4 ms·

Gonna have to get this "for my dog"

• nkozyra 3y ago
  I'm not sure suppressing IGF-1 will have the same effect. Two nearby points from the article: > This is unusual — very few if any other animals have such an extreme lifespan variation within the same species. > Part of this lifespan disparity comes from the process of selective breeding that “created” these dog breeds. And from wiki: > A 2022 review found that both high and low levels of IGF‐1 increase mortality risk, whilst a mid‐range (120–160 ng/ml) is associated with the lowest mortality.[1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8844108/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8844108/
  • loeg 3y ago
    The 2022 review is associative. It could be (and seems likely) a 3rd variable (such as thyroid defects) result in high/low IGF-1 levels and also cause higher mortality.
  • londons_explore 3y ago
    Even if it doesn't work for humans, I'm sure this company will earn a lot of money from people like OP who will be buying it "for my dog, wink wink" for 10+ years before it's proven not to work for humans.
  • scotty79 3y ago
    But tall people also have shorter lives, right?
• collegeburner 3y ago
  you don't actually want to nuke your IGF-1. it's important for metabolism, maintaining muscle tissue (also important for health in old age), and general quality of life. this is a lifespan versus healthspan thing, sort of like a lesser version of why eunuchs live longer. we're increasingly seeing that mTOR/PPAR/metabolism aren't great targets for antiaging because you can't square the circle of worse quality of life over those increased years.
• ribosometronome 3y ago
  I see I'm not the only one who wants to recreate the Canadian House Hippo by starting them out young on Loy-001