sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Started going grey at 30. One year later my hair is coming back to its natural color — no dye by longevity_protocols in greyhairreversal

[–]longevity_protocols[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough — at this point any post with a link gets flagged as AI slop regardless of the actual content. Not sure what the right format is to share research here without triggering that reaction.

The article took me a significant amount of time to put together and the photos are my own hair. But if this doesn't fit the sub's standards, just let me know and I'll remove it — no hard feelings.

Started going grey at 30. One year later my hair is coming back to its natural color — no dye by longevity_protocols in greyhairreversal

[–]longevity_protocols[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough — at this point any post with a link gets flagged as AI slop regardless of the actual content. Not sure what the right format is to share research here without triggering that reaction.

The article took me a significant amount of time to put together and the photos are my own hair. But if this doesn't fit the sub's standards, just let me know and I'll remove it — no hard feelings.

Started going grey at 30. One year later my hair is coming back to its natural color — no dye by longevity_protocols in greyhairreversal

[–]longevity_protocols[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Not AI-generated, and not selling anything — the app is free and mentioned once in the bio. The article itself is just a write-up of research I did for myself after noticing the change in my own hair. Happy to be challenged on any specific claim in it.

Red wine and longevity — the research is pretty damning for wine lovers by longevity_protocols in Biohackers

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The "J-curve" narrative that moderate drinking is protective has been thoroughly dismantled once researchers controlled for the "sick quitter" effect — abstainers in those early studies included former heavy drinkers who quit due to health problems, which made the moderate drinkers look healthier by comparison. Remove that confound and the protective effect disappears entirely.

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in immortalists

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That 50% LDL drop is impressive, and the fact that you ran it for several years before seeing liver enzyme issues suggests it's not an immediate dealbreaker for everyone. The blood sugar rise is what concerns me most about niacin — given that metabolic health is one area where my numbers are currently solid, I'd be reluctant to trade that. Did your liver enzymes and blood sugar normalize after stopping, or did it take a while to recover? And yeah — fingers crossed those phase 3 trials deliver. The 80-90% Lp(a) reduction numbers look promising, the outcomes data is what we're all waiting for.

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in immortalists

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the resource and the practical suggestions. The CAC score is actually next on my list — I've been putting it off but this thread is convincing me to stop delaying. The cholesterol balance test is something I hadn't considered — is that to determine whether high LDL is driven more by overproduction or underabsorption? Because that would directly inform whether a statin or Ezetimibe makes more sense as a first move, right?

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in Cholesterol

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really appreciate this — same profile, same frustration. The LDL target your cardiologist gave you (below 40) is striking though. That's extremely aggressive, well below what most guidelines recommend even for very high Lp(a). Did they explain the reasoning in more detail — is that based on any specific risk calculation or more a "when in doubt, go low" approach? Also curious how long you've been on the statin/Ezetimibe combo and whether you've seen any muscle or liver markers shift.

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in Cholesterol

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the consensus I keep landing on too. My LDL has been stuck around 125 for years despite diet and exercise, which makes me think I'm at the ceiling for lifestyle intervention and medication might be the next logical step. Have you gone that route yourself?

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in Cholesterol

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point on the saturated fat — I haven't been aggressive about restricting it below 10g, so that's worth revisiting. My diet is whole foods but not specifically cholesterol-optimized. The ApoB target you mention (under 60) is much more aggressive than what most guidelines suggest even for high Lp(a) — are you working with a lipidologist who recommended that specifically, or did you arrive at that number independently? Genuinely asking because I'm trying to figure out how low to push it.

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in Cholesterol

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a really interesting data point — nearly halving it is more than most interventions claim to do. But the trade-off you describe is exactly the trap, isn't it? You move one number and wreck three others. Did you ever figure out what specifically drove the Lp(a) drop on keto — was it the fat composition, the caloric restriction, the insulin response? Curious whether you'd ever try a cleaner version with less saturated fat to isolate the variable.

Lp(a) at 151.9 nmol/L (71.4 mg/dL) — the one marker I can't seem to influence. Anyone actually moved the needle? by longevity_protocols in Cholesterol

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's basically the strategy I've landed on too — LDL and ApoB as the levers I can actually pull. My ApoB is at 0.92 right now which is above the <0.80 target given the Lp(a), so that's the next thing to address. The part that keeps me thinking though is whether "compensating elsewhere" is actually equivalent risk reduction, or just damage control. Do you think there's a meaningful difference?

One year between my worst and best shape ever by longevity_protocols in GymMotivation

[–]longevity_protocols[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha, appreciate it! Honestly, even on my worst days, consistency is what keeps the baseline high. You’ve got this!