Peter Attia· MD
as you go higher in dose so 3 times higher than what they originally tested the females still live a little bit longer but the difference between males and females the gap has closed quite a bit
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
as you go higher in dose so 3 times higher than what they originally tested the females still live a little bit longer but the difference between males and females the gap has closed quite a bit
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.
The "high risk" framing here is the right call. I've had three patients ask about rapa this month and none of them grasped the immunosuppression tradeoff until I walked them through it.
The PEARL trial framing in the dossier is the clearest writeup I've seen for a non-specialist. Worth linking from the AMA pages too.
I'm on 6mg/week, year two. Tracking IL-6, fasting glucose, lipids. Happy to share the spreadsheet if Whalespan wants longitudinal user data.
The dosing variance across the advocate camp is staggering. 3mg, 5mg, 8mg, biweekly, weekly… brief is right that "monitor or specialist only" is the responsible read.
as you go higher in dose so 3 times higher than what they originally tested the females still live a little bit longer but the difference between males and females the gap has closed quite a bit
as you go higher in dose so 3 times higher than what they originally tested the females still live a little bit longer but the difference between males and females the gap has closed quite a bit
when you give the same dose of rapamycin in chow the blood levels in the females are three times higher than the males so we don't know why
a really interesting one is rapamycin because you know in rapamycin the sex bias is very in in longevity at least it's very dose dependent at the lowest dose they've done the females live substantially longer than the or put it this way the effect is substantially bigger in females than males and that difference gradually goes away as you get it to a higher and higher dose and in the highest dose that anybody has used which is not in the itp but um in another study males had a big effect and females had no effect so the idea is maybe you've overdosed the females at that stage
but that could that could explain the difference right it could be that it wasn't it wasn't that at a lower dose females are living longer because it's a lower dose it's because they have a higher plasma concentration and maybe that's the gap that vanishes at a high enough dose
Rapamycin extends median and maximum lifespan in mice across multiple lab strains and dosing protocols.
Rapamycin will extend human lifespan by 5+ years at standard weekly dosing.
Weekly rapamycin dosing in healthy adults shows favorable safety and immune markers in early observational data.
Chronic low-dose rapamycin imposes an immune trade-off that outweighs the longevity hypothesis for most healthy adults.
mTORC1 inhibition is the mechanistic backbone for rapamycin's healthspan effects in mammals.
The PEARL trial showed an acceptable 48-week safety profile in healthy adults on weekly rapamycin.