Видео

after you have found the best way to increase NAD go to big pharma and ask them for 700million like David Sinclair

Somewhat unrelated, but in past videos you've provided a breakdown of all the foods/amounts you eat per day (on average). It would be really nice to see a video that shows all the food put together in the meals you eat each day. Also, do your meals/food stay the same everyday (aside from cheat meals), or do you change things up on your two 90-min workout days by changing your meal timing or having a pre/post workout meal?

Surprised you are going to continue with trigonelline testing next. Would be nice to see some niacinamide and NR testing after to see how they compare to the niacin and nmn. Maybe blend products like nuchido time +. Even trying other meds and various peptides like 5-amino-1mq. Thanks!

quite excited now about the mega dose experiment, as high trigonelline is associated with incerased ACM. it is not clear however whether Trigonelline was accumulated due to deranged metabolism, or the the other way round. Will you measure he std phenoage profile as well? Or do you think that 10 days is too short to leave a dent? It is indeed an alkaloid, so you can expect AST to increase a bit.

My main sources of Trigonelline is cold brewed green coffee and Daikon radish, mind sharing that Trigonelline supplement you mentioned ? All I could ever find was overpriced ground fenugreek pills 😅

You would get higher NAD if you workout out fasted .my channel is dedicated to that while useing advanced breathing techniques to be able to keep the intensity high. Im 49 this September. Instant coffee is high in Trigonelline so I do drink 2-3 cups before a work out.

Good try with the clover sprouts Mike. Italian clover I presume. If the supplement works, sakurajima radish should still be worth a go. Cheers!

7:07 a high HRV doesn't matter, but a low HRV does as it increases risk. Based on this plot I care about not having a low HRV, an optimal HRV doesn't help me much vs just having a decent HRV.

Any coconut oil data? I've seen miracles done with it, i'd really like to know where you stand

Amazing and very helpful presentation about kidney function.I refer to it periodically as it helps me stay on the good track.

Another great video. You introduced us to the benefits of lignoceric acid to the brain, which I had to look up. Would you care to share a keyword that would allow us to further research this remarkable saturated fatty acid as it relates to brain aging?

I think 6 years is still crazy good and probably the 6 years are high in terms of quality of life.

The correlation of total protein intake with longevity markers isn't useful, as it's balancing the negative effects of methionin vs. the beneficial effects of other amino acids, and the result will heavily depend on the portion of methionine in that protein. Moreover, what the data reflect is not just your protein intake, but the specific foods you have chosen to obtain that protein and all the other substances they bring along, which you provide no information about. Fortunately though, the methonin content varies greately among different types of protein, so we are able to control our methionin intake independently of other amino acids to see the benefits of both methionin restriction and plenty of good amino acids. Much to the dismay of many, this works by focussing on plants as the major source of proteins and this seems to be one of the reasons why plant protein consumption is associated with positive health outcomes, while animal protein cunsumtion is associated with negative health outcomes even after correcting for other lifestyle factors.

Any good theory should make predictions that are testable. When invoking quantum mechanisms concrete calculations should be done as is the norm in physics, and a good theorist will put forward many predictions that can be tested experimentally. A quick search of this topic shows some good physicists have done calculations and performed related experiments that don't support the views presented here. That doesn't mean the theory is right/wrong, but provides cause for concern this "theory" is not viable as presented. Usually in these situations the theories get buried and are rarely mentioned again in physics. If you aren't putting forward concrete calculations with testable experiments, and ignoring calculations that don't support your ideas, that's not good science (as its done in physics). You move into the realm of what ifs and philosophy and it should be presented in that light.

Thanks from Kazakhstan. Definitely underrated channel!

Perhaps consider these pioneers...Dr. Ward Dean, Dr. Stephen Sinatra, Linus Pauling, John Morgenthaler, Dr. Michael Lesser, Leon Chaitow, Drs. Cathcart & Klenner, Dr. Michael Gershon, Terence McKenna.

That supports simple inexpensive niacin for enhancing NAD levels, and expensive NR or NMN not required, especially if one adds what's needed for support of salvage pathways, etc. Also worth using creatine for various benefits, preserving methyl groups being one of them.

