Another case of "fixing the problem we created in the mice in the first place". While good for reproducability and analyzing possible root causes it is frustratingly disappointing.
I would really want to see is the process on actual senior lab mice - that would highlight other factors untreated and how transferrable it is to the general case for mice - let alone humans. If open-ended trial mice reach unprecedented ages that would have major implications.
I could not disagree more. As the article states, and this meshes with my layperson's understanding, mitochondrial malfunction is a key facet of aging. While we strongly suspected the role of mitochondria, being able to turn them on and off and observe their effect really cements our understanding that, yes, they are involved in the ways we think they are. Further cause for optimism is that toggling the mitochondria toggled other age-associated behaviors in the mice.
One of the pillars of SENS is allotropic expression of a subset of mitochondrial genes in the nucleus, to get those genes away from the mitochondrial furnace. We can speculate that other mitochondrial gene therapies may emerge from work like this.
No, this really is breaking the mice, not inducing something that looks like SENS-relevant damage in mitochondria. The details matter.
Many means of breaking cell biology can produce things that look superficially like accelerated aging in at least some ways. That doesn't mean it is aging: given that aging is widespread tissue dysfunction, anything that causes widespread tissue dysfunction can have overlapping phenotypes, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with normal aging. DNA repair deficiency is the usual example - something that isn't all that apparent in normal aging, in comparison to the models in which DNA repair machinery is missing or broken.
So, similarly, pulling the rug out from under mitochondrial function can be done in countless ways that have very little to do with what happens in aging. I think the onus is still on these researchers to demonstrate that the method they have chosen has much of anything to do with aging per se.
To me, this is akin to finding out what happens to airplanes when their pilots die. If we're wondering about this because they have been dying of asphyxiation at altitude, we'd still learn something if we ran the experiment of shooting them dead at altitude. The conditions aren't exactly the same, but we'll still figure out that pilots are important to airplanes.
The other thing worth noting is that there could be some confusion from the title. It has "aging-associated" in it. The charitable understanding is along the lines of my analogy. The uncharitable, and seemingly popular one, is along the lines of your counterargument, and I think interprets "aging-associated" as "due to or consequent of aging," rather than "due to a cause that is similar on one level to causes that come about by aging."
Yup. I'm hopeful about the work associated with Aubrey de Grey and the SENS foundation. Again, this is from a layperson's perspective. My mind was kind of blown by the YouTube videos of the Undoing Aging 2018 conference, especially the speaker whose company is doing work on triggering apoptosis in senescent cells. It feels like things are starting to yield.
You can do this right now with very vigorous exercise.
In fact, it appears that ones own mitochondrial population can be kept "young" by constantly weeding out cells with poor energy efficiency. Sort of a intra-body natural selection with exercise as the environmental stressor.
There is a very interesting book by Nick Lane titled _Power, Sex, Suicide_ that explores these ideas.
Not to worry, I suppose, since anyone with even a fleeting interest in "life extension" or "anti aging" would have a comprehensive, extremely intense exercise regimen ...
> since anyone with even a fleeting interest in "life extension" or "anti aging" would have a comprehensive, extremely intense exercise regimen ... Right ?
Absolutely. And my adherence to it is at least as fleeting.
The article title should read, "Scientists able to temporarily induce some symptoms of aging in young mice". If they could have reversed symptoms of aging in actual old mice they would have done it.
Hair loss cure has been around for a while, at least for MPB. Been taking finasteride for almost a decade and haven't lost any hair. Most guys are scared away by rare but serious side effects. But most of the problem seems to be getting guys to take pills regularly at all
When I was a teenager I had very thick, curly hair. Now I'm bald. Unless the cure involves reactivating my dormant hair follicles into growing back exactly what I had when I was 15, it's imo not a cure.
Right now the alternatives are: shave my head, or risk potential scarring and weird hair pattern from a transplant, or take a pill forever and sacrifice boners for some wispy strands that I'll be self-conscious about all day long.
So for now, I'm shaving my head. Call me when there's like, a single-application stem-cell therapy.
I don't think the options are so bleak. Serious side effects from finasteride are something like 1% of users. I've been taking it longer than I can remember with zero side effects except I haven't lost any hair.
