Novel Theory of Ani-Aging

noodlelover

noodlelover

Kraken
Joined
Oct 18, 2021
Posts
3,054
Reputation
3,437
I'm going to propose a new theory of biological age reversal here.

Why not publish this in some academic journal you might ask? The answer is simple, I have no relevant credentials.

So let's start with the basics:
  • Aging is Damage
  • Repair Damage faster than damage occurs, and your biological age decreases.
There are various kinds of damage, such as glycation, DNA mutation, and oxidation.
For every type of damage, the human body has evolved one or more repair mechanisms.

Both the damage and the repair mechanisms are chemical reactions. A chemical reaction requires energy and specific chemicals to occur.

So it’s simple, increase the rate of repair, and decrease the rate of damage, for each type of damage, and corresponding repair chemical reactions, to the point where repair becomes greater than damage and you get full biological age reversal.

So how can you do this?

Again, not that complicated at least at a high level. You want to decrease the quantity of chemicals involved in the damage process, decrease the energy involved in the damage process, while increasing the quantity of chemicals involved in the repair process (with their required proportions for repair chemical reactions), while also increasing the energy available for the repair processes.

Let's look at a couple examples, of damage chemical reactions, and the evolved repair chemical reactions and interventions to increase the rate of repair, while decreasing the rate of damage.

Atherosclerosis

Atherosclerosis is the build up of fat cholesterol and other substances on the vein walls. These then they break off and clog your heart valves and you die, or break off and get stuck in a vein in your brain and a big chunk of your brain dies.

Once you understand this as a mechanical thing, you realize that each type of damage, and damage repair is relatively simple.

Every now and then you'll read papers or here doctors and scientists say that this is an irreversible process and all you can do slow the pace. Doctor's and scientists are ignorant, so you need to do more digging and not take anything they say as gospel.

But ok, we want to reverse this type of aging damage.

First we decrease rate of damage. This can be done by decreasing the consumption and absorption of chemicals that get stuck to the exterior of our veins. We don't have to get these chemicals down to zero, we only have to decrease them and increase the rate of repair until repair rate is greater than damage rate.

So high level, easy, we decrease meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption (this alone reverses atherosclerosis), and supplement with berberine (also reverses atherosclerosis).

What is the appropriate balance? We can look at diets of long lived people, and people who die of heart attacks, and see getting the balance isn't that hard. Eating mostly vegetables, and some meat and you'll be fine for atherosclerosis. Throw in some berberine supplementation, and periodic fasting, and your blood vessels will be clean.

Berberine alone as an intervention has been shown to decrease atherosclerosis, and post world war two concentration camp victims were shown to have COMPLETELY clear arteries and blood vessels right after the war. Later on, there atherosclerosis reformed. What this means is that the human body possesses the repair mechanisms to completely reverse all atherosclerosis. All we have to do is fuel those mechanisms, while reducing rate of damage.

DNA Damage

Your body has repair processes for DNA damage.

So again, we want to increase repair rate, and decrease damage rate, so that damage is greater than repair, and then we get biological age reversal within each category of damage and corresponding repair chemical reactions.

Decreasing damage rate for DNA is such things such as decreasing toxic exposure, avoiding alcohol, avoiding smoking, avoiding pollution or filtering it out, and decreasing sun exposure (while also finding ways to get the maximum benefits such as increased energy production in cell mitochondria, Vitamin-D synthesis, improved circadian rhythm, and improved mood hormonal regulation that would normally be received from the sun).

Increasing repair rate is also straight forward. We look at all the chemicals involved in the repair process (such as we do with each repair process and corresponding damage type) and we increase the quantity of those chemicals, while ALSO increasing the energy supplied for those chemical reactions.

So DNA Repair: NAD, ZINC, IRON, TTQ, FAD.
You can get these though food, but NAD is the molecule that's primarily used up and is the bottle neck in the process so supplementing should be done. NMN is heavily marketed online, and many guru's fall for this. NMN is effective for boosting NAD levels, but Niacin is a much cheaper option. If you take the more expensive option, you are throwing money in the drain that could have been used for other lookmaxing endeavors. Ensure to avoid slow release niacin. That specific form of niacin will cause problems.

Great, we increased the chemical part of the repair equation. The second half of the equation is increasing energy production. Energy is charged ions consumed as part of food. The food comes from plants, or animals, and animals eat plants. So when you trace it all back, all of the ion charging was done by the sun originally. It is the source of all energy.

So when we are thinking about the energy side of the equation, we need to realize it all comes from light. Now we could eat more food, to speed up the energy part of the equation, but that's also causing more metabolic damage in the process. For many foods (you need to research every food), the damage is minimal and you can scale up the repair process by increasing metabolic rate (exercise/cold exposure/etc.) while increasing food consumption (not so much you get fat, because that acerates aging, and avoiding blood sugar spikes with plenty of fiber, and the right nutrient dense foods that cause minimal damage). People have written books are this subject. I recommend the book, "how not to die."

That's all well and good. But what if there was a perfectly clean way to increase energy for repair mechanisms on-top of this, that caused no metabolic damage? Sound too good to be true?

We skip the food process entirely and deliver energy directly to the mitochondria of the cell. We can charge up the ions in the mitochondria directly with red spectrum light. While this only effects the area that the light is hitting, and only to the depth it is capable of hitting (Longer wavelengths have greater penetration), it does free up energy that can then be used for other more deeper repair processes.

Think about it. Even if your in a fasted state, and your body is pumping keytones through your bloodstream rather than glucose or fructose, there's only so much energy that can be delivered so quickly. This is why fat loss tends to cap off at around one pound a day, when doing long term fasting.

But if you deliverer more energy to the body in the form of red spectrum light, you get more repair. When it comes to this, from my knowledge so far, you want to maximize irradiance, surface area, and duration while not causing damage to yourself.

Now you can get this from the sun, especially during the morning and evening. Long wavelengths have deeper penetration, both to your body and the earth's atmosphere. Which means in the early morning and evening when the suns rays have to penetrate much more atmosphere to get to you, many more short wavelengths are filtered out and you get more long wave lengths. Short Wave lengths such as UVB cause DNA damage. Not a big problem because you're body can repair it, but you don't want to waste metabolic energy on repair that you don't have too, because that's energy that won't be used for other repair processes leading to overall faster biological aging.

So that brings us right back to red light devices. We want to penetrate the maximum depth into our body, so again we want very long wave lengths. So near infrared is ideal (950nm - 1050 nm) for penetration but then again the total charge is going to be lower, so combining that with an infrared and red spectrum, and maximizing irradiance is ideal. You just don't want any light with less than 600 nm wavelengths because those short wave lengths will cause DNA damage.

If you charge up certain ions in the body too much, you get all kinds of aging damage. So there's more research you may want to do if you are thinking about being under red light all day or using extremely powerful devices.

So breaking down the damage, and repair processes into their component parts, we've found a complete wholistic solution for DNA repair. Do this, for each type of damage and you age in reverse.

Fasting and IGF-1

There's a lot of disinformation online about fasting and it's effect on aging. Longer fasts will slow or reverse aging by shifting metabolic resources (energy, organ functions, etc.) from the breakdown and processing of food towards repair.

This is why in all animals studies the animals that did fasting live considerable longer, and are healthier in old age. The problem is with how some researchers and scientists convert this to apply to humans.

You HAVE to adjust for metabolic rate. A mouse fasting for a day is a human fasting for a week or two. You're not going to get significant anti-aging effects with time restricted eating. All your going to do in that case is spike and crash your blood sugar which could result in increased aging damage by way of glycation.

You need to burn all the food in your stomach, a day or two (depends on how much fiber you ate and your metabolic rate), before you can start re-utilizing significant metabolic resources for repair. Also your body's ability to switch to these repair processes depends on a number of factors, which can be trained with regular fasting.

So how does IGF-1 play a role in all of this? IGF-1 and other hormones control to what degree the body is in repair or build mode. For optimal physic you want to toggle between full repair mode and full growth mode. Most body builders do a bulk/cut cycle for this.

Bulk/Fasting Cycles are more optimized for antiaging, and if you want to be immortal, this fasting three times a year for a couple weeks isn't going to cut it. You want to maximize repair, and minimize damage. Two weeks on, Two weeks off (as a rough ball park) is going to be optimal. During the transition time between metabolic processes, neither process is going to be optimal, and the sum effect of both processes is going to be less than toggling the processes while minimizing transition time. An example would be eating for one week, fasting for one week is going to be far better than eating for a day, fasting for a day in repeated cycles.

Food vs Supplements

For each of these repair processes we are increasing the chemicals within their required ratio ranges, required for the repair while increasing the total energy available for the chemical reactions to occur.

So we can get these chemicals from food or supplements, and absorb them through our digestive system or skin.

Because many of these chemical reactions require specific ratios, many of those ratios may not be known, nutrient rich food is the optimal method.

Supplements should only be used when it's clear the effect in the body was not the result of a placebo effect, and the data supporting this effect is not correlation data but the result of a controlled study. For example, Vitamin-E supplementation and multi-vitamin supplementation both lower expected life span when in taken in double blind placebo controlled studies.

These reason people take these supplement is because they are looking at population level correlation data. Its' what's called the "healthy user bias". Healthy people make different decisions than the average person, and sometimes those decisions are harmful to the healthy persons health, because most healthy people are doing what they have read or heard makes them healthy. This is why you can't take correlations or population data seriously.

But you also don't want to over generalize and never use supplements. Because that is also sub-optimal. Again, look for placebo-controlled double blinded studies.

