50 replies to this topic

[niner]

Mark's Daily Apple is a fine site, but it's pretty highly focused on paleo, and everyone there is kind of a true believer. M&M is a weird mix of a bit of good science and a lot of really appalling teenage roid-rage behavior. Like Mind said, the big focus there is bodybuilding and noots, neither of which are my number one interest. There's also the old-school classic, sci.life-extension. It's the grand-daddy of them all, and there is still some good posting going on there. Here at Longecity, we have both bodybuilding and noots, but we have a big focus on life extension, and add in some transhumanism for fun.

I've observed the drop off of a lot of great posters. It coincided with last year's breakdown in forum performance and unpopular user interface choices. Those are things that are at least under our control, and they are more or less fixed now. The lack of exciting new news is probably the biggest driver of the drop-off. The recent buckyball paper is pretty exciting, even if it's a small study with a possible CR-effect that needs to be sorted out. It still has the potential to be the next resveratrol if it holds up and/or goes mainstream. I suppose there could be a problem with C60 being classed as a dietary supplement, although it does exist in nature and there's probably at least a little bit in food cooked over a fire. Buying some (before the feds clamp down on it or the suppliers stop selling to individuals because of a fear of lawsuits?) has at least crossed my mind. Paul Wakfer is probably already on top of it. New product for Anthony?

[Raptor87]

Fuck longevity, I just want to look as young as I can.

Could you please be more specific on what it is that you want from the supplements forum?

Look as young as you can? I'd first suggest forgetting about tanning as you mentioned on another thread.

OT: I know. I also mentioned that I am going to avoid direct sun exposure. Although I don´t know what those tanning products contain. I wonder if melanotan is that bad for you? hmm... BTW try to use the topic or thread if you want to comment. We don´t want to derail this thread.

[hivemind]

Best longevity websites at the moment are about health food. There is no "longevity science" yet. Nobody can do anything about aging.

Diet is the thing that has the biggest impact on your longevity.

Edited by hivemind, 19 April 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[niner]

Best longevity websites at the moment are about health food. There is no "longevity science" yet. Nobody can do anything about aging.

Diet is the thing that has the biggest impact on your longevity.

I sort of agree with you. Yes, diet is the biggest stick we can wield at the moment, but it's not the only stick. I don't agree that there is no longevity science. There's a whole industry forming around stem cells; there's tissue engineering, the creation of whole organs de novo. There's the embryonic efforts at SENS. There's a lot of research, like the recent paper showing the remarkable effect of senescent cell removal. Finally, there are all the nutrients and plant extracts (not to mention pharmaceuticals) that one may or may not be able to get from diet, but that we can get in pill form. Obviously, not all of these are helpful, but some are. Figuring out which is and which isn't is part of longevity science. Do these compounds not "do anything about aging"? They do not fix existing damage (though it could be argued that a few do), but some of them prevent or slow the accrual of damage. A number of compounds that you can take in a pill can extend your life. Even if they aren't reversing the damage of aging, they are preventing you from dying. I consider not dying to be a form of life extension. In fact, it's the most important form to me personally, since I want to stay alive until better technology comes along.

[Logan]

There are plenty of low-quality discussions. No doubt. I hardly participate in the supplement and nootropics discussion because the relevance to life extension and actual rejuvenation is minimal.

Would you care to point out a forum or a discussion you consider to be of higher quality?

Mark's Daily Apple(well, the research and nutrition threads really) and Mind and Muscle

The focus just seems to be less scattered over at these forums. Plus, the discussions are far more active and thorough.

I agree that Mark's Daily Apple and Mind & Muscle are good quality sites. In some cases, more strictly moderated, while Longecity allows more free flowing conversation.

One thing to remember is that we have a clear goal and mission at Longecity. It was somewhat of an accident of history that we ended up with such prolific supplements and nootropic forums. That was not the idea from the beginning, but we have a strong free speech ethic here and allow people to discuss what they want to discuss. When I interviewed Mark Sisson recently, he did not have much of an opinion on radical life extension - Longecity does. Mind & Muscle is great if you want to experiment with muscle building supplements and brain stimulants, but not if you are serious about rejuvenation technology.