Most recent studies show around 90% effectiveness at preventing further loss.
Just because something can't turn back the clock doesn't mean it isn't a cure. Surely penicillin has almost 0% cure rate if you delay taking it for an infection for a few years.
People don't penicillin as a preventative to getting sick. I think you are talking about finasteride though. As we all probably know, it's actually harmful to take antibiotics as a general preventative, because that leads to increased bacterial resistance to those drugs.
Each to his own. There's definitely a risk there, perhaps I'm more vain or insecure than most. Almost every guy I've let in on my "secret" has declined to take it themselves
Replying to myself because I'm getting the usual flak from guys that didn't take it.
It's about 90% effective at preventing further loss. If you don't consider that a cure I don't know what you're looking for.
Just because you didn't take it before everything fell out doesn't mean it's any less effective or not a cure. If you take it indefinitely you will not lose hair almost 90% of the time.
That's a better cure rate than antibiotics for some conditions like tuberculosis or antivirals for something like hep C.
The side effect profile is extremely safe too. Less than 5% of men had any side effects at all in the largest trail with 1000+ men. That makes finasteride safer than most antibiotics even.
If I didn't take antibiotics until my leg fell off from infection I wouldn't expect them to grow it back. People confound a hair loss cure with something that regenerates lost hair. Regeneration of any kind has been frustratingly outside the bounds of human ability forever
It sounds like only a marginal “cure”. Taking medication for the rest of your life is not something to take lightly. As a migrainer, if I had to decide between medications due to interactions, I’d always choose treating migraines over treating alpoecia. Adding a medication long term decreases a patients ability to choose treatments in the future.
I don't believe this, although it's definitely a common opinion.
There's many medications that never lose effectiveness so they don't limit future options. For instance synthetic insulin clearly never stops working, otherwise all type 1 diabetics would quickly die off.
I also have no problem taking medication every day for the rest of my life. A sizable part of the population is only alive because they take medication regularly. I've been taking allergy medicine and anti imflammitories along with finasteride for many years with no I'll effect
Tread cautiously. I experienced some issues achieving an erection and feeling stimulation after several days on it. Needless to say I stopped after two weeks. Fortunately I didn't experience any permanent side effects. It's too bad; I really wanted to stop the full front assault!
That's what seems to be the case with any existing hair loss products; if you have nearly invisible wisps of hair left, minoxidil and finasteride will rejuvenate those and prevent further hair loss. Not really a cure. If too much hair loss has occurred, you're kinda screwed unless you go the transplant route, which has its own problems.
I do hope for an actual hair loss cure, and I'd pay thousands for it. People treat bald people really different and don't even realize it. Not in necessarily a "bad" way, not like a second-class citizen, but I think bald guys are slightly scarier to the average person, especially if the guy shaves it or keeps it short. Obviously they are also less attractive on average unless they've got the muscle proportion and the jawline to go with it.
It's not all bad since it also means that I'm no longer treated like a "young man" by anyone. But when I wear a hat or a beanie and people don't know that I'm bald, they're a much nicer and women come up to me a lot more. It's like night and day. At least that means there's nothing wrong with my face! :)
I think you've put it a nice way, but one of the things I've realised as I've gotten older is: People treat <insert something here> people really differently and don't even realise it. If you've got a big nose, or your eyes are too close together, or you don't have symmetry in your face. Or you are too tall. Or you have a lot of body hair. Or you don't have enough body hair. Or your skin has a strange (for the area) complexion (or just not normal for most people, even).
There are beautiful (in the eyes of society) people in the world and they have certain advantages. There are smart (to the eyes of society) people in the world and they have certain advantages. There are physically gifted (compared to the average in the society) people in the world and they have certain advantages. Christiano Ronaldo makes over $100 million dollars a year, of which nearly $50 million comes from endorsements (nice to have a pretty face as well as being a talented footballer!)
Life isn't fair in these ways. Is there anything wrong with wanting to have hair on your head, or getting plastic surgery, or body building to look the way you want? Absolutely nothing (especially the last one can be pretty darn positive for anyone). However, I think it's important not to chase these things excessively. There is a huge danger of thinking, "My life would turn around if only I wasn't saddled with this handicap". You can seriously sabotage yourself by not realising that most people have lots of hurdles and still find ways of surmounting them.
