Eat less and live longer

I got enough savings to last me to about age 75.

After that? Jump in the big blue Pacific Ocean and go swim with the whales.

 

You have it all wrong. But oh well, I guess it's your life, so be it. Good luck on your experiment, and please report us back how you are doing when you become a centenarian.

 

The following is quoted from an offshore pharmacy that sells rapamycin for anti-aging use. If they were based in the USA, the FDA would not allow such specific comments.

Rapamycin provides some of the benefits of calorie restriction, without the restriction. If ever there were a product for the American ethic, this is it.

 

Not anything to do with eating less or rapamycin, but I just ran across this piece in the British Medical Journal. As advocates of evidence based medicine, it's amusing to see that even they understand the limits...

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials | The BMJ

 

The double-blind feature would be quite difficult to design.

 

Statistically that's not true. Most stat's, won't factor in Quality of Life.
Even if I agree, they should.

Basically when we herald the life extension reality of modern medicine, it is usually simply based on how long the person is kept alive. And quality of life isn't really factored in.

I think it should be.

 

i do think pharma has greatly helped people with quality of life, and it is much easier than counting calories

 

To me QOL has absolutely nothing to do with longevity.

 

i'd argue that there is a balance

 

Well, that's for you. I categorically stated "TO ME".

 

agreed. my point is, you're still alive. thankfully.

 

Mixed feelings.
While, some medicines are absolutely vital, some drugs can easily extend life. And others improve quality of life, undeniably.

I've lived long enough to unfortunately watched family members age and deteriorate. Get to the point where you basically needed a medical staff to keep track and administer the great number of drugs needed on a daily basis.

I hope I'm not being stupid. I have to think I'm not inflexible to the point of unnecessary risk. But having watched them become dependent on a growing number of drugs as they aged, has made me keep a pretty high bar as far as accepting drugs as an answer.

If it's a condition I can live with? If it's something I can hopefully address naturally? I don't accept the drug. I think the Problem/Pill dynamic has become too strong.

Of course it's all judged individually. And sometimes you reach a point where you need the medicine, and it only makes sense to take it. But I try not to make that decision too casually.
And I don't like doctors that are quick to solve problems with a prescription.

Also, it's not funny but I often marvel at the televised commercials for the latest medicine. Sometimes addressing a pretty IMO minor problem. For faux example the drug that can help with discolored toe nails, but side affects can include, Restlessness, Insomnia, Nausea, etc, etc, etc....
I'm often left watching those commercials wondering if the Cure isn't far worse than the affliction.

No, I don't think in most cases I will be asking my Doctor about it.

 

yes, the downside of pharma sometimes is unwanted life extension after quality is no longer possible

 

Yes, very true. Whether I live to be 100 years or die tomorrow, I am always very thankful for my life at present.

 

Just fill some 'chute packs with bed sheets. The difficult part is finding people willing to jump out of a plane that wouldn't want to check their pack.

I'm pretty sure the military has done such testing with crash test dummies.

On a somewhat related note, Michael Crichton didn't accept climate research showing global warming because it wasn't double blind like pharmaceutical research.

Advertising regulations have them mentioning all the potential side effects. They could be only a tiny fraction of a chance more of occurring than the placebo, but they got to state it. Some get better than EPA from their car, but the manufacturer can't say that beyond the your mileage may vary footnote.

 

For a proper double-blind test, neither the test participants nor the medical staff who monitor them during the test and evaluate their conditions at the end, are allowed to know or deduce which test group they are in. The group assignments must remain unknown to them (though not necessarily to the statisticians behind the curtains) until after the trial is finished.

 

Yes, you would need to have the parachute/bedsheet packers not knowing who would get which pack, and the user unable to determine what inside by handling it.

The article's purpose is to point out that the double blind study simply isn't possible to answer all questions, and that common sense/basic risk assessment alone is enough for some. A parachute may not prevent injury or death, but life lessons with trips and falls should be enough to say that jumping out of a plane without one probably results in the worse outcome.

Which is why I mention Crichton. He felt not being double blind made climate research suspect, but such a standard isn't possible in the field, and that is so for much of the natural sciences.

 

Cause I think the authors' point was science is not fixating on one set standard.