The best thing that Longecity does is raise money for research, the supplement and noos discussions are secondary. The supps forums have been better and worse quality through the years and are very popular, but it is not the mission of this non-profit. I would trade 10,000 supplement and noos posters for 100 serious researchers in these forums any day. Many former "high quality" posters have said all they need to say, have developed healthy regimens and have moved on to more important things like curing the disease of aging. In my most recent podcast with Justin Rebo, he says about the same thing. He says we need more people doing the actual research, the hard work to cure aging, not more people popping pills.

I understand.

While people like Mark Sisson are not very interested in radical life extension, they are interested in finding ways to live as long, healthy, and prodctive life as possible, within the means of nutrition and lifestyle. I think this has a ton of value in the race to find a way to radically extend our lives.

Neither of these sites have any forums where rejuvination technology will be discussed, though they may be on rare occasion brought up for discussion. I do wish Mark had a supplements forum, as he does use and promote the use of supplements. Mind and Muscle does have a Health/Longevity forum, and there are life extension topics that come up there every once in a while. I guess what I see in these forums is more active and/or thorough discusion of health topics that come up, which may lead to giving us a better chance at reaching an age and state of health in which we still have a chance at utilizing rejuvination therapies that are developed.

I wonder, hypothetically, if Mark Sisson were healthy enough to benefit from rejuvination therapies when they are available, would he take advantage of them. I'm guessing, that if he knew other loved ones would be able to exist along with him, he probably would. I think he's just one that gravitates toward taking a more pragmatic/realistic approach to life, and acceptance is one of his ways of thriving and getting the most he can out of the life he lives at his age.

[Logan]

Mark's Daily Apple is a fine site, but it's pretty highly focused on paleo, and everyone there is kind of a true believer. M&M is a weird mix of a bit of good science and a lot of really appalling teenage roid-rage behavior. Like Mind said, the big focus there is bodybuilding and noots, neither of which are my number one interest.

I actually think Mind and Muscle's forum on Neuroscience is pretty amazing. There are 3 or 4 regular posters there that continually offer great insight and information on how our minds work, which I believe can add great contribution to longevity. Though, I admit, the focus is mostly on utilizing this information to find ways to use the right drugs in an attempt to treat things like mental illness, ADD/ADHD, and other neurological issues.

[rwac]

Mark's Daily Apple is a fine site, but it's pretty highly focused on paleo, and everyone there is kind of a true believer. M&M is a weird mix of a bit of good science and a lot of really appalling teenage roid-rage behavior. Like Mind said, the big focus there is bodybuilding and noots, neither of which are my number one interest.

I actually think Mind and Muscle's forum on Neuroscience is pretty amazing. There are 3 or 4 regular posters there that continually offer great insight and information on how our minds work, which I believe can add great contribution to longevity. Though, I admit, the focus is mostly on utilizing this information to find ways to use the right drugs in an attempt to treat things like mental illness, ADD/ADHD, and other neurological issues.

In any case, most of the notable posters have abandoned M&M for greener pastures, a new forum I believe.

Edited by rwac, 19 April 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[hivemind]

Best longevity websites at the moment are about health food. There is no "longevity science" yet. Nobody can do anything about aging.

Diet is the thing that has the biggest impact on your longevity.

I sort of agree with you. Yes, diet is the biggest stick we can wield at the moment, but it's not the only stick. I don't agree that there is no longevity science. There's a whole industry forming around stem cells; there's tissue engineering, the creation of whole organs de novo. There's the embryonic efforts at SENS. There's a lot of research, like the recent paper showing the remarkable effect of senescent cell removal. Finally, there are all the nutrients and plant extracts (not to mention pharmaceuticals) that one may or may not be able to get from diet, but that we can get in pill form. Obviously, not all of these are helpful, but some are. Figuring out which is and which isn't is part of longevity science. Do these compounds not "do anything about aging"? They do not fix existing damage (though it could be argued that a few do), but some of them prevent or slow the accrual of damage. A number of compounds that you can take in a pill can extend your life. Even if they aren't reversing the damage of aging, they are preventing you from dying. I consider not dying to be a form of life extension. In fact, it's the most important form to me personally, since I want to stay alive until better technology comes along.

Anyway, that science stuff is not at high enough level so that you could build a website/forum about it. There are no therapies that you can buy.

Those plant extracts and other nutraceuticals have some effects and people are very interested in all kinds of pills and powders. However, these effects are pretty small. They do not make you live much longer.

[niner]

In any case, most of the notable posters have abandoned M&M for greener pastures, a new forum I believe.

Is there an awesome new forum somewhere that we don't know about, and all the cool kids are hanging out there?

[hivemind]

There's nothing cool about longevity fundamentals. (diet, exercise, supplements, clean lifestyle and stress management) These fundamentals do not change much.

All "cool" things are usually pseudoscientific trends.

Edited by hivemind, 19 April 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[rwac]

In any case, most of the notable posters have abandoned M&M for greener pastures, a new forum I believe.

Is there an awesome new forum somewhere that we don't know about, and all the cool kids are hanging out there?

I hear there's a closed invite-only-for-now forum out there, where all the cool kids are hanging out. Alas, not being a cool kid, my info about it is only secondhand.

It may or may not be located at http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/

Apparently it all started when Jake (who owns M&M) decided to make it more friendly to bodybuilding supplements and such, to get more sponsors. In response, the entire moderating team basically left....

[niner]

Apparently it all started when Jake (who owns M&M) decided to make it more friendly to bodybuilding supplements and such, to get more sponsors. In response, the entire moderating team basically left....

Hmm. I've seen that played out in a completely unrelated forum. (One that was for owners of a particular type of ancient car, of which mine is one.) It's probably a bad idea for forums to have individual owners. Better there should be at least a degree of democracy.

[Shepard]

Avant (pre-M&M) was at its peak back in 2004-2006 when Par and Spook were active. It had a bit of a hurrah as M&M in the 2008 era, but I'm not a fan of its current incarnation. I think a lot of it has to do with the decentralization of communication on the internet. A forum is no longer the only place to exchange ideas with the rise of blogs, Twitter, FB, whatever. Further, a lot of the people that were in their early 20s during the 2004-2008 range (a large percentage of then-active posters, I'd wager) are now in a time of their life when other things take priority.

Edited by Shepard, 19 April 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Mind]

It was a harsh (maybe a little unfair) critique Logan, but I like the discussion you generated thus far about how popular forums and blogs have changed through the years. If the web has become more decentralized, is there anything we can do to make this site more "sticky". I suppose you would say that one good move would be to have higher quality posting in the supps and noos forum. I know that a lot of people would like that and it was discussed in another thread recently. We could maybe have more strictly moderated threads where only experts (community defined, of course) could post.

I think our fundraising and research efforts will eventually pay dividends as well.

Site usability is a biggee as well (thanks for the reminder Niner). If we have one of the more functional, as well as aesthetic sites around, that would help.

[TheFountain]

Why don't people talk more about the less common, exotic supplements so we can get a better understanding of them instead of continually focusing on the same minority of supplements over and over again?

[Logan]

I will again admit, I have not been much of a contributor to Longecity, especially lately. I do hope to be one in the future, as I am functioning at a higher level than in the past 3 years.

Is there anyway we could make the Bioscience forums a little more sexy so people would be more interested in engaging in discussion and posting there? I guess changes in the websites format and usability could help with this.

BTW, when I first saw the buckyballs post(I had not seen the other post about it), I immediatey thought someone just fucking around in response to this thread. I had just read the title, and thought "buckyballs? WTF?" Then I read the post

Edited by Logan, 20 April 2012 - 04:45 AM.

[TheFountain]

http://www.longecity...en-intolerance/

[niner]

"buckyballs? WTF?"

I gotta say, I keep thinking about the buckyball paper. It seems like it ought to be raising more of a buzz than it is, but I think I know why it isn't. Buckyballs are really weird, and they don't at all look like a drug or even a molecule that seems like it could interact with a biological system. However, I think that's a mistake. Buckyballs have already been shown to be bioavailable and to have pretty good pharmacokinetics. That's the first hurdle. Now, could it interact in any useful way with our biochemistry? I think it could. C60 is about 10 Angstroms in diameter. I think you could find a number of binding sites around that size. C60 has some interesting intermolecular interactions; it's a lot more polarizable than you might expect, and could therefore bind to aromatic residues. It might interact with membranes in useful ways. It has all manner of electronic / radical stabilizing activities. My point is that although it's a very unusual molecule, no one should be surprised that it has biological activities.

We've been looking at typical small molecules forever, trying to find something that extends lifespan. There hasn't been much luck so far, and part of the reason for this is that over millions of years, we've evolved defenses against most of the compounds that we might find in nature, and those defenses usually extend to the kinds of molecules we synthesize as well. C60 exists in nature, but humans have never been exposed to it in high concentrations or in formulations that are bioavailable. It's really something new to us, biologically.

