Who Thinks Coffee Is a Superfood
 
L

Lord Cola

Guest
I wouldn't want to live to 18 if I had to wear those shades every day.
 

Herbie

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
2,192
Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.

I think he means, I want you to give me 180 million dollars not live to 180, clearly he is delusional.
 

LadyRae

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
1,525
Thomas Delauer is another low carb guru that has aged quite drastically in the past 5 years. And he's only 34. He blames his dark, sunken eyes on toddler-induced sleepless nights, but I know better...
 

Apple

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
1,262
Sure this guy inspects every thread on this forum. But he might think that he is smarter than everyone else.
His resorting to hair-transplant already cancels all the credit to this guy. Can't he invest money in finding a real cure ?
What a shallow thinking, what a fake...
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Metabolic Health plus Microbial Balance feed off each other to extend our years in health. Using gizmos and interventions like Asprey does lacks the self-balancing wisdom of the body.

He is like a Silicon Valley nerd who thinks of life in terms of binaries that are still finite and discrete. He doesnt see it in analog and continuous and infinite terms. This is why approach suffers in being boxed in.

He also is liable to believing in hoax-based precepts of biology and since life is based on optimization of tested and refined models of adaptation and survival and continual development and improvement, having just one false assumption in what underlies the integrity of life makes him highly vulnerable.

A modern Don Quixote.
 
Back
Top Bottom