As a visible minority in the place where I choose to live, I see this kind of self-sabotage often, where people choose to believe that racism makes it impossible for them to succeed, rather than to acknowledge that it is a factor that they need to deal with. Some people (especially the elderly) are genuinely afraid when they see me coming. However, this fear usually turns to relief and joy when I smile and greet them kindly. Instead of being shunned because people fear me, I have an advantage over other people because that mini-drama that people must overcome when they first meet me, brings them closer. It's a bit like seeing a lion walking down the street and then when you find out it is an extremely friendly, goofy, tame lion, of course you want to pet it!
The oft-repeated advice of "just be yourself" is good, I think. It doesn't mean it won't be a challenge, but overcoming that challenge brings you benefits beyond "fixing" whatever problem that you feel you have.
There is a experimental drug called setipiprant. Theoretically, setipiprant's DP2 receptor antagonism may counteract the activity of PGD2 in hair follicles, thereby stimulating hair growth.
I think you are over-reacting. Wait till you are balding and have grey hair. The world doesn't end, cut your hair really short and go on with your life. It matters not to 99% of the world. Who cares what donald trump and the rest of the 1% think. :-)
Same could be said about antibiotics or basically any drug we've discovered. Just like antibiotics being useless if you wait so long the infection is killing you.
It's not surprising to me that finasteride doesn't bring back hair you've been losing for years.
It prevents hairloss extremely effectively. To the point that 90% of men losing their hair wouldn't if they got on it early enough.
Many men say it's not a cure because it doesn't bring back dead hair but I don't think that's true. It's like saying antibiotics aren't a cure because they can't bring back the dead. If I lost a limb to gangrene I wouldn't expect antibiotics to grow it back, so I don't get why some guys expect a hairloss drug to grow back hair that's been gone for years.
I took finasteride for about 4 years. I didn’t experience any immediate side effects but gradually I lost interest in sex and got sexual side effects. Things did not go back to normal after discontinuing the drug. This was in my late 20s.
It’s a tricky subject because I can’t know for certain if the drug caused the side effects, but I was an otherwise healthy young man. Many men apparently take finasteride for years without significant side effects, but on the other hand, I don’t know how many men who have been affected are willing to discuss it openly.
Look at the picture of the mouse - it’s not aging, it’s dying. Yes, they “reverse” the condition, but only by the cessation of giving these little guys poison (doxycycline, a harsh antibiotic). This could have been called “high doses of doxycycline almost kills mice.”
The doxycycline is being given at low dose and has no direct effect on the mouse. It is being used to switch on and off the gene of interest - introduce a gene under expression control with doxycycline. This is a common way of doing gene regulation experiments in mice.
Do you have any sources for it being harsh? I'm curious because I've been on antibiotics for 2 years (yes really) and this is the one I tolerate the best.
I was also on doxycycline for over 2 years, and barring a slightly dodgy tummy for the first 48 hours (fairly typical for antibiotics), I didn't notice any adverse affects. It did transpire that my doctor had 'forgotten' I was still on it though (I was only meant to be on it for 6 months!), so I did wonder if there were any adverse affects of taking it for that long!
> Yes, they “reverse” the condition, but only by the cessation of giving these little guys poison (doxycycline, a harsh antibiotic). This could have been called “high doses of doxycycline almost kills mice.”
You clearly do not understand how triggering genes with antibiotics work (like Ampicillin in the old days).
He's the one doctor whose stuff I've read that I think make most sense. You get a lot of people saying he's crazy, though. Wonder if anyone on HN has ever had any success reversing hair loss? The ultimate hack, if you ask me.
And yes, plenty of people have had success regrowing hair following Peat's principles - aspirin, high CO2, high carbs, little to zero polyunsaturated, moderate saturated, (thyroid, pregnenolone, progesterone, vitamin A+B supplementation) etc.
The Peaty things I've discovered that made the most dramatic difference in my life were colagen and methylene blue. My stamina, focus and overall health improved immensely after I started using 10gtt methylene blue and 2tbsp colagen in my morning shakes. Oh, and of course, RED LIGHT!
