Both are important. Anti-aging is unique in the following way: since all of us are slowly dying of aging, it’s in our best interest to want the field progress for selfish reasons, but also our altruistic interest for society to solve aging as soon as possible, as this saves millions or billions of human life years.
On a personal level, maximising the probability of reaching longevity escape velocity is a min/max problem with two important variables: (1) maximising personal lifespan, by adopting personal longevity strategies (2) minimising the time until society reaches longevity escape velocity by helping to progress the longevity field.
You can think of it as a ‘race against time’ - to live forever (or at least, a very long time) one has to live in the subset of worlds which represents the intersection of society achieving longevity escape velocity, and one living long enough to make the cut, to avoid being among the last generations to die.
Personal longevity strategies are important, since a few years of additional life from longevity strategies could be the difference as to whether one makes it to reach longevity escape velocity or not. I suspect that many baby boomers may, unfortunately, miss the cut, but many Millenials and Gen Z’s could make it, particularly if they are proactive with longevity strategies. Progressing the field is also important, as living to 150 with personal longevity strategies doesn’t mean much if you fall 5 years short of reaching LEV because timelines were too long, for example.
Now, as to which is more important—personal longevity strategies or progressing the field—it’s unclear. Aubrey de Grey in his recent interview with me stated that the latter is much more important, since future therapies will vastly improve healthspan more than anything we can do today, and thus bringing these therapies into the world as soon as possible is the main priority for those who wish to make it to longevity escape velocity. This would suggest that money is perhaps better spent on SENS Research Foundation to support anti-aging research rather than purchasing resveratrol or a gym membership.
However, others I’ve spoken to in the field such as Sebastian Brunemeier who has co-founded two longevity biotech companies (Samsara Therapeutics and Cyclone Therapeutics) think that both progressing the field and adopting personal strategies are important. In his recent talk that our society, he alluded to his personal approach to longevity which involves taking anti-aging pills, meditating, exercising and more. I have a PDF of his full anti-aging protocol and it’s fairly sophisticated.
As an aside, approaches (1) and (2) are mutually supportive. The more people who adopt personal longevity strategies, the more attention (and in the long run, funding) the research side gets, since people are engaging with the research to guide their personal approach to longevity. And the more research that occurs, the better informed the population are to guide their personal longevity strategies.
On a population level, maximising the probability that most people alive today similarly requires optimising both (1) people’s personal longevity strategies and (2) the progression of the field. Overall, I’m inclined to think the latter is more important, although the former is important for those who wish to personally make it to longevity escape velocity in their lifetime.
Therefore, although the purpose of the original post was to highlight the need to increase research funding into anti-aging, adopting personal longevity strategies is also potentially important—both individually, and to bring more attention to the field.
Both are important. Anti-aging is unique in the following way: since all of us are slowly dying of aging, it’s in our best interest to want the field progress for selfish reasons, but also our altruistic interest for society to solve aging as soon as possible, as this saves millions or billions of human life years.
On a personal level, maximising the probability of reaching longevity escape velocity is a min/max problem with two important variables:
(1) maximising personal lifespan, by adopting personal longevity strategies
(2) minimising the time until society reaches longevity escape velocity by helping to progress the longevity field.
You can think of it as a ‘race against time’ - to live forever (or at least, a very long time) one has to live in the subset of worlds which represents the intersection of society achieving longevity escape velocity, and one living long enough to make the cut, to avoid being among the last generations to die.
Personal longevity strategies are important, since a few years of additional life from longevity strategies could be the difference as to whether one makes it to reach longevity escape velocity or not. I suspect that many baby boomers may, unfortunately, miss the cut, but many Millenials and Gen Z’s could make it, particularly if they are proactive with longevity strategies.
Progressing the field is also important, as living to 150 with personal longevity strategies doesn’t mean much if you fall 5 years short of reaching LEV because timelines were too long, for example.
Now, as to which is more important—personal longevity strategies or progressing the field—it’s unclear. Aubrey de Grey in his recent interview with me stated that the latter is much more important, since future therapies will vastly improve healthspan more than anything we can do today, and thus bringing these therapies into the world as soon as possible is the main priority for those who wish to make it to longevity escape velocity. This would suggest that money is perhaps better spent on SENS Research Foundation to support anti-aging research rather than purchasing resveratrol or a gym membership.
However, others I’ve spoken to in the field such as Sebastian Brunemeier who has co-founded two longevity biotech companies (Samsara Therapeutics and Cyclone Therapeutics) think that both progressing the field and adopting personal strategies are important. In his recent talk that our society, he alluded to his personal approach to longevity which involves taking anti-aging pills, meditating, exercising and more. I have a PDF of his full anti-aging protocol and it’s fairly sophisticated.
As an aside, approaches (1) and (2) are mutually supportive. The more people who adopt personal longevity strategies, the more attention (and in the long run, funding) the research side gets, since people are engaging with the research to guide their personal approach to longevity. And the more research that occurs, the better informed the population are to guide their personal longevity strategies.
On a population level, maximising the probability that most people alive today similarly requires optimising both (1) people’s personal longevity strategies and (2) the progression of the field. Overall, I’m inclined to think the latter is more important, although the former is important for those who wish to personally make it to longevity escape velocity in their lifetime.
Therefore, although the purpose of the original post was to highlight the need to increase research funding into anti-aging, adopting personal longevity strategies is also potentially important—both individually, and to bring more attention to the field.
If Brunemeier’s PDF’s is something you can share, I’d like to read it.
Here’s some of the important stuff (not medical advice, obviously):
Daily multivitamin
Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA/DHA)
Magnesium citrate
Turmeric (curcumin)
Resveratrol / pterostilbene
Metformin / berberine
Apigenin
Quercetin
NR (nicotinamide riboside)
EGCG (green or white tea)
Ocimum sanctum (Tulsi)
Bacopa monnieri (standardized 20% bacosides)
Gotu Kola (Centella asiatica)
Gingko biloba
B12 – many people are deficient
Vitamin D (get blood tested to optimize, ideally 30 min/day full sun, 2000 IU)
Vitamin C (megadose, 5 g / day +, spread throughout the day)
Piracetam + Choline
Uridine
Acetylcarnitine + N-acetyl cysteine
Glycine
Supergreen/superfruit blend*: “Blender Culture” .