So is it Dr Hameroff's contention that there's no biology in AI so it can never be conscious, and yet we can have survival after death and out of body experiences (which implies consciousness without biology)? This seems contradictory. Also - that memories are encoded in microtubules and yet people can have memories of past lives? Memories of past lives would only make sense if the memories are not stored in the body and the body acts as a receiver or 'player' (like a record player) for memories. ~ When I was a teen I wanted so badly to have an out of body experience; I half believed in that sort of thing at the time (age 12-17), but then around age 18 I became a hard core materialist and stayed that way for a few decades. Ironically, I realize now that I had 2 OBEs as a teen. Unfortunately, they were both during traumatic experiences. When I remembered the incidents there were periods in both where my perspective was from above. I kept wondering why that was, why could I not access the 'real' memory of the incidents? I thought the in-the-air, seeing my own body perspective was a construction of my imagination. I only recently have come to the understanding that these were OBEs. I had a therapist try to explain it to me around 20 years ago, but I was too close-minded (but no matter, she was a terrible therapist in general). I was not physically near death in either incident, though I feared for my life (I sustained a GSW in one, but it was very minor).

The Penrose/Hameroff theory would insist on localizing consciousness. That would make spacetime relevant and constant, no? I'm sure you have listened to Dr. Donald Hoffman at length--as I have--but here, in this recent interview, I found his most coherent thoughts on the non-existence of spacetime and consciousness being related to the physical properties of the brain. I love this interview because non-scientists like myself have a much better shot of gleaning meaning out of what Dr. Hoffman is saying rather than when he is involved in the same interview with Bernardo Kastrup, and the two of them are so deep in the weeds of philosophy and science it's hard to walk away without still feeling lost. -- ruclips.net/video/yqOVu263OSk/видео.html Of course, DR. Hoffman has his detractors. I try to find evidence for and against his theories. In the article, "An Encounter with Radical Darwinitis | Issue 154 | Philosophy Now Anti- Donald Hoffman.", Dr. Raymond Tallis takes Hoffman's theories apart. Tallis says that Hoffman's theory that spacetime does not exist goes flat when he speaks about nature and evolution, providing humanity with a simple interface to live within because if nature exists and evolution happens, then spacetime must also exist. Article- philosophynow.org/issues/154/An_Encounter_with_Radical_Darwinitis. I think the Penrose/Hameroff theory is somewhat hopeful, but Dr. Hoffman addressed that with Robert Lawrence Kuhn on Closer To Truth eight years ago, and he wasn't buying into it then. Closer To Truth. Donald Hoffman - Quantum Physics of Consciousness- ruclips.net/video/tio1vJoTeKY/видео.htmlsi=SNEWxmmmDugkCzfH . If our individual consciousness creates and or manifests everything we are and everything we experience, then microtubules dancing with quantum particles is just another amusing thought we're having while we light and furnish our individual universes.

Edit: The guy is a complete charlatan. He not only pushes quantum woo but keeps deleting my replies to him. This is absolutely a philosophical discussion and there is simply no "evidence" for any of this quackery. "Consciousness" is a meaningless buzzword and there simply is no "hard problem" at all There is neither a "hard problem" nor a "measurement problem." Both arguments have similar structure and so quantum woo academics think somehow they are related, and in a sense they are related, but only because they both are based on the same logical fallacy, not because consciousness is something fundamentally different than everything else that physics will "solve." They both arise from falsely equating something that is _context-dependent_ with something that is _subject-dependent._ Most contemporary philosophers make this fallacy and falsely conflate experience with some subjective "reflection" or "representation" of reality because it is unique to each one of us, which is a non-sequitur. Something being unique to a subject does not make it _subjective_ as it could also be _contextual._ Something that is contextual changes depending on context, i.e. reference frame, point of view, etc. There is nothing inherent to the "mind" or "consciousness" that makes it unique to a context frame but all things only exist in their context, and humans are clearly just objects in the universe, one of many, so naturally they occupy a specific context frame. When you untangle this logical fallacy, then you can dispense of this whole notion that experience is somehow "subjective" and that it really is just objective reality _as it really is._ This equally applies to quantum mechanics: the so-called "measurement problem" falsely equates _quantum contextuality_ to _subjectivism._ Quantum mechanics is filled with subjectivist language such as "observation" and "observer-dependence" and "measurement," and so people falsely assume it must be an inherently subjectivist theory and therefore something either must be _wrong_ with it (there's a "measurement problem") or some idealists just latch onto this and say that proves physical reality doesn't exist (idealists, like your Kastrup types). But this is just the exact same fallacy: it is conflating things that change _depending on context_ with things that change _depending on the subject._ The subjectivist language can easily just be replaced with realist language such as replacing "observation" or "measurement" with "interaction" and "observer-dependence" with "context-dependence" and suddenly the philosophical difficulties of the theory disappear. There is nothing special about the subject or observer here, you can write down wave functions from the reference point of a rock if you wanted. When you make a measurement, you have to update the wave function because you changed your context, not because you physically "collapsed" something. I would recommend reading the writings of Jocelyn Benoist who has written extensively on how treating reality as context-dependent rather than subject-dependent easily dissolves the mind-body problem and the so-called hard problem. I would also recommend reading the writings of Francois-Igor Pris who has written extensively on how the measurement problem has a similar logical structure to the "hard problem" and dissolves in the same way if you treat quantum theory as context-dependent. Neither of the problems are "solved" because they are unsolvable: if you start with the premise of a fundamental separation between mind and body, by definition you cannot "solve" it without contradicting yourself. Both problems are logically _dissolved_ by correcting our starting premises.