For anyone interested, look for the "Ray Peat Forum" (community organized) and the "Ray Peat Inspired" videos on YouTube.
Some people get it, some people don't. When confronted with claims that drive the no-carb/keto people crazy, they resort to bashing him. I'd recommend following Danny Roddy, Chris Masterjohn and CowsEatGrass, and also look for the On The Back of a Tiger documentary which is due to be released soon.
Yeah, lots of stuff on Quackwatch about him. Not exactly flattering. I’ll pass after reading that stuff. Broken clocks being right twice a day and all.
It's just absurd to call him a quack. The man is 80 years old, a renowned biologist, several books published. He has ZERO interest in monetizing his ideas -- he charges a ridiculously small amount for his bimonthly newsletter, which is hardly making him richer.
Ray Peat is a true scholar and a gentlemen, he just wants to untangle the mysteries of our metabolism and sees through what the media and government try to shove down our throats.
His pieces on the vegetable oil industry are just the start of his many revelations. I've never looked at the food and drug industry the same way after knowing his work.
Another case of "fixing the problem we created in the mice in the first place". While good for reproducability and analyzing possible root causes it is frustratingly disappointing.
I would really want to see is the process on actual senior lab mice - that would highlight other factors untreated and how transferrable it is to the general case for mice - let alone humans. If open-ended trial mice reach unprecedented ages that would have major implications.
I could not disagree more. As the article states, and this meshes with my layperson's understanding, mitochondrial malfunction is a key facet of aging. While we strongly suspected the role of mitochondria, being able to turn them on and off and observe their effect really cements our understanding that, yes, they are involved in the ways we think they are. Further cause for optimism is that toggling the mitochondria toggled other age-associated behaviors in the mice.
One of the pillars of SENS is allotropic expression of a subset of mitochondrial genes in the nucleus, to get those genes away from the mitochondrial furnace. We can speculate that other mitochondrial gene therapies may emerge from work like this.
I can't be disappointed by this progress!
No, this really is breaking the mice, not inducing something that looks like SENS-relevant damage in mitochondria. The details matter.
Many means of breaking cell biology can produce things that look superficially like accelerated aging in at least some ways. That doesn't mean it is aging: given that aging is widespread tissue dysfunction, anything that causes widespread tissue dysfunction can have overlapping phenotypes, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with normal aging. DNA repair deficiency is the usual example - something that isn't all that apparent in normal aging, in comparison to the models in which DNA repair machinery is missing or broken.
So, similarly, pulling the rug out from under mitochondrial function can be done in countless ways that have very little to do with what happens in aging. I think the onus is still on these researchers to demonstrate that the method they have chosen has much of anything to do with aging per se.
To me, this is akin to finding out what happens to airplanes when their pilots die. If we're wondering about this because they have been dying of asphyxiation at altitude, we'd still learn something if we ran the experiment of shooting them dead at altitude. The conditions aren't exactly the same, but we'll still figure out that pilots are important to airplanes.
The other thing worth noting is that there could be some confusion from the title. It has "aging-associated" in it. The charitable understanding is along the lines of my analogy. The uncharitable, and seemingly popular one, is along the lines of your counterargument, and I think interprets "aging-associated" as "due to or consequent of aging," rather than "due to a cause that is similar on one level to causes that come about by aging."
In this context, is SENS Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence?
Yup. I'm hopeful about the work associated with Aubrey de Grey and the SENS foundation. Again, this is from a layperson's perspective. My mind was kind of blown by the YouTube videos of the Undoing Aging 2018 conference, especially the speaker whose company is doing work on triggering apoptosis in senescent cells. It feels like things are starting to yield.
"triggering apoptosis in senescent cells"
You can do this right now with very vigorous exercise.
In fact, it appears that ones own mitochondrial population can be kept "young" by constantly weeding out cells with poor energy efficiency. Sort of a intra-body natural selection with exercise as the environmental stressor.
There is a very interesting book by Nick Lane titled _Power, Sex, Suicide_ that explores these ideas.
Not to worry, I suppose, since anyone with even a fleeting interest in "life extension" or "anti aging" would have a comprehensive, extremely intense exercise regimen ...