But the fact that it could have biological activity isn't quite enough; it doesn't have a story. Humans love a good story. That's why resveratrol took the world by storm. It tied the French "paradox" and the longevity effect of CR together in a nice neat little package small enough for a soundbite. It was all wrong, but it was a hell of a story. Even if he's still taking resveratrol, David Sinclair probably won't live long enough to spend all the money he got from those suckers at GSK.

Here's a "story" to spring on the world. I just made it up. Cigarette smoke contains thousands of compounds, many of which are very toxic. Cigarettes would kill us quickly were it not for the magical fullerenes placed there by Mother Gaia to protect us. Now we've figured out a way to get fullerenes in olive oil, without all the bad stuff.

[Brainbox]

If we start a discussion about quality of information exchange about supplement use, than the forum, which provides the platform for it to be possible to happen, is indeed a major factor that determines this quality. But probably even more important is the notion of the participants about quality of information. And the openness with which information of positive and negative nature is shared.
I suppose that supplement enthusiasts will have a certain bias towards the use of supplements in general. They will tend to have a general positive bias as compared to people who do not use them and do not consider them at all. An initial form of initiative and interest can be associated with this general positive bias. And hence this bias is a good thing.
However, it is very important how discussions about actual properties of and experiences with supplements take place. The initial skewing could be enhanced by all kinds of interests or it could be compensated by exchange of information at a sufficient objective academic level.

I think our forum is good in providing a certain level of objective academic approach. Certainly not optimal, but better as compared to other fora. This is because we are in general aimed at the long-term benefits. Our goal is life extension, not to become muscle laden bodybuilders or mentally overstimulated students.

Our intrinsic value is the long-term approach.

Regarding the posts that are being perceived as having low quality: I think that openminded exchange of information is of paramount importance. This means that sharing all information, regardless judgement of initial quality, should be the basis. It will be clear at a later stage of discussion what the quality actually is. And this perceived level of quality will probably change along the way. Therefor I think we should be able to share information regardless of the initial perceived quality and therefore it seems important that information and certainly contributors are not judged for sharing information of any kind.

Consequently, I think a rating system, that invites trigger-friendly judgement, is not good.

I originally grew up in a farming oriented area of our nice flat country, so the following analogy comes to mind quickly. Good growth needs a good organic fertilizer. Unfortunately this might stink a bit on the short term, but on the long term it will provide the product of best quality. Or for the quality of forum discussions: the information that is perceived to have low quality does suite an excellent prupose. Let's not judge to quickly.

We need good information fertilizer to enhance the general quality of the entire forum.

Edited by Brainbox, 21 April 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[niner]

Regarding the posts that are being perceived as having low quality: I think that openminded exchange of information is of paramount importance. This means that sharing all information, regardless judgement of initial quality, should be the basis. It will be clear at a later stage of discussion what the quality actually is. And this perceived level of quality will probably change along the way. Therefor I think we should be able to share information regardless of the initial perceived quality and therefore it seems important that information and certainly contributors are not judged for sharing information of any kind.

Consequently, I think a rating system, that invites trigger-friendly judgement, is not good.

I originally grew up in a farming oriented area of our nice flat country, so the following analogy comes to mind quickly. Good growth needs a good organic fertilizer. Unfortunately this might stink a bit on the short term, but on the long term it will provide the product of best quality. Or for the quality of forum discussions: the information that is perceived to have low quality does suite an excellent prupose. Let's not judge to quickly.

We need good information fertilizer to enhance the general quality of the entire forum.

I agree that the rating system has some problems. It serves some useful functions as well, but there's a significant cost associated with it. I think the concept of an information fertilizer is an interesting one. I'm not sure that suspension of judgement is that, however. If someone posts a small study, or an in vitro study, that's great as long as everyone is aware of the limitations. If they misinterpret the results, or post something that's obviously wrong, I think there is value in correcting the record, or else the forum loses its worth as a source of knowledge, since it wouldn't be clear what was true and what was not.

[Brainbox]

If someone posts a small study, or an in vitro study, that's great as long as everyone is aware of the limitations. If they misinterpret the results, or post something that's obviously wrong, I think there is value in correcting the record, or else the forum loses its worth as a source of knowledge, since it wouldn't be clear what was true and what was not.

Yes, agreed, if based on discussion about the subject-matter and not based on "political" viewpoints or generic remarks about quality.
It's important that we feel free to make remarks that we are unsure of but that could make a difference.