You summarized it quite nicely. Though I wanted to make it clear from the beginning that I am not a hater – which I am not.
Also, I feel that you said it more concisely than I did, so I edited some of your wording into my concluding thoughts – I hope you do not mind!
2 Likes
After reading these sources (below), it appears that senolytics such as Rapamycin do not play as significant a role as it was thought in affecting healthspan. For this reason, I can understand BJ’s rationale for discontinuing rapa. He figures that the sides (in his case) out weighed the benefits, which he probably gets from his strict regimen. Other drugs, such as tnf inhibitors are more effective. But until Isomyosamine becomes available, I will continue to take 6mg weekly rapa, and the once a month D&Q.
In explaining why he ditched rapamycin, Johnson pointed to a recent study that “showed rapamycin increased biological aging according to two [measures], while ineffective according to the others.”
2 Likes
I thought Michael Hall discovered mTOR.
According to Sabatini they discovered it simultaneously in different labs
1 Like
Rapamycin is a senomorphic and not a senolytic. Senomorphics prevent the formation of senescent cells. Senolytics remove senescent cells when formed. Senomorphics are superior to senloytics IMHO.
Taurine is another effective senomorphic.
1 Like
I think Johnson spends most of his longevity “investment” on testing. The problem is, the science is not there yet for a truly individualized approach to health maintenance.
Really? Admittedly I hought it was a rather one-sided article. Nothing about the benefits noted in (blood) biomarkers of for example the participants in Fontana’s research about CR. And the conclusions the author drew about the Wisconsin rhesus monkey CR study were overly simplistic, imho – I assume that is the study he was referring to. I believe he also didn’t even refer to the NIH CR study in his article.
Quite a lot of it is general principles anyway.