Meditation

Stress converts energy from repair to fight or flight response. Like we do with everything else, when we shift metabolic energy from other unneeded processes towards repair, we get more repair, and reverse more biological aging. When this repair becomes greater than damage we age in reverse. Sustain this balance and we do not grow older.

Meditation lowers overall-stress which shifts the balance from fight or flight to repair. This is why meditation measurably increases telomere length and other signs of aging. Twenty minutes a day is effective. You can combine it with redlight therapy.

One way meditation shifts this energy balance is by improving sleep quality which improves repair capacity.

Another is that meditation trains your limbic system to automatically do slow deep breaths. These fuller breaths deliver more oxygen to your blood stream. This oxygen is then used to carry away used up ions, after the cells mitochondria has drained them of energy. This is why oxygen intake is a bottleneck for metabolism, and ALL of the energy that that metabolism uses for repair.

So oxygen intake is a bottleneck for antiaging. This is why oxygen therapy is used and slows down aging, and some people sleep in hyperbaric oxygen chambers every night.

The ultimate anti-aging setup might be breathing straight oxygen, all day long from oxygen tanks while exposed to full infrared and near infrared light spectrum at a very high irradiance from all angles (wearing eye protection).

Other things such as avoiding or having minimal exposure to information systems that put your body into states of anger/fear/fight or flight even on a small subtle level.

What's Possible?

Once you understand this paradigm you can begin optimizing each part of the equation one by one. You may think of technological or methodological solutions that take things further than these small examples here.

Li Ching-Yuen was able to make it 250, with far less knowledge and technology than we have today. There were many witnesses and documents confirming this. Much of what he learned, he learned from a much older man who was over 500 when he met him. There were other reports of much older individuals throughout history. While these could all be hoaxes, hopefully you see that with a greater understanding of chemistry, these may not be hoaxes.

Buy why aren't more people regularly living past 120? Look at the people that live to 120. Many of them are doctors or nutritionists, and they are smart but they're not that smart. They are not optimizing this equation fully. Look at the smartest people, scientists, and influencers advocating for various anti-aging strategies. They're all idiots. No one is optimizing anything.

There is nothing in any of these repair mechanisms that requires specific genetics, while some genes may increase the default rate of the repair mechanisms, as you can see, you can easily increase them in other ways.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Love it
  • JFL
Reactions: niggersodomizer69, n9wiff, silencio and 6 others
Muh meat, cholesterol bad thread, eat muh sprayed leaves. No attention pill
 
  • +1
Reactions: IAMNOTANINCEL, Eren, Manana and 5 others
Muh meat, cholesterol bad thread, eat muh sprayed leaves. No attention pill

Cholesterol binds to the sides of your veins. That calcifies and builds up over time, if you don't optimize your bodies abilities to clean it out. That's not my fault, it's physics.

I never said meat bad. I eat meat. But if you eat all meat or mostly meat, you are going to die before you hit 80. Probably in your 60s or 70s, as most carnivores do.
 
  • JFL
  • Hmm...
Reactions: russiancelreturns, mvp2v1 and BrahminBoss
Fasting is COPE, and doing it longtime is damaging you BODY
 
  • +1
Reactions: IAMNOTANINCEL, Youㅤ and Maalik
Cholesterol binds to the sides of your veins form oxidative stress that has nothing to do with healthy animal fat consumption. The other inflammatory factors like Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) from sugar when it interacts with proteins AND FATS, fats and cholesterol itself isn’t the cause of heart disease. Our cholesterol intake used to be waaaay higher back then and heart disease was quite rare.
IMG 2120
 
  • +1
Reactions: mvp2v1
What makes you believe this?
Common sense And logic thinking

No discussion, if you don"t believe me then go fast for weeks (to age a 0.00001 second less)
 
Cholesterol binds to the sides of your veins form oxidative stress that has nothing to do with healthy animal fat consumption. The other inflammatory factors like Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) from sugar when it interacts with proteins AND FATS, fats and cholesterol itself isn’t the cause of heart disease. Our cholesterol intake used to be waaaay higher back then and heart disease was quite rare.
View attachment 2847519
Right. Oxidative stress is minimized by consuming high levels of anti-oxidants. You want a wide range of different anti-oxidants which you can get from plants foods. The reason you want a variety is because anti-oxidants of the same type will sometimes bind to each-other and cause damage.

If you eat meat, chicken is going to be healthier than beef because chicken has a higher anti-oxidant level.

But if you are relying solely or primarily on meat consumption to ward off cholesterol binding, you are not consuming enough anti-oxidants per calorie, and are going to die in your 50s to 70s, most likely.

Our vegetable intake was also much higher, which would lead to higher anti-oxidant levels in the blood. Meaning more of the cholesterol would be prevented from binding to the sides of the veins.

Another option if you really don't want to eat vegetables, is potentially to eat lots of chicken liver. If you can digest that much liver.

So ORAC Value quantifies anti-oxidant capacity of different foods, if you're looking up any foods.

Another thing you can do, if you really want to eat all or mostly meat is to put high amounts of high ORAC flavorings such as Turmeric, Cinnamon, and Oregano, on your meat.

Common sense And logic thinking

No discussion, if you don"t believe me then go fast for weeks (to age a 0.00001 second less)
I've done many weeks fasting, and feel and look much younger.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Donkeyballs
I've done many weeks fasting, and look much and feel younger.
Looll, aging is not a two weeks noticable effect

You will see the real noticable effects after 5+ years
 
Looll, aging is not a two weeks noticable effect

You will see the real noticable effects after 5+ years
Yes, I've done many multi week fasts for many years. And no, it doesn't take 5+ years to notice anti-aging/aging effects. Models have to be re-assessed every six months to see if they've aged out of the profession. If you are aging forward at a normal pace, you will notice a difference in six months, if you are aging backwards you can notice a difference in one day, such as after a fast when your growth hormones and stem cell levels are high and your skin and other tissues are rebuilt.

Look at Jared Leto, who has done multi-week fasts.

I don't think you could find me any example of some one who does regular multi-week fasts, that doesn't look good for their age.

Fasting increases life span in all animals. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to humans.
 
Li Ching-Yuen's case is far from being proved as true but either way it's interesting putting these into action during decades and see the effect. I personally don't believe in living past a century and a half without technological involvements
 
  • +1
Reactions: noodlelover
Li Ching-Yuen's case is far from being proved as true but either way it's interesting putting these into action during decades and see the effect. I personally don't believe in living past a century and a half without technological involvements
Maybe but technological advancements are inevitable in that time period.

The next computing paradigm, neuromorphic computing will decrease energy costs for computation by another 1000x. That means another 1000x computing for ai, for the same costs.

With more computing and some minor algorithmic tweaks, models can scale up to super human level. It's likely that super-human level Ai is coming in the next few decades. This will be able to create huge technological advancements.

Also technology and aging science is advancing rapidly already, even without super-human Ai. We're understanding the process better, and better, down to the molecular level, meaning Ai will be able to simulate it, and run experiments in simulation.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lucid and Debetro
most Vegetables are poopy, their nutrimental value have significantly decreased over the years and 99% of peoples problem with Atherosclerosis and CVD has really not much to do wtih cholesterol but oxidative stress and its factors I mentioned like AGE's and chemicals, PUFAs primarily because of lipid peroxidation. You should be talking about that but you didnt even mention that.
From meat you are going to get all your essential vitamins like vitamin a and I do eat liver.
But I do agree with what you responded
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: IAMNOTANINCEL, AySab and mvp2v1
Many centenarians eat a diet based on mostly animal products. People who live in Sardinia are mostly fish and eat cheese with maggots on them and live around 90 years. The japanese and koreans consume a lot of fish too and live a lot. The jews want you to eat oatmeal and vegetables so you starve and get cucked by big pharma
 
  • +1
Reactions: mvp2v1
Many centenarians eat a diet based on mostly animal products.
I would love to see a single example of any centenarian that eats a diet based on mostly animal products.
People who live in Sardinia are mostly fish and eat cheese with maggots on them and live around 90 years.
I assume you are talking about the area of Sardinia that's one of the five blue zones, areas of the world with a high number of long lived people.


From the paper "The specific Longevity Blue Zone in Sardinia is located in the mountainous regions in the Ogliastra province, where they typically work in farms [5]. Isolated by the mountains (Fig. 1), the people of this LBZ have maintained a traditional, pastoral lifestyle and consume locally produced food products".

So this is a mountainous farming community, not a fishing community.

The japanese and koreans consume a lot of fish too and live a lot.
Okinowa, Japan is another Blue zone with a high percentage of centenarians. They eat a lot of soybeans, and vegetables as well. They eat some fish, but I'd have to see some evidence if your claim here is that they eat "mostly" fish.

As far as Korea, there are not any areas in Korea with a high percentage of centenarians.

An issue with fish specifically is the oceans now are the world's sewers. It's where the world dumps all it's trash and chemicals. You're basically eating bags of mercury if you eat fish now. You will get at least low levels of mercury poisoning even from eating fish once a week.

The jews want you to eat oatmeal and vegetables so you starve and get cucked by big pharma
I use to believe something along this line, that it was a disinformation campaign. Maybe not specifically from "the Jews". Those who are pushing Veganism as optimal health, are pushing propaganda. I'm saying from all of the evidence, that omnivores that eat mostly plants live the longest.

It's what you see with every single centenarian.

