Peter Thiel: I'm on human growth hormone [video]
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
"There is certainly no data out there to suggest that giving growth hormone to an otherwise healthy person will make him or her live longer. We did find, however, that there was substantial potential for adverse side effects."
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fgene.2012.00...
"In laboratory mice, mutations with the greatest, most consistent, and best documented positive impact on lifespan are those that disrupt growth hormone (GH) release or actions."
Tl;dr: There's no such thing as "ahead" of consensus.
One theory is that when you fast, your body activates the HGH to help burn fat at faster rate.
I fast between 24-48 hours (didn't do it last month due to being on the road most of the time) and for the time I did, I could see gaining muscle mass in a short time (in about of month) in conjunction with doing weights.
[1] http://anabolicmen.com/increase-hgh-in-24-hours/ (there is a link to NIH study)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies#Uses_in_the_heart...
Recently I started doing 72h salt-water only fasting once a month and my experience is that I get somewhat dizzy after 24h in the evening, but after a sleep I can perform normally without any need to eat, even including interval training and extreme uphill biking (slightly salty water is important here). This holds also for the 3rd day, again, absolutely no need to eat. Motivation were recent articles suggesting rejuvenation of one's immunity after 72h and subsequent feeding - will see if it works.
However, I believe I can do that only after I went on low-carb/no-carb diet for the past 2 years - I remember feeling horrible the first month on this diet with what you could name as "brain fog" most of the days - I guess at that point my body was learning how to survive on low carbs.
Anyway, fast forward, I am now far stronger, calmer (also due to 5 minute cold showers every day) and have brain clarity I haven't had in the past 10 years, which brings relax to what would most other people take as very stressful work, as the mind can perform and focus better and faster.
I speak as someone who has fasted up to 1 week. Interestingly, the difficult period is exactly the initial 2...3 days. After that it's no effort at all - albeit physical performance seems to decrease, of course.
The human body could go on like that for a few weeks actually, but I don't think there are any benefits beyond 2...3...4 days [research needed], and the dangers multiply rapidly the more you push into very long durations.
Also as others have said it, you go over a bump and it becomes easy. Also, there is a window where I'm rather productive and less ADD when I'm fasting.
Something happens to the brain during prolonged fasting (within reason), and it's something that seems pretty darn good overall.
If you practice meditation, fasting seems to help a lot.
The research was also summarized as "always gamble on an empty stomach."
The published paper: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(14)00...
>One theory is that when you fast, your body activates the HGH to help burn fat at faster rate.
That somewhat dovetails with generally recommended practice of having only scheduled 3-4 meals during the day without snacking in-between and thus giving yourself an opportunity to get hungry in-between the meals vs. constant snacking (incl. sugary soft drinks drinking).
I thought the usual way to administer HGH is a subcutaneous injection.
It is very basic not to eat sugar .... Ohh by the way, I am taking some HGH pills every day
man! Kerrygold goes on the bagel and gets mixed with coffee inside your mouth :)
If you really want butter into your drink, it is done with tea (green) and salt
1tbsp organic extra virgin coconut oil
2tbsp Strauss Family* organic grass fed butter (unsalted)
16oz Sightglass* coffee (from 4tbsp grounds)
*both brands local to the bay area.
blend!
drink!
code!
If you don't like the heavy butter taste adjust the coconut oil quantity up a little, or maybe brew the coffee a little stronger.
But my point is not about the coffee per se; it's ignoring two big cofounders what really bothers me.
Not to say that I'm pro-cancer, but I feel like this is a little bit unreasonable. Cancer is a very complicated problem, and medical research takes a long time. Personally I think it sounds like Thiel is just trying to get swole.
Nanomachinery would possibly be able to identify and remove cancerous cells from the body more intelligently then the body's immune system (similar to how evolution has brought us far enough to where we can engineer biology faster than evolution could).
Problems are either software based, hardware based, or both. This would be both.
