My Road to Maximize Lifespan – Monitor Biomarkers To Reverse Aging | Dr. Michael Lustgarten | Parts I – VII

8 Replies

Here’s an interview that I did with Richard at Modern Healthspan, one of the best interviewers in aging!

Part I: Monitoring Biomarkers to Reverse Aging:

Part II, Diet, CR & Fasting:

Part III: Exercise, Protein

Part IV: Optimize Nutrients Through Diet

Part V: Inhibit CD38 to Optimize NAD

Part VI: Microbiome Impact on Muscle Metabolism

Part VII: Preferred Diet & Habit for Longevity

8 thoughts on “My Road to Maximize Lifespan – Monitor Biomarkers To Reverse Aging | Dr. Michael Lustgarten | Parts I – VII”

  1. albedo

    Thank you Michael for the nice interview. Just for your information, wrt min 12:50 on and Levine’s clock, I have been discussing with JGC in the forum.age-reversal.net. He made the very elegant work providing a link to the excel sheet. Independently I had previously developed my own (non elegant) spreadsheet (and double checked with JGC’s spreadsheet) and also discussed the methodology in the longecity.org forum (“biological age”). I also happen to be one who notified to Levine’s team the mistakes/misprints in the formula in their second publications triggering the correction (the first publication, introducing the formula, had it right). Fun how this world is small … 🙂
    Keep up the good work!

    Like

    Reply ↓
  2. Wayne Johnson

    Aging.io has me at 46 years. Your Levine clock has me at 77. I am 79. Methinks the large weight given to chronological age to train towards chronological age makes the clock of questionable value. I already know when I was born. I would also be more interested in a clock that is trained towards mortality. After all, that is really what we are searching to minimize.

    Like

    Reply ↓
    1. Michael Lustgarten Post author

      The correlation between aging.ai and Levine’s clocks with chronological age is 0.8 and 0.95, respectively, which means that Levine’s is more accurate for predicting biological age. Also, an older biological age via Levine’s clock is associated with an increased mortality risk. For that data, see 5:25 of this video:

      Like

      Reply ↓
  3. albedo

    @Wayne. I think Levine’s clock *is* a mortality risk calculator at 10 years (based on NHANES cohort training data) using the 9 clinical biomarkers and age (I realize inclusion of age is quite controversial topic though). The biological age (“Phenotypic Age”) comes as a later step after that risk calculation. For completeness, there is also an additional step, not discussed here, when regressing on methylation data and providing the “DNAm PhenoAge”
    “…These nine biomarkers and chronological age were then included in a parametric proportional hazards model based on the Gompertz distribution. Based on this model, we estimated the 10-year (120 months) mortality risk of the j-the individual. Next, the mortality score was converted into units of years (Supplement 1)…” (doi: 10.18632/aging.101414)

    Like

    Reply ↓
    2. Wayne Johnson

      I’m confused – not a new state for me, unfortunately. How does a greater correlation with chronological age result in a better measure of biological age?

      Thanks to albedo, I now know that the Levine clock is based first on mortality. This is good. However, the large weight given to chronological age seems to lessen its value. For example, if I input 46 as my age, it tells me my biological age is, wait for it, 46! This implies to me that I have the serum profile of the average 46-year-old.

      For now, I find in difficult to put much trust in either clock. I’m waiting for a clock based on histone acetylation which I believe to be a better measure of aging than either serum profiles or DNA methylation.

      Like

      Reply ↓
  4. Chicken Little

    Exercise over Caloric Restriction? Good answer! CR may have more scientific backing to extend our lifespan, but what is longevity without the superior functional health likely to be conferred by sensible consistent exercise?

    As fascinating as Dr. L’s work here is in linking yesterday’s measurable inputs (diet, etc) to today’s measurable outputs (biomarkers) to tomorrow’s endpoints (longevity), what most of us probably really want is to be as high-functioning and pain-free as possible in our old age, however long it may last. Speaking for myself, anyway, I am more interested in maintaining my cognition, sight, hearing, dental health, mobility (including bone-density, joint function and muscle mass & strength), social contacts and sense of humour, than I am motivated to try to break any longevity records. (I wouldn’t mind keeping my skin, hair and body shape as long as possible, either.)

    But “all-cause mortality” turns out to be a fascinating way to look at these functional/frivolous aspects of health, too. When I checked “waist-hip ratio” against all-cause mortality, I was not surprised to see the correlation was positive, but amused to see that it is virtually linear above .75! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154008/ Social integration, same thing. I haven’t seen a measurement index for sense of humour yet, but can there be any doubt what it will show? I don’t like to tempt the Greek Fates on this point, but it certainly appears that whatever can be measured can be improved

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply