The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
i think if you cycle back and forth and i believe we agree on this it's okay to stimulate mtor sometimes we need that for growth and repair and then you want to be back in the other side and kind of have the other side of the equation where you're doing rest or you're doing repair and sort of this autophagy
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.
It's clear that both mTOR, you need just right amounts, right? You can't have too little. It's toxic. You have too much. It's toxic. The same thing with autophagy. If you remove autophagy, it's really toxic. If you have too much autophagy, it's really toxic. The cycling anabolism, catabolism might be the single most important thing to do.
It's clear that both mTOR, you need just right amounts, right? You can't have too little. It's toxic. You have too much. It's toxic. The same thing with autophagy. If you remove autophagy, it's really toxic. If you have too much
on the breaking Downs side as you and I Peter have discussed I'm sure Mt agree it's autophagy right the the self-eating and destruction of parts of the cell sometimes aged parts of the cell sometimes parts that are damaged for other reasons that seems to be absolutely critical on the on the catabolic uh side