Right ?
> since anyone with even a fleeting interest in "life extension" or "anti aging" would have a comprehensive, extremely intense exercise regimen ... Right ?
Absolutely. And my adherence to it is at least as fleeting.
The article title should read, "Scientists able to temporarily induce some symptoms of aging in young mice". If they could have reversed symptoms of aging in actual old mice they would have done it.
Hair loss cure has been around for a while, at least for MPB. Been taking finasteride for almost a decade and haven't lost any hair. Most guys are scared away by rare but serious side effects. But most of the problem seems to be getting guys to take pills regularly at all
> Hair loss cure has been around for a while
Strongly disagree.
When I was a teenager I had very thick, curly hair. Now I'm bald. Unless the cure involves reactivating my dormant hair follicles into growing back exactly what I had when I was 15, it's imo not a cure.
Right now the alternatives are: shave my head, or risk potential scarring and weird hair pattern from a transplant, or take a pill forever and sacrifice boners for some wispy strands that I'll be self-conscious about all day long.
So for now, I'm shaving my head. Call me when there's like, a single-application stem-cell therapy.
I don't think the options are so bleak. Serious side effects from finasteride are something like 1% of users. I've been taking it longer than I can remember with zero side effects except I haven't lost any hair.
Most recent studies show around 90% effectiveness at preventing further loss.
Just because something can't turn back the clock doesn't mean it isn't a cure. Surely penicillin has almost 0% cure rate if you delay taking it for an infection for a few years.
Just because something can't turn back the clock doesn't mean it isn't a cure.
I'm pretty sure it does...if penicillin only stopped you getting sicker rather than killing bacterial infections it would be barely useful.
I would argue it would be just as useful, with the difference that most people would start taking it at a young age and for life
People don't penicillin as a preventative to getting sick. I think you are talking about finasteride though. As we all probably know, it's actually harmful to take antibiotics as a general preventative, because that leads to increased bacterial resistance to those drugs.
> start taking it at a young age and for life
It's only been available for twenty years. Who knows what the negative long-term effects are of significant DHT reduction, or of the drug itself.
I hate that I lost my hair, but it's not worth the risk, imo. ymmv.
Each to his own. There's definitely a risk there, perhaps I'm more vain or insecure than most. Almost every guy I've let in on my "secret" has declined to take it themselves
Ha, I am in the same boat. There's hair/scalp therapy and then regular therapy. I am not my (lack) of hair.
Replying to myself because I'm getting the usual flak from guys that didn't take it.
It's about 90% effective at preventing further loss. If you don't consider that a cure I don't know what you're looking for.
Just because you didn't take it before everything fell out doesn't mean it's any less effective or not a cure. If you take it indefinitely you will not lose hair almost 90% of the time.
That's a better cure rate than antibiotics for some conditions like tuberculosis or antivirals for something like hep C.
The side effect profile is extremely safe too. Less than 5% of men had any side effects at all in the largest trail with 1000+ men. That makes finasteride safer than most antibiotics even.
If I didn't take antibiotics until my leg fell off from infection I wouldn't expect them to grow it back. People confound a hair loss cure with something that regenerates lost hair. Regeneration of any kind has been frustratingly outside the bounds of human ability forever
It sounds like only a marginal “cure”. Taking medication for the rest of your life is not something to take lightly. As a migrainer, if I had to decide between medications due to interactions, I’d always choose treating migraines over treating alpoecia. Adding a medication long term decreases a patients ability to choose treatments in the future.
I don't believe this, although it's definitely a common opinion.
There's many medications that never lose effectiveness so they don't limit future options. For instance synthetic insulin clearly never stops working, otherwise all type 1 diabetics would quickly die off.
I also have no problem taking medication every day for the rest of my life. A sizable part of the population is only alive because they take medication regularly. I've been taking allergy medicine and anti imflammitories along with finasteride for many years with no I'll effect
>For instance synthetic insulin clearly never stops working, otherwise all type 1 diabetics would quickly die off.
Actually it does. But the tolerance developed is not as serious as other medications.
90% sounds great!
But---I don't know how anyone could study the drug properly.