There are two reasons why cancer is so difficult to treat: (1) cancerous cells ARE your own cells that are behaving differently, so distinguishing cancerous cells from non-cancerous cells is very difficult. And (2) cancer cells are constantly evolving, so even when you do identify such unique features, the cancer mutates and changes this identifying feature. Decades of research has been devoted to identifying such "Achilles heels" of cancers that allow them to be uniquely and sustainably targeted by therapies and the number of successes can be counted on one hand. We already have technologies that allow you to identify unique features on cancer cells (e.g. monoclonal antibodies) and deliver chemotherapeutic drugs just to those cells (e.g. antibody-drug-conjugates) and they don't work too well.
Cancer is hard and nanomachine research is in its infancy. I can't predict the future, obviously, but I can guarantee you that people won't be using nanomachines to treat cancer for the forseeable several decades, if ever.
Want to make a Long Bet [1] on that? Years ago I would've never thought a private citizen would be delivering cargo to a space station with the goal of landing on Mars, but here we are. Reality can be unpredictable.
His unforeseeable future wouldn't be possible because no entity could do it with sufficient resources and will right now according to him.
Is a strange straw man to invoke about a future technology.
Teleportation is also a strange analogy to make for what is essentially our current cancer treatments plus miniaturization which has a fairly clear roadmap.
Also , assuming we have the theoretical tech to sample a big set of cancer cells from a patient - collect a big list of all the unique characteristics, create a large collection of drug molecules targeted at all those characteristics with very very high specificity, and give them to a patient, won't this cure him in very high likelihood ?
As for the future of nanorobotics, I recommend you watch this interview with Robert Freitas, an expert in nanotechnology and nanomedicine [1]. The implications of nanotechnology will be huge.
He claims that nanorobotics will emerge in the late 2020's and become dominant in the 2030's. They won't just cure cancer. They'll be able to a cure whole host of other diseases that are seen as incurable today, including aging.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/surv...
There very well could be some breakthrough in immunotherapy, where the treatment is to send a cancer biopsy to some lab that makes a custom drug, and the cancer is held at bay indefinitely.
It is a breakdown of the cooperation/altruism between cells that make you a multicelluar organism. We have several genetic programs designed to enforce cooperation, but cumulative damage in each cell over a lifetime eventually breaks all of them and generates 'independent' cells subject to natural selection, in our own bodies, with our DNA. All of our cells are cancerous, eventually.
Would you believe the claims as readily if he said he was going to stop aging? I would have to remind you that we don't even really know why we age.
It is fantastic and disconcerting that we are back in the age of wealthy patrons driving scientific discovery. I'm certain many discoveries and great art came from patrons who understood little about the field.
I think you've fallen for anti-drug propaganda.
Many people take it to maintain health into old age -- not to become giant meatheads.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/health/leukemia-patients-c...
A number of companies are working on commercializing these treatments today. I'm particularly excited that these treatments seem to be quite effective in putting childhood leukemia into near complete remission. The future looks bright for the human battle against cancer.
Jeff Bezos famously said that smart people often change their minds [2]. I would encourage Thiel to challenge many of his deeply held beliefs about the history and nature of scientific and technological progress, and empirically compare our current system with that of the past. Especially if he wants to see cancer cured (!!!!) in the next decade (!!!!).
Thiel and his colleagues have a unique opportunity to set mankind back on our path of scientific and technological discovery. But in order to do this, we have to thoroughly understand the environment and factors which nurture scientific progress. With NIH and NSF funding in freefall, and corporations cutting R&D spending across the board, I would argue we are moving in precisely the wrong direction. Crowdfunding won't cure Cancer, and neither will startups. These are very hard problems, that take a very long time to solve.
Round up some VCs and fund a dozen Janelia Farms for the next 20 years. Only then can we talk about human longevity as a long term goal.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8337837
2. https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3289-some-advice-from-jeff-be...
Unfortunately there's a lot of anti-aging and performance-enhancing quackery out there.