Health Last Updated: 08 January 2026 - 06:02 PM

AI critique of my 'burden-relief' stack/meal 03 January 2026 - 12:35 PM

https://chatgpt.com/share/69590c67-39b8-800c-bed4-90287660de00

AI chat about the vitamin K's 25 December 2025 - 11:18 PM

https://chatgpt.com/share/694dc513-9490-800c-8d81-4a8cd6422118

P.S. if anyone objects to statements without sources, I'll just say I don't revere the academic 3rd degree, "permission to seek the truth or even listen, sir" is what's academically toxic and if you want to personally go bend the knee to fact-checkers go do that somewhere else (Also, between me and ChatGPT I have accumulated 9 million words - with constant requests for source citation it would be 90 million. No thanks.).

Thanks.

"Why David Sinclair’s Supplement Stack Keeps Changing" 18 December 2025 - 02:19 AM

Just saw this:

"Why David Sinclair’s Supplement Stack Keeps Changing"

https://jeffrey-side.blogspot.com/2025/12/why-david-sinclairs-supplement-stack.html

"When the antiaging and longevity scientist David Sinclair first published his personal anti-ageing supplement stack, I thought it was unusually credible. He was a Harvard scientist telling us about a regimen that appeared to follow directly from his own scientific research: boosting NAD+, activating sirtuins, engaging AMPK pathways and combining these with lifestyle choices like fasting and exercise. At the time, I thought it was coherent, mechanistic and based on a specific theory of ageing.

Years later, however, my confidence has largely evaporated: not because the individual supplements lack antiaging benefits, but because the stack itself has become unstable.

His supplement regimen has changed repeatedly, often on a yearly basis. Supplements are added, removed, reintroduced and removed again. Each change is presented as refinement, but taken together they raise an uncomfortable question: if the science was really driving these decisions, why is there so little convergence?

Ageing science in humans moves slowly, and evidence accumulates over long timeframes. Annual reversals in personal supplement protocols are, therefore, unlikely to be based on decisive new human data. Instead, they show something else: a continual hypothesis-cycling based on animal studies, in-vitro work and emerging trends in the longevity community. While this kind of evidence is useful for research exploration, it is not strong enough to justify confident, frequently changing supplement prescriptions.

This emphasises an important distinction that often gets forgotten in longevity discussions: mechanistic plausibility is not the same as validated intervention. Many of the supplements Sinclair currently takes (NMN, resveratrol, spermidine, fisetin and berberine) have very plausible anti-ageing mechanisms. Some even have sound and encouraging early data. But plausibility alone does not explain why a protocol should keep mutating if it is truly evidence-led. In longevity supplement science, recommendations gradually narrow as weak candidates are discarded and strong ones remain. What we see here is not narrowing, but frequent rotation.

Another factor is Sinclair’s evolving public role. Early on, he spoke primarily as a scientist. Over time, he has also become a central figure in the longevity influencer community. That brings different incentives: visibility, novelty, relevance and personal branding around “what I take”. In that environment, his frequent supplement updates signal progress and authority, even when the underlying evidence has not meaningfully changed.

None of this means Sinclair is acting in bad faith. It just mean that his supplement stack should be understood for what it is: a personal supplement regime experiment that he is conducting on himself, which is continually revised, and is exploratory rather than definitive. It is not a scientifically validated anti-ageing protocol, and it should not be seen as one.

The irony is that his original stack inspired confidence precisely because it appeared stable and theory-driven. Its constant evolution has had the opposite effect."

Chasing the zinc dragon 15 December 2025 - 10:08 AM

Hi all,

I'm having a fantastic response to zinc. Maybe it's not exactly dramatic, but it is remarkable. I've tried so many drugs and supplements, and almost everything has been a disappointment. So I wasn't expecting anything from zinc.

I had struggled to learn some (elements of) Spanish, for weeks and months (though of course not full-time). In only days after starting zinc, I've memorised all the parts I had struggled with.

I started small, with only a 15 mg dose. I kept titrating the dose upwards, to achieve an effect, or confirm that it's a failure like most things I've tried.

I noticed I could concentrate in a way I haven't for a long long time. I have ADHD, so I searched the Net for information about the use of zinc in this disorder. I found out that positive results have been reported; zinc improved symptoms and reduced the optimal dose of amphetamine. That was before I noticed the effects on memory.

Soon enough, the effect on concentration seemed to dissipate, but I still enjoyed beneficial effects on memory. So I kept increasing the dose to recapture (successfully at first), the effect on concentration -- that's what I meant by "chasing the dragon". I consulted the Merck Manual about zinc deficiency, and it suggested up to 3 mg/kg per day until symptoms resolve. The peak of that for me is about 225 mg. Today (14 Dec 2025), I hit 5 mg/kg (400 mg).

I think I have (or had) zinc deficiency, probably in connection with copper overload. But with continued zinc supplementation, I expect that sooner or later I'll reach the opposite condition, that is zinc toxicity and copper deficiency.

So I'm wondering if there are any obvious signs to indicate that I've had enough, and ideally, reached the optimal copper-zinc balance?

-alpha2A