I would be grateful if someone summaries in simple terms the main conclusions of this (certainly exciting) interview.

Quantum physics can give rise to false assumptions because you start with a mathematical explanation, which is accurate, but then you come up with a physical visualization/description, which is speculative. Then people use the physical visualization to logically deduce a new answer, this is a thought experiment, and can work in some situations and may not work in many situations, it's largely reliant on the accuracy of your initial description, which in itself didn't have the level of proof that the mathematics had.

What a nice surprise to wake up to on a Sunday morning - two of my favorites together, like almond butter and chocolate! I haven't finished watching yet. While I don't think amyloid is the whole story in AD, I think it must be part of it since there are associations with genetic differences in APP (e.g., Down syndrome, but that's also considered to be a progeroid syndrome, so it's complicated). It's great Dr Hameroff is at Arizona - does he interact with the team that works with Shinzen Young (SEMA lab) on ultrasound neuromodulation?

It’s incredible how much of of what is available to read in Genesis as well as throughout the Bible lines up with the language being used in this interview. Check your premises and consider praying for clarity on His existence, with love, meekness and honesty. John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Those that love, recognize, AND KNOW God the Creator are referred to as Kings and Queens in the Bible. Proverbs 25 2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.

Do you buy organic strawberries? Btw: very interested to see the results from the olives!

You're overthinking it, you control blood ph with phenols and nutrition so all you can do is eat ital, smoke weed and drink beers until you die. Big up, Bless JAH

Very interesting so pleased Hameroff is still working on this, he is basically correct imo - AI has given the whole subject area a boost in popularity. My ten cents is this: Single cells are "thinking" and have memory and it is probably decoherence in microtubules and some type of protein memory effect. But neurons allow organisms to perform more complex control operations. I believe Ai is conscious - in its own way - and I do not see why quantum effects are necessary to "think" consciously. Goeddel's is a bit of a con imo - its a piece of simple logic that doesn't get us far. There must be something outside is a piece of logic. Its a bit like the logic that claims my brain is making everything up and there is only my brain in the Universe - its logically correct but not, in fact, correct. We cannot even define what "truth" is because the meanings of words depends on other words - Post Modern Philosophy basis. But academics abuse these two theorems for career reasons and to sound clever - lol.

No use listening when he makes a silly strawman argument right from the start. In fact nobody would say that brain is a computer made of simple neurons.

I hope you achieve this rarity and obtain a Nobel Prize

I liked this old man with crazy genius ideas and his unique personality 😀

Timestamps: 0:53 Orch OR Theory As An Explanation For Consciousness, Links With Alzheimer's Disease 24:04 Microtubules As Central Player For Quantum Physics With Consciousness 31:50 Microtubules And Aging 32:40 Microtubules And Cognitive Function 36:48 Maximizing Microtubule Density In The Brain-->Maximize Cognitive Function? 38:00 Tryptophan's Role In Microtubules 38:55 Ultrasound Therapy For Alzheimer's Disease 44:55 Quantum Entanglement Within The Bain And/Or Outside Of It? 48:15 Consciousness Preceded Life? 55:30 Microtubule Frequency, Sleep vs Awake 57:10 Do Microbes Have Microtubules? 1:00:20 What's Fun For Stuart Outside Of Studying Consciousness? 1:02:35 Stuart's Favorite Movies 1:05:45 More On The Link Between The Brain And Quantum Entanglement 1:06:30 Advice For Young Scientists, What Would Stuart Change About His Early Career? 1:12:25 What Does Orch OR Get Wrong? 1:15:02 Questioning Reincarnation Experiences 1:16:50 Psychedelics

Thanks

Great video! You have the same macro nutrient ratio as Bryan Johnson

My wife has low Thyroid numbers and has for many years. Does your medication cause you and negative effects?