Bryan Johnson· Author
Ice baths are not part of the blueprint protocol. Not because they're not potentially useful, but because we don't have evidence that they achieve our singular objective of ex of slowing my speed of aging.
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Ice baths are not part of the blueprint protocol. Not because they're not potentially useful, but because we don't have evidence that they achieve our singular objective of ex of slowing my speed of aging.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
same thing with with uh cold plunge is we have not Incorporated cold plunge into blr because the evidence doesn't meet the criteria for our specific objectives of longevity
the cold plunge is not part of our practice because it doesn't match our longevity goals it doesn't mean there's not benefits in other things so if you do have a cold plunge practice great it's important to know what you're trying to achieve by it and if you can measure those things
having looked at the data very carefully um I can say that answer appears unlikely I I see no evidence that cold immersion um Alters any of the Hallmarks of Aging with the one possible exception being a reduction in inflammation
although I still firmly maintain it has no longevity benefit there's no gor protective benefit of cold plunging