This is an amazing set of videos where he looks at nutrition "experts" over the past century and at what age they died. You'll start to see a pattern form. "experts" who eat mostly meat die somewhere between 50s and 70s. Vegetarians outlive those carnivores. And Omnivores who eat mostly plants but some meat outlive the vegetarians.

Eggs, Chicken, and possible Liver if you can stomach it are the healthiest forms of meat imho now, that are easily available in the United States. Other countries have more organ meats, which are better.





 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: mvp2v1
I would love to see a single example of any centenarian that eats a diet based on mostly animal products.
There's Emma Morano who lived 117 years and ate 3 raw eggs a day and mostly meat.
So this is a mountainous farming community, not a fishing community.
It depends on the area, I live on the coast and we eat more fish then meat, I'd say that 80% of our diet is based on animal products.
Okinowa, Japan is another Blue zone with a high percentage of centenarians. They eat a lot of soybeans, and vegetables as well. They eat some fish, but I'd have to see some evidence if your claim here is that they eat "mostly" fish.
Yes but that's a diet that they adopted after WWII when they were poor, they used to eat a lot of pork before.
An issue with fish specifically is the oceans now are the world's sewers. It's where the world dumps all it's trash and chemicals. You're basically eating bags of mercury if you eat fish now. You will get at least low levels of mercury poisoning even from eating fish once a week.
That's true but there are certain areas that are basically unpolluted and the fish it's safe to consume
This is an amazing set of videos where he looks at nutrition "experts" over the past century and at what age they died. You'll start to see a pattern form. "experts" who eat mostly meat die somewhere between 50s and 70s. Vegetarians outlive those carnivores. And Omnivores who eat mostly plans but some meat outlive the vegetarians.
I doubt that the vegetarians outlived the carnivores, it's very difficult to get certain aminoacids and vitamins like B-12 with a plant based diet due to the low bioavailbility of those nutrients in the plant form. There are also antinutrients like oxalates that bind to minerals and prevent you from absorbing them.
 
dietary cholesterol has next to no influence on serum cholesterol and cholesterol should be thougttt of as a worker that tries to repair existing damage not the cause of artherosclerosis. Cholesterol is a potent anti inflammatory molecule
 
  • +1
Reactions: russiancelreturns, Youㅤ, Maalik and 1 other person
dietary cholesterol has next to no influence on serum cholesterol and cholesterol should be thougttt of as a worker that tries to repair existing damage not the cause of artherosclerosis. Cholesterol is a potent anti inflammatory molecule
It could be that eating more meat means less anti-oxidants generally, so you get more plaque build up.

Either way, people who eat lots of meat get plaque and have heart issues which eventually kills them.
 
Meat contains collagen and amino acids the repairing blocks of the human body you stupid fucking asshole
 
  • +1
Reactions: mvp2v1
Fuck i should've fasted whole day instead of eating the goyslop pizza last second
 
  • +1
Reactions: noodlelover
There's Emma Morano who lived 117 years and ate 3 raw eggs a day and mostly meat.
I can't find any evidence that she ate mostly meat.
There's 78 calories in an egg. That's 238 calories of eggs a day.

On average, women need about 1,600 to 2,400 calories each day.
238 is not even half of 1,600

She says she eats 3 eggs a day and cookies, and that's all. Given there's a picture of her with a bowl of cookies. I'd guess most of her calories come from cookies.

Cookies can have ingredients like flour, cinnamon, and oat meal. Flour can have high levels of anti-oxidants as long as it's not white refined flour. Eggs have some anti-oxidants as well.

But another pattern I noticed with centenarians is consistency in what they eat. I suspect this is one of the most significant factors, in that the body gets good at using those ingredients (as long as you have a range of anti-oxidants and some other anti-aging things).

Eggs are a superfood, and have a ton of nutrition. They are one of the most important foods for brain health.
It depends on the area, I live on the coast and we eat more fish then meat, I'd say that 80% of our diet is based on animal products.
If you are talking about Sardinia, and you live on the coast then you are not living in the area of Sardinia known for having a high percentage of centenarians. That would be the a farming community deep in the mountains.
Yes but that's a diet that they adopted after WWII when they were poor, they used to eat a lot of pork before.
A lot of pork yes, but not necessarily mostly pork. They also ate lots of sweet potatoes.

That's true but there are certain areas that are basically unpolluted and the fish it's safe to consume
If there are unpolluted areas, then yes, this fish is good.
I doubt that the vegetarians outlived the carnivores, it's very difficult to get certain aminoacids and vitamins like B-12 with a plant based diet due to the low bioavailbility of those nutrients in the plant form. There are also antinutrients like oxalates that bind to minerals and prevent you from absorbing them.
I mean it's all list of people with publicly available death dates that you can fact check yourself.

But either way I'm not advocating for vegetarianism. When you cut a major whole food group, you are more likely to be deficient in something, and vegetarians are deficient in many things.

Meat contains collagen and amino acids the repairing blocks of the human body you stupid fucking asshole
So do vegetables you autistic retard.

It's not hard to get a complete amino acid profile. Rice and beans for example, are two foods that in combination give you every single amino acid. Vegetables have a ton of collagen.

Broccoli increases testosterone production. There's a reason why body builders eat chicken, rice, and broccoli.
 
I can't find any evidence that she ate mostly meat.
There's 78 calories in an egg. That's 238 calories of eggs a day.

On average, women need about 1,600 to 2,400 calories each day.
238 is not even half of 1,600

She says she eats 3 eggs a day and cookies, and that's all. Given there's a picture of her with a bowl of cookies. I'd guess most of her calories come from cookies.

Cookies can have ingredients like flour, cinnamon, and oat meal. Flour can have high levels of anti-oxidants as long as it's not white refined flour. Eggs have some anti-oxidants as well.

But another pattern I noticed with centenarians is consistency in what they eat. I suspect this is one of the most significant factors, in that the body gets good at using those ingredients (as long as you have a range of anti-oxidants and some other anti-aging things).

Eggs are a superfood, and have a ton of nutrition. They are one of the most important foods for brain health.

If you are talking about Sardinia, and you live on the coast then you are not living in the area of Sardinia known for having a high percentage of centenarians. That would be the a farming community deep in the mountains.

A lot of pork yes, but not necessarily mostly pork. They also ate lots of sweet potatoes.


If there are unpolluted areas, then yes, this fish is good.

I mean it's all list of people with publicly available death dates that you can fact check yourself.

But either way I'm not advocating for vegetarianism. When you cut a major whole food group, you are more likely to be deficient in something, and vegetarians are deficient in many things.


So do vegetables you autistic retard.

It's not hard to get a complete amino acid profile. Rice and beans for example, are two foods that in combination give you every single amino acid. Vegetables have a ton of collagen.

Broccoli increases testosterone production. There's a reason why body builders eat chicken, rice, and broccoli.
Veggies contain no calories barely any bioavailability, only good for when you’re sick and need to detox
 
Fuck i should've fasted whole day instead of eating the goyslop pizza last second
Yah... eating pizza will make your skin look like shit. Blood sugar spike and crash leads to glycation in the skin and other organs which is one type of aging. It also leads to inflammation. Pizza has a glycemic index of 80. But it's recoverable.

Veggies contain no calories barely any bioavailability, only good for when you’re sick and need to detox
Yah, which means you can eat a lot of them, and get a lot of good nutrition without going over your calorie budget.

As far as specific foods, it doesn't really matter what you eat, so much as it matters the quantities of specific nutrients, and toxins.

So things like, how much protein, fat, carbs are you eating, how much spermidine, vitamin C, other anti-oxidants, and so on. And how many toxins you're consuming. The liver can learn to filter out a lot of things, but not everything.

If you're eating meat, that's high in all the nutrients you need, then you're probably good. But the people who advocate for eating mostly or all meat keep dying of heart failure in their 50s to 70s, so getting sufficient anti-oxidants and whatever else the body needs to clear out blood vessels may be far more of a challenge eating all or mostly meat.

I wouldn't risk eating mostly meat, but that's just me. If you're going to do it, Berberine supplement has been shown to reduce atherosclerosis (the thing most heavy meat eaters die of directly or indirectly). As well as regular fasting, likely gives the body time to clear out the blood vessels. During a multi-day fast keytones is the only energy source flowing through your veins and that's associated with low levels of athelslocloresis. I don't even think keytones can cause it.

We don't know everything about the human body. So you are safer from missing out on a vital nutrient to damage repair, when you eat a range of foods.
 
Our cholesterol intake used to be waaaay higher back then and heart disease was quite rare.
Maybe where you live that is true but I hear too many people say this and I am not sure where this notion stems from. I asked my grandparents what people used to eat and those motherfuckers back then were living almost entirely on grains
 
  • +1
Reactions: noodlelover
Cholesterol binds to the sides of your veins. That calcifies and builds up over time, if you don't optimize your bodies abilities to clean it out. That's not my fault, it's physics.

I never said meat bad. I eat meat. But if you eat all meat or mostly meat, you are going to die before you hit 80. Probably in your 60s or 70s, as most carnivores do.
4 words: Lean mass hyper responders
 
The responses here were surprisingly based
 
  • +1
Reactions: AySab
4 words: Lean mass hyper responders
what about them? There has been good but not sufficient evidence to think that their high ldl levels don't contribute to plaque as much as it was assumed previously. Why would you be carnovore when it has next to no benefits in most people (there are obviously exceptions) but comes with a possible elevation in cardiovascular disease risk. Carnivores play this weird character acting as if eating factory farmed animals is masculine in some way while having a 100shbg
 
The responses here were surprisingly based
They were pretty ignorant given plant based diets are higher in anti-oxidants, and oxidation is one of the primary causes of aging.

