AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
A retrospective cohort study published last fall re-examines the claim that Metformin has life-extending properties. The original study in 2014 showed a 15% relative reduction in all-cause mortality for those on Metformin. However, the re-assessed study highlights limitations in the methodology, such as informative censoring, and questions the initial findings. The results indicate a difference of less than one year of life per 1,000 patient years studied, emphasizing the need for further investigation.
Metformin inhibits complex one of the mitochondria, which affects ATP production through oxidative phosphorylation in the cells. This drug changes the way the body partitions fuel and reduces hepatic glucose output. Metformin is commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and evidence suggests its potential in reducing insulin resistance and glucose disposal. However, more research is needed to fully understand its effects and implications.
Both Adi and Huberman have personal experiences with Metformin and Berberine. They experimented with these substances and had both positive and negative outcomes. However, it is important to note that self-experimentation does not substitute for rigorous scientific study and more research is required to fully understand the effects and safety of these substances.
Metformin, a medication used for diabetes and potential gero-protection, has been examined in a study. However, the results showed that metformin did not provide the expected benefits for longevity. The study also highlighted concerns about high lactate levels at rest in individuals taking metformin. While the study did not conclusively show harm from taking metformin, it did not provide robust evidence of its benefits either.
A recent experimental study has investigated how beliefs about the effectiveness of medications can impact their actual effectiveness. The study focused on the placebo effect and found that beliefs about the drugs we take can have a biological impact, rather than just a subjective one. The study suggests that our beliefs about a drug can actually shape its effects on our bodies. However, it should be noted that the study is not yet published and should be further validated.
While discussing recent studies on the placebo effect, it is important to note the limitations of small-sample studies. Findings from studies with small sample sizes and the absence of pre-registration should be interpreted with caution. It is crucial to replicate such results using larger sample sizes to ensure their validity. Skepticism towards single studies with small sample sizes can help foster a more balanced understanding of the placebo effect.
The enthusiasm expressed for and interpretation of scientific papers should be tempered with an awareness of potential limitations and biases. It is important to critically evaluate the methodology, sample size, and statistical significance of the findings. Replicating results across multiple studies is also key to confirming the robustness of the findings. Taking a cautious and balanced approach can help avoid unwarranted excitement or misinterpretation of scientific studies.
The podcast episode discusses a study that explores the effects of belief on the brain's response to drugs. The study specifically focuses on the dose-dependence of belief effects, using nicotine as an example. The findings show that participants' subjective beliefs about the dose of nicotine influenced the activation of specific brain areas, such as the thalamus. Interestingly, the study suggests that the brain's response can be influenced by beliefs about drug dosage, even when the actual amount of the drug is the same for all participants. This has implications for understanding the placebo effect and highlights the power of belief in shaping physiological responses.
The podcast also delves into the limitations and challenges of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. The hosts discuss issues such as sample size, statistical significance, and the complexity of analyzing fMRI data. They highlight the importance of pre-registration and caution against overhyping results, particularly in small-sized studies. Additionally, they touch on the potential biases in interpreting fMRI outcomes and the need for further replication and exploration of statistical methods. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for critical evaluation and consideration of various factors in fMRI research.
The episode explores the implications of belief effects on various health interventions, such as medications, supplements, vaccines, and behavioral changes. The hosts discuss the potential influence of belief on treatment outcomes and emphasize the need for careful interpretation of results. While the study discussed focuses on nicotine and brain response, the conversation expands to broader topics like placebo effects, optimizing health interventions, and the challenges of isolating causality in observational studies. The hosts highlight the importance of a nuanced perspective and critical evaluation when navigating the complex relationship between beliefs and health interventions.
Throughout the podcast episode, the hosts critically analyze the paper under discussion and raise important questions about methodology, statistical significance, and interpretive insights. They examine the study's limitations, encourage cautious interpretation of results, and advocate for pre-registration and replication as essential components of rigorous scientific research. With a balanced approach, they navigate the complexities of the study while also highlighting the potential significance and implications of belief effects on health interventions.
In a kind of meta cross-over with our Decoding Academia series, we're going to decode a journal club discussion between two well-known health optimisers: Dr. Peter Attia and Dr. Andrew Huberman. So you get to listen to two academics talk about two other academics talk about academic papers... we know...
We've already been introduced to the bulging biceps and morning sun-drenched routines of Huberman elsewhere but this is our first introduction to Peter Attia, MD. Attia is a former ultra-endurance athlete and a physician in the field of longevity and performance, a podcaster (who isn't amirite?!?) and author of "Outlive: The Science And Art Of Longevity".
Attia introduces us to a paper that casts doubt on the supposed general life-extending properties of a diabetes drug called Metformin. This is a drug that is apparently very well known in the biohacker/life extension communities and one that Attia administered to himself for a number of years despite the rather preliminary evidence. This is the first of many indicators that both gentlemen are certainly on the bleeding edge of self-medicating experimentation, doggedly pursuing the elusive goals of huge pectoral muscles, minds that laugh at the concept of cognitive decline, and bodies that will live... well for a lot longer than Matt and Chris!
We get to hear about week-long starvation regimes, medications that take the edge of pizza and doughnut binges, dealing with month-long nausea from self-dosing experimental treatments, and frequent prick-blood tests all for the sake of optimising, optimising, optimising...
Huberman's paper (a preprint, actually) falls more into the "big, if true" category - although he seems fairly confident himself. Does *believing* you are getting a treatment generate the relevant physiological and neurological effects in the body that could mean we can bypass the need for certain pharmacological substances entirely, including some vaccines?!? Based on the results of a small-N, fMRI study that reports mixed results, Huberman muses... maybe! Or how about those other small-N studies, with p-values hovering suspiciously close to 0.05 that report other counterintuitive findings? We will leave it to Huberman to explain.
But the bad stuff aside, Huberman and Attia (especially Attia) actually do a pretty decent job talking about how to approach research papers and some of the pros and cons of different approaches. Chris and Matt thus have ample opportunities to give credit where credit's due and demonstrate that they are the fair-minded souls everyone knows them to be!
In any case, it's an interesting peak into an alternative health optimiser world. It seems to be a rather "serious" hobby a bit like body modification or tattoos. But who are we to judge? Matt likes cultivating succulent plants and Chris is into eating sushi in lush forests. So biohacking, self-experimentation for longevity? Well, at least it's an ethos.
Also featuring, an introduction that covers Irish history, the most humble guru in the gurusphere, and our very own theory of guru cringeosity!
Links
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode