![NEW VIDEOS! Chaos and Longevity Research [unpaid posts]](https://img5.nokimo.com/storage/7/qr/zv/fb3178-019e8060-cdc1-702f-a7c1-6b1b46249fe5.jpg)
![NEW VIDEOS! Chaos and Longevity Research [unpaid posts]](https://img5.nokimo.com/storage/11/dx/kv/fb3178-019e8060-cdd3-7809-b407-276d708271e6.jpg)
NEW VIDEOS! Chaos and Longevity Research [unpaid posts]
Added 2019-12-17 07:13:58 +0000 UTCIn case you missed it, I posted a couple of videos recently. One on the science behind the butterfly effect (aka Chaos, or non-linear dynamics). The other video is about research into slowing aging (and possibly even reversing it). Both videos were sponsored and so Patrons were not charged for these videos. I still think they are great videos and the sponsor was completely hands off, only requesting the disclosure at the beginning and the messaging at the end of the video.
Shade ball update:
I think there are still a few left so I will likely send them out at the start of 2020. Some of you have messaged me to let me know your shade ball never arrived. Others have messaged me to say they received two. So I'm sure there is a way to remedy this situation.
Thank you so much for your support this year. I may have one more video in me before the decade is out but we'll see.
All the best,
Derek
PS here is a photo of my first ever attempt at surfing. It was in Canada in May, 2004 so over 15 years ago!
Comments
To follow up now that I'm reading the book — a lot of what he says in the genetics sounds plausible, also regarding the theories of aging and he seems to have evidence to back that up. The nutrition section is largely just plain wrong, though. Re: saturated fat, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6451787/ -- he says there's no controversy and that vegetarians live longer and meat is bad. It's one thing to say he thinks that research is stronger, it's another _entirely_ to say there's no controversy. I will say the evidence for intermittent fasting, time restricted eating, exercise, etc. all seems very strong. This one section that uncritically comments that vegetarian diets are better stands out to me in the book — especially blaming it on particular amino acids. It seems there is a first principle model for linking protein intake, IGF-1, etc. to the cellular mechanisms he attaches to aging, but this seems much more complex in humans where muscle strength and tone (the ability to do the sit up test, for instance) are all necessary for staying functional. Anyways, said enough of what I intended to in the previous comment. Just wanted to add that actually reading the book does not provide any additional nuance on the nutritional side of the low protein diet recommendation. Eating an intermittent protein diet (i.e. moderate protein levels during normal feeding windows, with periods of protein sparing fasting, etc.) seems to have a much stronger basis in evidence. The tradeoffs between animal and vegetable proteins seem much more nuanced and probably many come down to one's genetics (e.g. those with iron loading genes should probably not eat much red meat).
PatternShift
2019-12-23 02:02:13 +0000 UTCI've promoted your channel to a lot of friends of mine that often have the, "Yeah, but what would a scientist say about X? why?" sort of questions (b/c you're one of the best at presenting those perspectives, IMO). This is one of those videos where they've reached out to me with questions and some counter examples, and I have to agree that there could be a lot more scrutiny given to some of these claims. In the interest of fairness I've grabbed a copy of the book by the scientist interviewed (Lifespan). The low protein diet was one of the most controversial claims, and I don't believe it's well supported by the evidence. For two reasons, (1) the longevity folks that push it are trying to get less circulating IGF-1, but this leads to a complex chain of interactions. For instance, "IGF-1 promotes cardiac growth, improves cardiac contractility, cardiac output, stroke volume, and ejection fraction." (Ren, Samson, Sowers), and abnormally low values are correlated with cardiac dysfunction. The literature on high protein diets is clear that they do promote leanness, esp. re: visceral fat, and a large amount of visceral fat causes all sorts of hormonal/signaling disregulation, of the type mentioned by Dr. Sinclair describes. I'm particularly concerned that Dr. Sinclair has not disclosed anything about the resveratol controversies and his role there, and the fact that sirtuins were the primary assumed target in those models. This fixation indicates to me that Dr. Sinclair is a "hedgehog" type. As Dr. Stephan Guyenet (a neuroscientist and author of "The Hungry Brain" and others have pointed out: "The work of Philip Tetlock, PhD and others has shown that people who have one big idea to explain everything (“hedgehogs” or ideologues) are very bad at accurately modeling the world, predicting outcomes, and recommending effective actions. These people are often selected for media attention because they are clear and confident about their beliefs. The world is a complex place, and people who are able to model that complexity in their minds have better information than those who aren’t. Look for people who tend to use multi-factor explanations." (ref: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/quickly-assessing-the-credibility-of-public-experts/ ) That said, the diet claims for longevity are worth a nuanced treatment. The Red Pen Reviews gave a comparable diet plan (low protein, mostly vegan) a thorough review: https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/the-longevity-diet-discover-the-new-science-behind-stem-cell-activation-and-regeneration-to-slow-aging-fight-disease-and-optimize-weight/ -- note: that a diet can still be healthful even if its scientific credibility is in question and some of the claims the authors make for the diet are not supported in the literature (which is true in this case). Another thing from the recommendations worth a more detailed treatment: the recommendation for HIIT. HIIT in exercise suffers a big publication bias for short term effects on people relatively untrained in cardio, in which they have a broad spectrum of adaptations. Studies on long term results of athletics show that different cardio regimes result in different long term cardiac remodeling and e.g. steady state cardio is better for cardiac remodeling for hyptertension than e.g. HIIT is. The point is that exercise should be tailored to specific outcomes (specificity) and longevity is a game of complex risk mitigation and tradeoffs, not single factor optimization. Some refs to consider on the exercise recommendations: http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/72/7/815 and (less scientific, but relevant): https://equipesolitaire.com/blogs/discourse/85824260-no-free-lunch This has grown long for the comments. But I wanted to get it out there as I think a straight forward presentation of this scientist's research is a bit of a downturn for this channel and the claims deserve more scrutiny.
PatternShift
2019-12-21 03:06:05 +0000 UTC