They also didn't address any main points, the only things they could understand was their tribalistic "vegan" vs "meat eater" primitive brain thinking.

The point was not that, it was systems thinking, and having a clear picture of what's going on. But instead as a response you get monkies flinging poo at each other because "they're team is better".

Every point I made completely flew over every one's head, which is why I left this website in the first place. It wasn't talking to humans with the capacity for even basic clear thought, but biological hardware that were little more than vectors for memetic transmission.

Nobody fucking reads studies on this website. Not even in "best of the best" section. They read headlines, and skim, mindlessly trusting mid IQ scientists, and broken methodologies.

Not a single person, addressed what I was proposing which was to consider the chemical reactions of different foods and supplements, rather than this higher order correlation thinking (that dominates main stream academia), or worse tribalistic thinking.

I can't do the thinking for everyone. But there were blind spots in my response as well, such as mistaking anti-oxidants as this single measurable variable, rather than recognizing that their synergistic effects are going to be different depending on exactly what anti-oxidants you have and what their ratio's are in combination with each other and other chemical compounds.

It would be nice if there were other thinking people here that could fill in my blind spots. But when I came back I decided it wasn't for this. I was going to treat it like how programmers will explain their problem out-loud to a chair or a wall, and it helps clarify their own thoughts so that they can make better decisions and fix the problem. The chair is unthinking but it acts as a kind of catalyst for thought in the programmer. In this scenario, the forum is the chair. So there's some use.
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: mvp2v1
They were pretty ignorant given plant based diets are higher in anti-oxidants, and oxidation is one of the primary causes of aging.

They also didn't address any main points, the only things they could understand was their tribalistic "vegan" vs "meat eater" primitive brain thinking.

The point was not that, it was systems thinking, and having a clear picture of what's going on. But instead as a response you get monkies flinging poo at each other because "they're team is better".

Every point I made completely flew over every one's head, which is why I left this website in the first place. It wasn't talking to humans with the capacity for even basic clear thought, but biological hardware that were little more than vectors for memetic transmission.

Nobody fucking reads studies on this website. Not even in "best of the best" section. They read headlines, and skim, mindlessly trusting mid IQ scientists, and broken methodologies.

Not a single person, addressed what I was proposing which was to consider the chemical reactions of different foods and supplements, rather than this higher order correlation thinking (that dominates main stream academia), or worse tribalistic thinking.

I can't do the thinking for everyone. But there were blind spots in my response as well, such as mistaking anti-oxidants as this single measurable variable, rather than recognizing that their synergistic effects are going to be different depending on exactly what anti-oxidants you have and what their ratio's are in combination with each other and other chemical compounds.

It would be nice if there were other thinking people here that could fill in my blind spots. But when I came back I decided it wasn't for this. I was going to treat it like how programmers will explain their problem out-loud to a chair or a wall, and it helps clarify their own thoughts so that they can make better decisions and fix the problem. The chair is unthinking but it acts as a kind of catalyst for thought in the programmer. In this scenario, the forum is the chair. So there's some use.
IMG 2126
1712673768439
 
  • +1
Reactions: mvp2v1
I can't find any evidence that she ate mostly meat.
There's 78 calories in an egg. That's 238 calories of eggs a day.

On average, women need about 1,600 to 2,400 calories each day.
238 is not even half of 1,600

She says she eats 3 eggs a day and cookies, and that's all. Given there's a picture of her with a bowl of cookies. I'd guess most of her calories come from cookies.

Cookies can have ingredients like flour, cinnamon, and oat meal. Flour can have high levels of anti-oxidants as long as it's not white refined flour. Eggs have some anti-oxidants as well.

But another pattern I noticed with centenarians is consistency in what they eat. I suspect this is one of the most significant factors, in that the body gets good at using those ingredients (as long as you have a range of anti-oxidants and some other anti-aging things).

Eggs are a superfood, and have a ton of nutrition. They are one of the most important foods for brain health.
She ate eggs and minced beef everyday and cookies as a snack, how can you say most of her calories come from cookies.
If you are talking about Sardinia, and you live on the coast then you are not living in the area of Sardinia known for having a high percentage of centenarians. That would be the a farming community deep in the mountains.
the farming community there drinks raw goat milk, cheese and meat so they eat an animal based diet with some vegetables an fruit. The only difference with the coast is that we eat more fish.
A lot of pork yes, but not necessarily mostly pork. They also ate lots of sweet potatoes.
yeah they didn't eat just meat or just vegetables but again, most of their calories came from animals
Broccoli increases testosterone production. There's a reason why body builders eat chicken, rice, and broccoli.
Bodybuilders eat trenbolone sandwiches they can even eat a diet of cookies and milk like Sam Sulek, they will gain muscle cause they are roided up.
 
Broccoli increases testosterone production. There's a reason why body builders eat chicken, rice, and broccoli.
Ahh yess, a 5-10% higher T from brocoli will surely make you build muscle much much faster

Kys retard
 
  • JFL
Reactions: tigrxs, Youㅤ and noodlelover
Ahh yess, a 5-10% higher T from brocoli will surely make you build muscle much much faster

Kys retard
Did I hurt your feelings? Are you going to cry?

If your goal is steroids, that's not anti-aging. I will be glad to see you die of an enlarged heart. You don't have to do steroids to be a bodybuilder. Only if you're competing.

She ate eggs and minced beef everyday and cookies as a snack, how can you say most of her calories come from cookies.
I didn't find any articles claiming she at minced beef everyday. Do you have a source for this?

I only found articles saying she ate three eggs a day and cookies everday, and a picture of her with a bowl of cookies. Three eggs is again, only 238 calories. I saw something about her eating minced beet occasionally, but not everyday.

Also if she is running on very low total calories, that's going to help her blood vessels stay clear. But it's not optimal from a looksmaxing perspective.

the farming community there drinks raw goat milk, cheese and meat so they eat an animal based diet with some vegetables an fruit. The only difference with the coast is that we eat more fish.
Any proof they eat mostly meat?
yeah they didn't eat just meat or just vegetables but again, most of their calories came from animals
Any proof of this?

Bodybuilders eat trenbolone sandwiches they can even eat a diet of cookies and milk like Sam Sulek, they will gain muscle cause they are roided up.
Sure.
 
what about them? There has been good but not sufficient evidence to think that their high ldl levels don't contribute to plaque as much as it was assumed previously. Why would you be carnovore when it has next to no benefits in most people (there are obviously exceptions) but comes with a possible elevation in cardiovascular disease risk. Carnivores play this weird character acting as if eating factory farmed animals is masculine in some way while having a 100shbg
Tell me your "with her" without telling me your "with her" :ROFLMAO:

Carnivores dont like factory-farmed animals retard.

Oh, and people here were talking about cholesterol goofy, I was mentioning that phenotype just as it relates to the discussion, I'm not even carnivore I prefer animal-based style.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Driler
They were pretty ignorant given plant based diets are higher in anti-oxidants, and oxidation is one of the primary causes of aging.

They also didn't address any main points, the only things they could understand was their tribalistic "vegan" vs "meat eater" primitive brain thinking.

The point was not that, it was systems thinking, and having a clear picture of what's going on. But instead as a response you get monkies flinging poo at each other because "they're team is better".

Every point I made completely flew over every one's head, which is why I left this website in the first place. It wasn't talking to humans with the capacity for even basic clear thought, but biological hardware that were little more than vectors for memetic transmission.

Nobody fucking reads studies on this website. Not even in "best of the best" section. They read headlines, and skim, mindlessly trusting mid IQ scientists, and broken methodologies.

Not a single person, addressed what I was proposing which was to consider the chemical reactions of different foods and supplements, rather than this higher order correlation thinking (that dominates main stream academia), or worse tribalistic thinking.

I can't do the thinking for everyone. But there were blind spots in my response as well, such as mistaking anti-oxidants as this single measurable variable, rather than recognizing that their synergistic effects are going to be different depending on exactly what anti-oxidants you have and what their ratio's are in combination with each other and other chemical compounds.

It would be nice if there were other thinking people here that could fill in my blind spots. But when I came back I decided it wasn't for this. I was going to treat it like how programmers will explain their problem out-loud to a chair or a wall, and it helps clarify their own thoughts so that they can make better decisions and fix the problem. The chair is unthinking but it acts as a kind of catalyst for thought in the programmer. In this scenario, the forum is the chair. So there's some use.
dnr
 
didn't find any articles claiming she at minced beef everyday. Do you have a source for this?

I only found articles saying she ate three eggs a day and cookies everday, and a picture of her with a bowl of cookies. Three eggs is again, only 238 calories. I saw something about her eating minced beet occasionally, but not everyday.

Also if she is running on very low total calories, that's going to help her blood vessels stay clear. But it's not optimal from a looksmaxing perspective.
Oh I only read italian articles about her like this one:

Yeah caloric restriction is good for aging.
Any proof they eat mostly meat?
In the hinterland there's a lot of pork and lamb being farmed, and they eat that as their main source of protein.
Any proof of this?
That's the diet that they used to have before WWII, they used to eat pork from head to toe and that's whhere they got most of their calories along with fish:
 
I would love to see a single example of any centenarian that eats a diet based on mostly animal products.

I assume you are talking about the area of Sardinia that's one of the five blue zones, areas of the world with a high number of long lived people.


From the paper "The specific Longevity Blue Zone in Sardinia is located in the mountainous regions in the Ogliastra province, where they typically work in farms [5]. Isolated by the mountains (Fig. 1), the people of this LBZ have maintained a traditional, pastoral lifestyle and consume locally produced food products".

So this is a mountainous farming community, not a fishing community.


Okinowa, Japan is another Blue zone with a high percentage of centenarians. They eat a lot of soybeans, and vegetables as well. They eat some fish, but I'd have to see some evidence if your claim here is that they eat "mostly" fish.

As far as Korea, there are not any areas in Korea with a high percentage of centenarians.

An issue with fish specifically is the oceans now are the world's sewers. It's where the world dumps all it's trash and chemicals. You're basically eating bags of mercury if you eat fish now. You will get at least low levels of mercury poisoning even from eating fish once a week.


I use to believe something along this line, that it was a disinformation campaign. Maybe not specifically from "the Jews". Those who are pushing Veganism as optimal health, are pushing propaganda. I'm saying from all of the evidence, that omnivores that eat mostly plants live the longest.

It's what you see with every single centenarian.

This is an amazing set of videos where he looks at nutrition "experts" over the past century and at what age they died. You'll start to see a pattern form. "experts" who eat mostly meat die somewhere between 50s and 70s. Vegetarians outlive those carnivores. And Omnivores who eat mostly plants but some meat outlive the vegetarians.

Eggs, Chicken, and possible Liver if you can stomach it are the healthiest forms of meat imho now, that are easily available in the United States. Other countries have more organ meats, which are better.







You’re extremely based
 
  • +1
Reactions: noodlelover
Tell me your "with her" without telling me your "with her" :ROFLMAO:
I don't understand this part
Carnivores dont like factory-farmed animals retard
I have heard plenty of carnivores talk about how the most processed ham is still better then "peasant food" aka anything not meat. I was talking generally and didn't intend to put you in that category so I apologies if it came across that way
Oh, and people here were talking about cholesterol goofy, I was mentioning that phenotype just as it relates to the discussion, I'm not even carnivore I prefer animal-based style.
Yes and I struggle to see how it relates to the forgoing discussion
 
  • +1
Reactions: mvp2v1
Oh I only read italian articles about her like this one:

So I'm seeing that according to her doctor,

She consistently ate three eggs a day, and lots of biscuits.

When her doctor met her, she ate mostly meat and cheese, but that's not necessarily what she ate for most of her life, and isn't what she ate at the time different articles were written about her. Because I see other articles saying all she ate everyday is three eggs and cookies.

The only consistent thing is the three eggs a day. I would guess her cookies and biscuits are whole grains but I don't know.


In the hinterland there's a lot of pork and lamb being farmed, and they eat that as their main source of protein.

That's the diet that they used to have before WWII, they used to eat pork from head to toe and that's whhere they got most of their calories along with fish:
So, a few things. I'm not seeing anywhere in this article that it's saying they ate mostly pork, or meat. They did eat "a lot" of pig, whatever that means, but they also ate "a lot" of sweet potatoes.

Animal cholesterol + Oxidation, results in atherosclerosis. Anti-oxidants can help prevent this, but meat (by at least some studies) is extremely low in anti-oxidant capacity compared to vegetables. Herbs and Spices are highest in anti-oxidants.

It's possible that most of their calories were sweet potatoes and vegetables, and that nullified the negative effects of high pork consumption.

Also they ate the entire pig, including all the organs. At least in the U.S., there's very limited things you can buy as far as cuts of meat. Basically the only organ meat you can easily get is liver. So getting all of the organs of a pig, is basically impossible. This is important because the organs, are the most nutrient dense part of the animal.


As far as how how much anti-oxidants different kinds of meat have compared to vegetables, and how well those anti-oxidants work in the body, I'm seeing conflicting information online. So I'm going to have to do more research on anti-oxidants.
 
Animal cholesterol + Oxidation, results in atherosclerosis. Anti-oxidants can help prevent this, but meat (by at least some studies) is extremely low in anti-oxidant capacity compared to vegetables. Herbs and Spices are highest in anti-oxidants.
Oxidation occurs in many chemical reactions like the kreb cycle or glycolysis to produce ATP for energy, that's why every cells has glutathione which acts as an antioxidant. If you eat a lot of refined carbs, processed food and seed oils you will get a lot of oxidative stress that glutathione alone can't handle so yes vegetables might be useful in that case to get vitamin E, C and selenium. The issue is with those unhealthy foods.
As far as how how much anti-oxidants different kinds of meat have compared to vegetables, and how well those anti-oxidants work in the body, I'm seeing conflicting information online. So I'm going to have to do more research on anti-oxidants.
Meat has a lot of glutathione, vegetables have vitamin E, C and selenium. I'm not sure about spices and herbs too there's not much evidence
 
Why not publish this in some academic journal you might ask? The answer is simple, I have no relevant credentials.
Sorry bro but I don’t think that’s the reason why this wouldn’t make it into an academic journal

it’s an extreme and crude oversimplification, and doesn’t really support/explain much

please listen to the experts, and cite your sources next time
 
Last edited:
insane thread :feelsokman:
 
I'm going to propose a new theory of biological age reversal here.

Why not publish this in some academic journal you might ask? The answer is simple, I have no relevant credentials.

So let's start with the basics:
  • Aging is Damage
  • Repair Damage faster than damage occurs, and your biological age decreases.
There are various kinds of damage, such as glycation, DNA mutation, and oxidation.
For every type of damage, the human body has evolved one or more repair mechanisms.

Both the damage and the repair mechanisms are chemical reactions. A chemical reaction requires energy and specific chemicals to occur.

So it’s simple, increase the rate of repair, and decrease the rate of damage, for each type of damage, and corresponding repair chemical reactions, to the point where repair becomes greater than damage and you get full biological age reversal.

So how can you do this?

Again, not that complicated at least at a high level. You want to decrease the quantity of chemicals involved in the damage process, decrease the energy involved in the damage process, while increasing the quantity of chemicals involved in the repair process (with their required proportions for repair chemical reactions), while also increasing the energy available for the repair processes.

Let's look at a couple examples, of damage chemical reactions, and the evolved repair chemical reactions and interventions to increase the rate of repair, while decreasing the rate of damage.

Atherosclerosis

Atherosclerosis is the build up of fat cholesterol and other substances on the vein walls. These then they break off and clog your heart valves and you die, or break off and get stuck in a vein in your brain and a big chunk of your brain dies.

Once you understand this as a mechanical thing, you realize that each type of damage, and damage repair is relatively simple.

Every now and then you'll read papers or here doctors and scientists say that this is an irreversible process and all you can do slow the pace. Doctor's and scientists are ignorant, so you need to do more digging and not take anything they say as gospel.

But ok, we want to reverse this type of aging damage.

First we decrease rate of damage. This can be done by decreasing the consumption and absorption of chemicals that get stuck to the exterior of our veins. We don't have to get these chemicals down to zero, we only have to decrease them and increase the rate of repair until repair rate is greater than damage rate.

So high level, easy, we decrease meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption (this alone reverses atherosclerosis), and supplement with berberine (also reverses atherosclerosis).

What is the appropriate balance? We can look at diets of long lived people, and people who die of heart attacks, and see getting the balance isn't that hard. Eating mostly vegetables, and some meat and you'll be fine for atherosclerosis. Throw in some berberine supplementation, and periodic fasting, and your blood vessels will be clean.

Berberine alone as an intervention has been shown to decrease atherosclerosis, and post world war two concentration camp victims were shown to have COMPLETELY clear arteries and blood vessels right after the war. Later on, there atherosclerosis reformed. What this means is that the human body possesses the repair mechanisms to completely reverse all atherosclerosis. All we have to do is fuel those mechanisms, while reducing rate of damage.

DNA Damage

Your body has repair processes for DNA damage.

So again, we want to increase repair rate, and decrease damage rate, so that damage is greater than repair, and then we get biological age reversal within each category of damage and corresponding repair chemical reactions.

Decreasing damage rate for DNA is such things such as decreasing toxic exposure, avoiding alcohol, avoiding smoking, avoiding pollution or filtering it out, and decreasing sun exposure (while also finding ways to get the maximum benefits such as increased energy production in cell mitochondria, Vitamin-D synthesis, improved circadian rhythm, and improved mood hormonal regulation that would normally be received from the sun).

Increasing repair rate is also straight forward. We look at all the chemicals involved in the repair process (such as we do with each repair process and corresponding damage type) and we increase the quantity of those chemicals, while ALSO increasing the energy supplied for those chemical reactions.

So DNA Repair: NAD, ZINC, IRON, TTQ, FAD.
You can get these though food, but NAD is the molecule that's primarily used up and is the bottle neck in the process so supplementing should be done. NMN is heavily marketed online, and many guru's fall for this. NMN is effective for boosting NAD levels, but Niacin is a much cheaper option. If you take the more expensive option, you are throwing money in the drain that could have been used for other lookmaxing endeavors. Ensure to avoid slow release niacin. That specific form of niacin will cause problems.

Great, we increased the chemical part of the repair equation. The second half of the equation is increasing energy production. Energy is charged ions consumed as part of food. The food comes from plants, or animals, and animals eat plants. So when you trace it all back, all of the ion charging was done by the sun originally. It is the source of all energy.

So when we are thinking about the energy side of the equation, we need to realize it all comes from light. Now we could eat more food, to speed up the energy part of the equation, but that's also causing more metabolic damage in the process. For many foods (you need to research every food), the damage is minimal and you can scale up the repair process by increasing metabolic rate (exercise/cold exposure/etc.) while increasing food consumption (not so much you get fat, because that acerates aging, and avoiding blood sugar spikes with plenty of fiber, and the right nutrient dense foods that cause minimal damage). People have written books are this subject. I recommend the book, "how not to die."