If they used identical twins in their studies; I would be thoroughly impressed.
Tread cautiously. I experienced some issues achieving an erection and feeling stimulation after several days on it. Needless to say I stopped after two weeks. Fortunately I didn't experience any permanent side effects. It's too bad; I really wanted to stop the full front assault!
Like I said, it's been close to a decade on it so no worries. Interest in banging has waned slightly but I'm not young anymore either
According to your description of the side effects, a full frontal assault most certainly occurred ;)
Finasteride can help, but this is far from a solved problem. Trust me.
Finasterade supposedly doesn't reverse hair loss, it prevents it.
That's what seems to be the case with any existing hair loss products; if you have nearly invisible wisps of hair left, minoxidil and finasteride will rejuvenate those and prevent further hair loss. Not really a cure. If too much hair loss has occurred, you're kinda screwed unless you go the transplant route, which has its own problems.
I do hope for an actual hair loss cure, and I'd pay thousands for it. People treat bald people really different and don't even realize it. Not in necessarily a "bad" way, not like a second-class citizen, but I think bald guys are slightly scarier to the average person, especially if the guy shaves it or keeps it short. Obviously they are also less attractive on average unless they've got the muscle proportion and the jawline to go with it.
It's not all bad since it also means that I'm no longer treated like a "young man" by anyone. But when I wear a hat or a beanie and people don't know that I'm bald, they're a much nicer and women come up to me a lot more. It's like night and day. At least that means there's nothing wrong with my face! :)
I think you've put it a nice way, but one of the things I've realised as I've gotten older is: People treat <insert something here> people really differently and don't even realise it. If you've got a big nose, or your eyes are too close together, or you don't have symmetry in your face. Or you are too tall. Or you have a lot of body hair. Or you don't have enough body hair. Or your skin has a strange (for the area) complexion (or just not normal for most people, even).
There are beautiful (in the eyes of society) people in the world and they have certain advantages. There are smart (to the eyes of society) people in the world and they have certain advantages. There are physically gifted (compared to the average in the society) people in the world and they have certain advantages. Christiano Ronaldo makes over $100 million dollars a year, of which nearly $50 million comes from endorsements (nice to have a pretty face as well as being a talented footballer!)
Life isn't fair in these ways. Is there anything wrong with wanting to have hair on your head, or getting plastic surgery, or body building to look the way you want? Absolutely nothing (especially the last one can be pretty darn positive for anyone). However, I think it's important not to chase these things excessively. There is a huge danger of thinking, "My life would turn around if only I wasn't saddled with this handicap". You can seriously sabotage yourself by not realising that most people have lots of hurdles and still find ways of surmounting them.
As a visible minority in the place where I choose to live, I see this kind of self-sabotage often, where people choose to believe that racism makes it impossible for them to succeed, rather than to acknowledge that it is a factor that they need to deal with. Some people (especially the elderly) are genuinely afraid when they see me coming. However, this fear usually turns to relief and joy when I smile and greet them kindly. Instead of being shunned because people fear me, I have an advantage over other people because that mini-drama that people must overcome when they first meet me, brings them closer. It's a bit like seeing a lion walking down the street and then when you find out it is an extremely friendly, goofy, tame lion, of course you want to pet it!
The oft-repeated advice of "just be yourself" is good, I think. It doesn't mean it won't be a challenge, but overcoming that challenge brings you benefits beyond "fixing" whatever problem that you feel you have.
There is a experimental drug called setipiprant. Theoretically, setipiprant's DP2 receptor antagonism may counteract the activity of PGD2 in hair follicles, thereby stimulating hair growth.
Very interesting. I'll definitely have to keep track of that one since it says no serious side effects have been discovered yet.
I think you are over-reacting. Wait till you are balding and have grey hair. The world doesn't end, cut your hair really short and go on with your life. It matters not to 99% of the world. Who cares what donald trump and the rest of the 1% think. :-)
Same could be said about antibiotics or basically any drug we've discovered. Just like antibiotics being useless if you wait so long the infection is killing you.
It's not surprising to me that finasteride doesn't bring back hair you've been losing for years.
It prevents hairloss extremely effectively. To the point that 90% of men losing their hair wouldn't if they got on it early enough.
