Writing this as a consequence of listening to this podcast (https://open.spotify.com/episode/0vf2JoyWZ5giYNbBUHv96p  ), as it shows how complicated this field is, how plural the opinions.

Another reason why coming from an investment point of view is helpful in this field, because there are a lot of people raving about action X or molecule Y while others disagree.

This podcast is with the leader of the ITP. They study compounds in mice. Sole goal is extension of mice lifespan (not health span, that's too complicated to measure)

The big picture result of the mice study is the following:

NONE of the compounds that they ever studied REDUCED the lifespan of mice. Keeping that in mind is extremely important. Especially because many compounds in mice were done in high doses.

THERE ARE (I mean that almost on a logical level) single compounds that do extent lifespan of mice.

This shows that aging NOT ONLY is a complicated mesh network of problems that never has a single cause of aging. Some parts of aging really are simple "circuits", in that sense aging is comparable to chip architecture in computers. (The simpler the organism, the easier it is to prove that single actions have drastic improvements for lifespan, and there's no lack of proof either - people in this field are genuinely excited about the current speed of progress)

But nonetheless, ITP's mice studies show that regarding extending lifespan: Rapamycin works. Metformin doesn't. Resveratrol doesn't. NMN doesn't. Acarbose does. Green tea extract, methylene blue, curcumin - doesn't. 17α-Estradiol: lifespan effects in male mice. It's an estrogen without feminizing the male mice. (Yes, if you get creative and think about this: There's a potential future history path where human biological males will start to take this specific estrogen to live longer!)

In short: Mice studies show that some stuff other people are all in about, just don't work in mice... I don't know about precise study design etc. As said, this realm is extremely complicated. For the time being, I'm trying to clone the people in a field that seem to be most credible to me. If someone like Huberman takes 1,000mg EPA per day and DHA (probably 500mg, although not sure) this has a strong effect on my opinions. If Sinclair takes X, Y & Z, it's too easy for me to dismiss it, only because mice studies aren't supportive. That's because Sinclair like few others has a whole theory of aging that - if roughly right - would be very, very meaningful.

Richard Miller, the ITP guy, - unlike David Sinclair and many others - is representing the institutional side of the world. Peter Attia asks him what he takes to extend lifespan. He doesn't want to answer the question. I don't like this at all, because I'm a firm believer in Skin In The Game.

David Sinclair, Andrew Huberman, Peter Attia, Rhonda Patrick, Tim Ferris, Lex Fridman... - all examples of A+++ people that traverse institutions without giving up their freedom to talk about their tools, what they take. This is vulnerable & honest. They don't shun away to answer such questions.

Taleb: "Don't tell me what you think, show me your portfolio" - Like in investment, where you have a portfolio (and every human being is an investor, it's just the case that they don't know it, and thus their portfolios look like that...), you also have a portfolio regarding nutrition, sports and of course also in youth-keeping supplements. Once again, that's independent of subjective consciousness: You take things that prolong or shorten health/lifespan, regardless of if you're counting or not, and it's unscientific to doubt this chain of facts.

Is there the potential that stuff like Resveratrol, NMN, Metformin, Sulforaphane, EPA, DHA, Quercetin, Fisetin, various Vitamins (and Saunas, Exercise, great food, and a dozen of other imho no-brainers) don't work as great as some people hope? Sure!

But first of all: The studies in mice show: It didn't shorten mice lives. This simply is very important from a practitioners POV.

Secondly, health is a compounding network of things that function well whilst avoiding a network of things that cause negative spirals or kill you outright/over time.

I'm trying to compile a list of things with a STRONG MARGIN OF SAFETY.

I tend to favor micro dosing. Even in financial investing itself, I'm someone that favors owning A LOT of companies because I think great things need a lot of time to develop, and that life is way too complicated to really believe one can specialize in one field and somehow expect this one field to be the only relevant field over the span of a century. Micro dosing goes along with a strong margin of safety. Don't be the guy all in on one wonder drug, don't be the one all in on one supplement. Look at all the body builders of the past: Their steroids killed them, and they took a lot of it.

Then, TAKE THINGS IN COMBINATION. (I think it's mental laziness to immediately point out dangers here, because it's all a matter of dose, too. Just like Exercise + good sleep doesn't have detrimental aspects, I don't think doing low doses of Metformin plus NMN plus whatever is anywhere near danger territory).

Then, Theory of Compounding is important. Let's say one takes 20 compounds (pun intended). Let's assume 3 are minimally harmful (don't forget: Harm is all around us, sun, smog, particles, inflammation, accidents, our bodies can deal with that, we're survival machines), 14 are neutral but don't help. 3 are actually meaningfully helpful and make your life 5% better each day, or ultimately make you slow down aging by 10%. This equation still makes a lot of sense. Could be like living another full decade like you felt in your early twenties additionally. Makes sense to me.

No doubt, it's easy to doubt the benefits of doing quirky little things like for example eating lots of ginger, drinking green tea, eating broccoli sprouts... But I don't think it's probable that none of that stuff works.