That's all well and good. But what if there was a perfectly clean way to increase energy for repair mechanisms on-top of this, that caused no metabolic damage? Sound too good to be true?

We skip the food process entirely and deliver energy directly to the mitochondria of the cell. We can charge up the ions in the mitochondria directly with red spectrum light. While this only effects the area that the light is hitting, and only to the depth it is capable of hitting (Longer wavelengths have greater penetration), it does free up energy that can then be used for other more deeper repair processes.

Think about it. Even if your in a fasted state, and your body is pumping keytones through your bloodstream rather than glucose or fructose, there's only so much energy that can be delivered so quickly. This is why fat loss tends to cap off at around one pound a day, when doing long term fasting.

But if you deliverer more energy to the body in the form of red spectrum light, you get more repair. When it comes to this, from my knowledge so far, you want to maximize irradiance, surface area, and duration while not causing damage to yourself.

Now you can get this from the sun, especially during the morning and evening. Long wavelengths have deeper penetration, both to your body and the earth's atmosphere. Which means in the early morning and evening when the suns rays have to penetrate much more atmosphere to get to you, many more short wavelengths are filtered out and you get more long wave lengths. Short Wave lengths such as UVB cause DNA damage. Not a big problem because you're body can repair it, but you don't want to waste metabolic energy on repair that you don't have too, because that's energy that won't be used for other repair processes leading to overall faster biological aging.

So that brings us right back to red light devices. We want to penetrate the maximum depth into our body, so again we want very long wave lengths. So near infrared is ideal (950nm - 1050 nm) for penetration but then again the total charge is going to be lower, so combining that with an infrared and red spectrum, and maximizing irradiance is ideal. You just don't want any light with less than 600 nm wavelengths because those short wave lengths will cause DNA damage.

If you charge up certain ions in the body too much, you get all kinds of aging damage. So there's more research you may want to do if you are thinking about being under red light all day or using extremely powerful devices.

So breaking down the damage, and repair processes into their component parts, we've found a complete wholistic solution for DNA repair. Do this, for each type of damage and you age in reverse.

Fasting and IGF-1

There's a lot of disinformation online about fasting and it's effect on aging. Longer fasts will slow or reverse aging by shifting metabolic resources (energy, organ functions, etc.) from the breakdown and processing of food towards repair.

This is why in all animals studies the animals that did fasting live considerable longer, and are healthier in old age. The problem is with how some researchers and scientists convert this to apply to humans.

You HAVE to adjust for metabolic rate. A mouse fasting for a day is a human fasting for a week or two. You're not going to get significant anti-aging effects with time restricted eating. All your going to do in that case is spike and crash your blood sugar which could result in increased aging damage by way of glycation.

You need to burn all the food in your stomach, a day or two (depends on how much fiber you ate and your metabolic rate), before you can start re-utilizing significant metabolic resources for repair. Also your body's ability to switch to these repair processes depends on a number of factors, which can be trained with regular fasting.

So how does IGF-1 play a role in all of this? IGF-1 and other hormones control to what degree the body is in repair or build mode. For optimal physic you want to toggle between full repair mode and full growth mode. Most body builders do a bulk/cut cycle for this.

Bulk/Fasting Cycles are more optimized for antiaging, and if you want to be immortal, this fasting three times a year for a couple weeks isn't going to cut it. You want to maximize repair, and minimize damage. Two weeks on, Two weeks off (as a rough ball park) is going to be optimal. During the transition time between metabolic processes, neither process is going to be optimal, and the sum effect of both processes is going to be less than toggling the processes while minimizing transition time. An example would be eating for one week, fasting for one week is going to be far better than eating for a day, fasting for a day in repeated cycles.

Food vs Supplements

For each of these repair processes we are increasing the chemicals within their required ratio ranges, required for the repair while increasing the total energy available for the chemical reactions to occur.

So we can get these chemicals from food or supplements, and absorb them through our digestive system or skin.

Because many of these chemical reactions require specific ratios, many of those ratios may not be known, nutrient rich food is the optimal method.

Supplements should only be used when it's clear the effect in the body was not the result of a placebo effect, and the data supporting this effect is not correlation data but the result of a controlled study. For example, Vitamin-E supplementation and multi-vitamin supplementation both lower expected life span when in taken in double blind placebo controlled studies.

These reason people take these supplement is because they are looking at population level correlation data. Its' what's called the "healthy user bias". Healthy people make different decisions than the average person, and sometimes those decisions are harmful to the healthy persons health, because most healthy people are doing what they have read or heard makes them healthy. This is why you can't take correlations or population data seriously.

But you also don't want to over generalize and never use supplements. Because that is also sub-optimal. Again, look for placebo-controlled double blinded studies.

Meditation

Stress converts energy from repair to fight or flight response. Like we do with everything else, when we shift metabolic energy from other unneeded processes towards repair, we get more repair, and reverse more biological aging. When this repair becomes greater than damage we age in reverse. Sustain this balance and we do not grow older.

Meditation lowers overall-stress which shifts the balance from fight or flight to repair. This is why meditation measurably increases telomere length and other signs of aging. Twenty minutes a day is effective. You can combine it with redlight therapy.

One way meditation shifts this energy balance is by improving sleep quality which improves repair capacity.

Another is that meditation trains your limbic system to automatically do slow deep breaths. These fuller breaths deliver more oxygen to your blood stream. This oxygen is then used to carry away used up ions, after the cells mitochondria has drained them of energy. This is why oxygen intake is a bottleneck for metabolism, and ALL of the energy that that metabolism uses for repair.

So oxygen intake is a bottleneck for antiaging. This is why oxygen therapy is used and slows down aging, and some people sleep in hyperbaric oxygen chambers every night.

The ultimate anti-aging setup might be breathing straight oxygen, all day long from oxygen tanks while exposed to full infrared and near infrared light spectrum at a very high irradiance from all angles (wearing eye protection).

Other things such as avoiding or having minimal exposure to information systems that put your body into states of anger/fear/fight or flight even on a small subtle level.

What's Possible?

Once you understand this paradigm you can begin optimizing each part of the equation one by one. You may think of technological or methodological solutions that take things further than these small examples here.

Li Ching-Yuen was able to make it 250, with far less knowledge and technology than we have today. There were many witnesses and documents confirming this. Much of what he learned, he learned from a much older man who was over 500 when he met him. There were other reports of much older individuals throughout history. While these could all be hoaxes, hopefully you see that with a greater understanding of chemistry, these may not be hoaxes.

Buy why aren't more people regularly living past 120? Look at the people that live to 120. Many of them are doctors or nutritionists, and they are smart but they're not that smart. They are not optimizing this equation fully. Look at the smartest people, scientists, and influencers advocating for various anti-aging strategies. They're all idiots. No one is optimizing anything.

There is nothing in any of these repair mechanisms that requires specific genetics, while some genes may increase the default rate of the repair mechanisms, as you can see, you can easily increase them in other ways.
Who cares about anti aging for longevity? This is a looksmax forum we want anti aging LOOKS. This won’t make you look younger but it’s good for living longer
 
Who cares about anti aging for longevity? This is a looksmax forum we want anti aging LOOKS. This won’t make you look younger but it’s good for living longer
It's literally the same.

cell damage, is cell damage. If you are biologically younger (less cell damage) you also look biologically younger.
 
nice try , but this is incorrect . its also not a novel theory , this is the SENS perspective .

ageing is programmed . damage accumulation is the result of ageing not the cause .
 
nice try , but this is incorrect . its also not a novel theory , this is the SENS perspective .
Sens does not agree with this statement "For every type of damage, the human body has evolved one or more repair mechanisms."

Which causes them to come up with more complex solutions than is absolutely required in some cases. But generally I think Sens is on the right track.

Sens also doesn't think in terms of minimizing total damage, at all. They just take it for granted that damage occurs as part of metabolism, and try to repair it. Which eventually will work, but people could be immortal long before we have all this technology, if they just minimize damage occurring while giving the body what it needs to repair itself.

ageing is programmed . damage accumulation is the result of ageing not the cause .
Yes and No.

There is evolutionary pressure for short lives on prey animals, and animals who live in uncertain and dangerous environments. This type of aging is programmed.


But take a Greenland shark, an animal that biologists consider to have negligible senescence (able to repair almost all of the damage), it still has a roughly maximum life span of 400 years. This is because the animal was too complex for evolution to have fully evolved repair mechanisms for every possible type of damage, that work given the animals available resources in it's environment, and quantity of damage accumulation. (Note that humans have some significant control over the last two variables)


But you don't see zero senescence unless the animal is very simple such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii (Jelly Fish), certain types of trees and other extremely simple organisms.

My theory here, is that humans have all the repair mechanisms but because of our complexity, we need bigger amounts of very rare resources, from around the world for our repair mechanisms to operate at full capacity, and we need times when we are mostly sheltered from damage (Similar to the naked mole rat's hibernation/restorative phases), as well as minimization of damage to achieve zero and negative senesce.

We also need a certain amount of damage to occur, otherwise our repair mechanisms ramp down, so we can't completely zero out every type of damage, a hundred percent of the time.

 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: Sny, Youㅤ and autistic_tendencies
I can't find any evidence that she ate mostly meat.
There's 78 calories in an egg. That's 238 calories of eggs a day.