Many men say it's not a cure because it doesn't bring back dead hair but I don't think that's true. It's like saying antibiotics aren't a cure because they can't bring back the dead. If I lost a limb to gangrene I wouldn't expect antibiotics to grow it back, so I don't get why some guys expect a hairloss drug to grow back hair that's been gone for years.
Experienced any side effects yourself? Been putting it off but I’m probably going to have to give in and go on it soon.
I took finasteride for about 4 years. I didn’t experience any immediate side effects but gradually I lost interest in sex and got sexual side effects. Things did not go back to normal after discontinuing the drug. This was in my late 20s.
It’s a tricky subject because I can’t know for certain if the drug caused the side effects, but I was an otherwise healthy young man. Many men apparently take finasteride for years without significant side effects, but on the other hand, I don’t know how many men who have been affected are willing to discuss it openly.
Zero. Been single for years but my volition. All works down there same as it did a decade ago when I started
What a time to be a mouse
I think we have pretty much cured every disease a mouse could possibly have including aging...
Look at the picture of the mouse - it’s not aging, it’s dying. Yes, they “reverse” the condition, but only by the cessation of giving these little guys poison (doxycycline, a harsh antibiotic). This could have been called “high doses of doxycycline almost kills mice.”
The doxycycline is being given at low dose and has no direct effect on the mouse. It is being used to switch on and off the gene of interest - introduce a gene under expression control with doxycycline. This is a common way of doing gene regulation experiments in mice.
>doxycycline, a harsh antibiotic
Do you have any sources for it being harsh? I'm curious because I've been on antibiotics for 2 years (yes really) and this is the one I tolerate the best.
I was also on doxycycline for over 2 years, and barring a slightly dodgy tummy for the first 48 hours (fairly typical for antibiotics), I didn't notice any adverse affects. It did transpire that my doctor had 'forgotten' I was still on it though (I was only meant to be on it for 6 months!), so I did wonder if there were any adverse affects of taking it for that long!
> Yes, they “reverse” the condition, but only by the cessation of giving these little guys poison (doxycycline, a harsh antibiotic). This could have been called “high doses of doxycycline almost kills mice.”
You clearly do not understand how triggering genes with antibiotics work (like Ampicillin in the old days).
Ray Peat proven right once again.
He's the one doctor whose stuff I've read that I think make most sense. You get a lot of people saying he's crazy, though. Wonder if anyone on HN has ever had any success reversing hair loss? The ultimate hack, if you ask me.
And yes, plenty of people have had success regrowing hair following Peat's principles - aspirin, high CO2, high carbs, little to zero polyunsaturated, moderate saturated, (thyroid, pregnenolone, progesterone, vitamin A+B supplementation) etc.
The Peaty things I've discovered that made the most dramatic difference in my life were colagen and methylene blue. My stamina, focus and overall health improved immensely after I started using 10gtt methylene blue and 2tbsp colagen in my morning shakes. Oh, and of course, RED LIGHT!
For anyone interested, look for the "Ray Peat Forum" (community organized) and the "Ray Peat Inspired" videos on YouTube.
Some people get it, some people don't. When confronted with claims that drive the no-carb/keto people crazy, they resort to bashing him. I'd recommend following Danny Roddy, Chris Masterjohn and CowsEatGrass, and also look for the On The Back of a Tiger documentary which is due to be released soon.
Yeah, lots of stuff on Quackwatch about him. Not exactly flattering. I’ll pass after reading that stuff. Broken clocks being right twice a day and all.
It's just absurd to call him a quack. The man is 80 years old, a renowned biologist, several books published. He has ZERO interest in monetizing his ideas -- he charges a ridiculously small amount for his bimonthly newsletter, which is hardly making him richer.
Ray Peat is a true scholar and a gentlemen, he just wants to untangle the mysteries of our metabolism and sees through what the media and government try to shove down our throats.
His pieces on the vegetable oil industry are just the start of his many revelations. I've never looked at the food and drug industry the same way after knowing his work.
Can you elaborate? What specific hypothesis of his does this confirm? Thanks.
We hear of these kind of studies time and time again yet never see anything materialise for humans.