On average, women need about 1,600 to 2,400 calories each day.
238 is not even half of 1,600

She says she eats 3 eggs a day and cookies, and that's all. Given there's a picture of her with a bowl of cookies. I'd guess most of her calories come from cookies.

Cookies can have ingredients like flour, cinnamon, and oat meal. Flour can have high levels of anti-oxidants as long as it's not white refined flour. Eggs have some anti-oxidants as well.

But another pattern I noticed with centenarians is consistency in what they eat. I suspect this is one of the most significant factors, in that the body gets good at using those ingredients (as long as you have a range of anti-oxidants and some other anti-aging things).

Eggs are a superfood, and have a ton of nutrition. They are one of the most important foods for brain health.

If you are talking about Sardinia, and you live on the coast then you are not living in the area of Sardinia known for having a high percentage of centenarians. That would be the a farming community deep in the mountains.

A lot of pork yes, but not necessarily mostly pork. They also ate lots of sweet potatoes.


If there are unpolluted areas, then yes, this fish is good.

I mean it's all list of people with publicly available death dates that you can fact check yourself.

But either way I'm not advocating for vegetarianism. When you cut a major whole food group, you are more likely to be deficient in something, and vegetarians are deficient in many things.


So do vegetables you autistic retard.

It's not hard to get a complete amino acid profile. Rice and beans for example, are two foods that in combination give you every single amino acid. Vegetables have a ton of collagen.

Broccoli increases testosterone production. There's a reason why body builders eat chicken, rice, and broccoli.
.org is the only place where people will argue in essays over scientific medical literature while simultaneously calling each other retards and joos. This place is pretty great.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EsteMog, Sny and autistic_tendencies
I'm going to propose a new theory of biological age reversal here.

Why not publish this in some academic journal you might ask? The answer is simple, I have no relevant credentials.

So let's start with the basics:
  • Aging is Damage
  • Repair Damage faster than damage occurs, and your biological age decreases.
There are various kinds of damage, such as glycation, DNA mutation, and oxidation.
For every type of damage, the human body has evolved one or more repair mechanisms.

Both the damage and the repair mechanisms are chemical reactions. A chemical reaction requires energy and specific chemicals to occur.

So it’s simple, increase the rate of repair, and decrease the rate of damage, for each type of damage, and corresponding repair chemical reactions, to the point where repair becomes greater than damage and you get full biological age reversal.

So how can you do this?

Again, not that complicated at least at a high level. You want to decrease the quantity of chemicals involved in the damage process, decrease the energy involved in the damage process, while increasing the quantity of chemicals involved in the repair process (with their required proportions for repair chemical reactions), while also increasing the energy available for the repair processes.

Let's look at a couple examples, of damage chemical reactions, and the evolved repair chemical reactions and interventions to increase the rate of repair, while decreasing the rate of damage.

Atherosclerosis

Atherosclerosis is the build up of fat cholesterol and other substances on the vein walls. These then they break off and clog your heart valves and you die, or break off and get stuck in a vein in your brain and a big chunk of your brain dies.

Once you understand this as a mechanical thing, you realize that each type of damage, and damage repair is relatively simple.

Every now and then you'll read papers or here doctors and scientists say that this is an irreversible process and all you can do slow the pace. Doctor's and scientists are ignorant, so you need to do more digging and not take anything they say as gospel.

But ok, we want to reverse this type of aging damage.

First we decrease rate of damage. This can be done by decreasing the consumption and absorption of chemicals that get stuck to the exterior of our veins. We don't have to get these chemicals down to zero, we only have to decrease them and increase the rate of repair until repair rate is greater than damage rate.

So high level, easy, we decrease meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption (this alone reverses atherosclerosis), and supplement with berberine (also reverses atherosclerosis).

What is the appropriate balance? We can look at diets of long lived people, and people who die of heart attacks, and see getting the balance isn't that hard. Eating mostly vegetables, and some meat and you'll be fine for atherosclerosis. Throw in some berberine supplementation, and periodic fasting, and your blood vessels will be clean.

Berberine alone as an intervention has been shown to decrease atherosclerosis, and post world war two concentration camp victims were shown to have COMPLETELY clear arteries and blood vessels right after the war. Later on, there atherosclerosis reformed. What this means is that the human body possesses the repair mechanisms to completely reverse all atherosclerosis. All we have to do is fuel those mechanisms, while reducing rate of damage.

DNA Damage

Your body has repair processes for DNA damage.

So again, we want to increase repair rate, and decrease damage rate, so that damage is greater than repair, and then we get biological age reversal within each category of damage and corresponding repair chemical reactions.

Decreasing damage rate for DNA is such things such as decreasing toxic exposure, avoiding alcohol, avoiding smoking, avoiding pollution or filtering it out, and decreasing sun exposure (while also finding ways to get the maximum benefits such as increased energy production in cell mitochondria, Vitamin-D synthesis, improved circadian rhythm, and improved mood hormonal regulation that would normally be received from the sun).

Increasing repair rate is also straight forward. We look at all the chemicals involved in the repair process (such as we do with each repair process and corresponding damage type) and we increase the quantity of those chemicals, while ALSO increasing the energy supplied for those chemical reactions.

So DNA Repair: NAD, ZINC, IRON, TTQ, FAD.
You can get these though food, but NAD is the molecule that's primarily used up and is the bottle neck in the process so supplementing should be done. NMN is heavily marketed online, and many guru's fall for this. NMN is effective for boosting NAD levels, but Niacin is a much cheaper option. If you take the more expensive option, you are throwing money in the drain that could have been used for other lookmaxing endeavors. Ensure to avoid slow release niacin. That specific form of niacin will cause problems.

Great, we increased the chemical part of the repair equation. The second half of the equation is increasing energy production. Energy is charged ions consumed as part of food. The food comes from plants, or animals, and animals eat plants. So when you trace it all back, all of the ion charging was done by the sun originally. It is the source of all energy.

So when we are thinking about the energy side of the equation, we need to realize it all comes from light. Now we could eat more food, to speed up the energy part of the equation, but that's also causing more metabolic damage in the process. For many foods (you need to research every food), the damage is minimal and you can scale up the repair process by increasing metabolic rate (exercise/cold exposure/etc.) while increasing food consumption (not so much you get fat, because that acerates aging, and avoiding blood sugar spikes with plenty of fiber, and the right nutrient dense foods that cause minimal damage). People have written books are this subject. I recommend the book, "how not to die."

That's all well and good. But what if there was a perfectly clean way to increase energy for repair mechanisms on-top of this, that caused no metabolic damage? Sound too good to be true?

We skip the food process entirely and deliver energy directly to the mitochondria of the cell. We can charge up the ions in the mitochondria directly with red spectrum light. While this only effects the area that the light is hitting, and only to the depth it is capable of hitting (Longer wavelengths have greater penetration), it does free up energy that can then be used for other more deeper repair processes.

Think about it. Even if your in a fasted state, and your body is pumping keytones through your bloodstream rather than glucose or fructose, there's only so much energy that can be delivered so quickly. This is why fat loss tends to cap off at around one pound a day, when doing long term fasting.

But if you deliverer more energy to the body in the form of red spectrum light, you get more repair. When it comes to this, from my knowledge so far, you want to maximize irradiance, surface area, and duration while not causing damage to yourself.

Now you can get this from the sun, especially during the morning and evening. Long wavelengths have deeper penetration, both to your body and the earth's atmosphere. Which means in the early morning and evening when the suns rays have to penetrate much more atmosphere to get to you, many more short wavelengths are filtered out and you get more long wave lengths. Short Wave lengths such as UVB cause DNA damage. Not a big problem because you're body can repair it, but you don't want to waste metabolic energy on repair that you don't have too, because that's energy that won't be used for other repair processes leading to overall faster biological aging.

So that brings us right back to red light devices. We want to penetrate the maximum depth into our body, so again we want very long wave lengths. So near infrared is ideal (950nm - 1050 nm) for penetration but then again the total charge is going to be lower, so combining that with an infrared and red spectrum, and maximizing irradiance is ideal. You just don't want any light with less than 600 nm wavelengths because those short wave lengths will cause DNA damage.

If you charge up certain ions in the body too much, you get all kinds of aging damage. So there's more research you may want to do if you are thinking about being under red light all day or using extremely powerful devices.

So breaking down the damage, and repair processes into their component parts, we've found a complete wholistic solution for DNA repair. Do this, for each type of damage and you age in reverse.

Fasting and IGF-1

There's a lot of disinformation online about fasting and it's effect on aging. Longer fasts will slow or reverse aging by shifting metabolic resources (energy, organ functions, etc.) from the breakdown and processing of food towards repair.

This is why in all animals studies the animals that did fasting live considerable longer, and are healthier in old age. The problem is with how some researchers and scientists convert this to apply to humans.

You HAVE to adjust for metabolic rate. A mouse fasting for a day is a human fasting for a week or two. You're not going to get significant anti-aging effects with time restricted eating. All your going to do in that case is spike and crash your blood sugar which could result in increased aging damage by way of glycation.

You need to burn all the food in your stomach, a day or two (depends on how much fiber you ate and your metabolic rate), before you can start re-utilizing significant metabolic resources for repair. Also your body's ability to switch to these repair processes depends on a number of factors, which can be trained with regular fasting.

So how does IGF-1 play a role in all of this? IGF-1 and other hormones control to what degree the body is in repair or build mode. For optimal physic you want to toggle between full repair mode and full growth mode. Most body builders do a bulk/cut cycle for this.

Bulk/Fasting Cycles are more optimized for antiaging, and if you want to be immortal, this fasting three times a year for a couple weeks isn't going to cut it. You want to maximize repair, and minimize damage. Two weeks on, Two weeks off (as a rough ball park) is going to be optimal. During the transition time between metabolic processes, neither process is going to be optimal, and the sum effect of both processes is going to be less than toggling the processes while minimizing transition time. An example would be eating for one week, fasting for one week is going to be far better than eating for a day, fasting for a day in repeated cycles.

Food vs Supplements

For each of these repair processes we are increasing the chemicals within their required ratio ranges, required for the repair while increasing the total energy available for the chemical reactions to occur.

So we can get these chemicals from food or supplements, and absorb them through our digestive system or skin.

Because many of these chemical reactions require specific ratios, many of those ratios may not be known, nutrient rich food is the optimal method.

Supplements should only be used when it's clear the effect in the body was not the result of a placebo effect, and the data supporting this effect is not correlation data but the result of a controlled study. For example, Vitamin-E supplementation and multi-vitamin supplementation both lower expected life span when in taken in double blind placebo controlled studies.

These reason people take these supplement is because they are looking at population level correlation data. Its' what's called the "healthy user bias". Healthy people make different decisions than the average person, and sometimes those decisions are harmful to the healthy persons health, because most healthy people are doing what they have read or heard makes them healthy. This is why you can't take correlations or population data seriously.

But you also don't want to over generalize and never use supplements. Because that is also sub-optimal. Again, look for placebo-controlled double blinded studies.

Meditation

Stress converts energy from repair to fight or flight response. Like we do with everything else, when we shift metabolic energy from other unneeded processes towards repair, we get more repair, and reverse more biological aging. When this repair becomes greater than damage we age in reverse. Sustain this balance and we do not grow older.

Meditation lowers overall-stress which shifts the balance from fight or flight to repair. This is why meditation measurably increases telomere length and other signs of aging. Twenty minutes a day is effective. You can combine it with redlight therapy.

One way meditation shifts this energy balance is by improving sleep quality which improves repair capacity.

Another is that meditation trains your limbic system to automatically do slow deep breaths. These fuller breaths deliver more oxygen to your blood stream. This oxygen is then used to carry away used up ions, after the cells mitochondria has drained them of energy. This is why oxygen intake is a bottleneck for metabolism, and ALL of the energy that that metabolism uses for repair.

So oxygen intake is a bottleneck for antiaging. This is why oxygen therapy is used and slows down aging, and some people sleep in hyperbaric oxygen chambers every night.

The ultimate anti-aging setup might be breathing straight oxygen, all day long from oxygen tanks while exposed to full infrared and near infrared light spectrum at a very high irradiance from all angles (wearing eye protection).

Other things such as avoiding or having minimal exposure to information systems that put your body into states of anger/fear/fight or flight even on a small subtle level.

What's Possible?

Once you understand this paradigm you can begin optimizing each part of the equation one by one. You may think of technological or methodological solutions that take things further than these small examples here.

Li Ching-Yuen was able to make it 250, with far less knowledge and technology than we have today. There were many witnesses and documents confirming this. Much of what he learned, he learned from a much older man who was over 500 when he met him. There were other reports of much older individuals throughout history. While these could all be hoaxes, hopefully you see that with a greater understanding of chemistry, these may not be hoaxes.

Buy why aren't more people regularly living past 120? Look at the people that live to 120. Many of them are doctors or nutritionists, and they are smart but they're not that smart. They are not optimizing this equation fully. Look at the smartest people, scientists, and influencers advocating for various anti-aging strategies. They're all idiots. No one is optimizing anything.

There is nothing in any of these repair mechanisms that requires specific genetics, while some genes may increase the default rate of the repair mechanisms, as you can see, you can easily increase them in other ways.
Which infrared device do you recommend for at home use?
 
Sens does not agree with this statement "For every type of damage, the human body has evolved one or more repair mechanisms."
i concede on saying ur perspective is the same as SENS
Sens also doesn't think in terms of minimizing total damage, at all. They just take it for granted that damage occurs as part of metabolism, and try to repair it.
yes , they do believe damage can be slowed modestly but they discourage this approach without their damage repair technology .
Yes and No.

There is evolutionary pressure for short lives on prey animals, and animals who live in uncertain and dangerous environments. This type of aging is programmed.

But take a Greenland shark, an animal that biologists consider to have negligible senescence (able to repair almost all of the damage), it still has a roughly maximum life span of 400 years. This is because the animal was too complex for evolution to have fully evolved repair mechanisms for every possible type of damage, that work given the animals available resources in it's environment, and quantity of damage accumulation. (Note that humans have some significant control over the last two variables)
the fundamental program for ageing IMO is the telomeres . single celled eukaryotes called paramecium can reproduce sexually and asexually . but asexually their telomeres shorten , and thus they have limited divisions they can make without finding a mate to sex and restore the offspring's telomeres . therefore paramecium that only reproduce asexually will die out .

i am speculateing that telomeric ageing evolved when single cells were given the option to reproduce sexually . u can think of the human body of a very large clump of human cells in symbiosis divideing (akin to asexual reproduction) with the goal of sexual reproduction , because the telomeres shorten with divisions .

telomeric ageing is IMO the most primitive aspect of programmed ageing , but in animals the program is much more complex . gene expression changes with age , part of this is programmed (self destructive) and part of this is adaptive ; the body is at war with itself until it dies . i dont believe this is an accident but it was beneficial for evolution .

ur say that ageing is programmed in shorter lived species . this is definitely true , a mouse clearly is programmed to not live long , its not some accident , there no real benefit for antagonistic pleiotropy alone to cause this .

u brought up greenland shark as a neglible senescence animal . well , first of all , ill mention their body temperature is around 1 degree celsius (extreeeemly cold) , which could be important mechanistically . but my main point is that their ancestors have probably had extreme longevity since ancient times (i did not check this yet) . well what were *our* ancestors ? the answer is monkeys , a short lived species . so if ageing is programmed for short lived species due to evolutionary pressure , then i would say that we have been evolveing to resist and undo this program since our livespan has been increaseing , but human lifespan is very recent in evolution unlike (presumeably) greenland sharks . so maybe we arent benefited much by the program of ageing , but our ancestors were . and the selection shadow and antagonistic pleiotropic genes would make the trend toward longevity a slow one (although it seems to have been gradually lengthening) .

so we still do have a program for ageing . the telomere shortening limits our lifespan at a predicted age of 125 years . well , certain damages can also shorten telomeres , and we can mitigate this to prevent accelerated ageing , but replicative senesensce can only be slowed by slowing cell division . i think we have a program for ageing because , as u yourself said , shorter lived species do , and i think at best this ancient program has a lingering effect in us today , and at worse there is still pressure to age in modern humans . but if u look at what happens during ageing , it is hard not to conclude that the body seems to *destroy itself* with age , people think of these destructive processes as dysfunctions but these "dysfunctions" seem to be deliberately hostile IMO . damage accumulation is accelerated in many lethal ways and endogenous antioxidants dangerously fall . also , take DNA methylation , DNA methylation is said to function as a way of gene expression control for organisms to "adapt" during their lifespan . if this is so , then reverseing DNAm age would *hasten* death . and now some aspects do seem to be adaptive to age but others not . it could still be reasoned that these harmful DNAm changes are dysfunctions , but i disagree . i find it interesting that OSKM expression can de-age cells , but too much OSKM expression and the cell is an induced pluripotent stem cell . this shows that DNAm ageing and developmental DNAm are connected . and development is a program . FSH and LH increase in specific times in development to modulate development . they also increase multi-fold in midlife during the time of female menopause (in both men and women) . this suspiciously seems like part of the ageing/death program . in salmon , the fish die shortly after reproduction and coincidently get a massive surge of of FSH increased by 4500% .

My theory here, is that humans have all the repair mechanisms but because of our complexity, we need bigger amounts of very rare resources, from around the world for our repair mechanisms to operate at full capacity, and we need times when we are mostly sheltered from damage (Similar to the naked mole rat's hibernation/restorative phases), as well as minimization of damage to achieve zero and negative senesce.
well i do think u may be onto something . there are things that can induce telomerase in somatic cells to lengthen telomeres (currently nothing proven to lengthen telomeres even close to enough to counter shortening) . telomere shortening IMO is the most ancient program for ageing , and we have the genes to lengthen them (obv all animals lengthen the germline cells , suspicious how they shut off telomerase in somatic cells . the cancer trade off perspective is weak IMO , and actually short telomeres are damageing to DNA and can induce cancer . also , i dont believe in trade offs as biological limits , but they are just lazy evolution when there is insuffienct evolutionary pressure )

We also need a certain amount of damage to occur, otherwise our repair mechanisms ramp down, so we can't completely zero out every type of damage, a hundred percent of the time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10204955/

sounds like ur describeing hormesis . well , i assure u that the majority of the damage that accumulates with age comes from metabolic processes essential to basic normal human functioning . it is perplexing , the phenomenon how increased damage can lead to overcompensation in stress resistance .
 

Similar threads

Youㅤ
Replies
10
Views
320
efidescontinuado
efidescontinuado
PrimalPlasty
Replies
16
Views
335
Clavicular
Clavicular
T
Replies
24
Views
920
Thesoloist22
T
A
Replies
8
Views
470
barnmatrix
barnmatrix
Rigged
Replies
17
Views
445
Rigged
Rigged

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top