Winslow Strong

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 2 天前赛道影响

@WilliamWallace Diterpines are protective against cancer.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 7 天前观点输出

@WilliamWallace It's very hard for me to believe that this magnitude of effect size is all causally mediated via power. I suspect most of the effect is mediated by health status, causative of lower mortality and higher power. Do we have any evidence to suss this out?

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 10 天前观点输出

@Ferbin08 @randgroup Efficient Computer solves this

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 12 天前观点输出

RT @juliankissa: I asked 4 longevity experts; "Over the next 5 years, which therapeutic wins?" Kaeberlein ranked them in this order: 1) R…

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 12 天前赛道影响

@MattZirwas Photoimmunosuppression begins at just 25% to 50% of 1 MED

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 12 天前赛道影响

Opus 4.8: "The 1.6 SED "no accumulation" claim is the weakest link. The recent biopsy literature doesn't cleanly support a safe threshold: a 2025 study finds prolonged DNA damage at suberythemal doses, dependent on skin type and age, (ScienceDirect) and other work shows an approximately linear rise in CPDs from 0.2 to 1.0 MED (Nature) — i.e., damage below the erythema threshold. The 1.6 SED figure is itself frequently used as an approximation of 1 MED (~30 mJ/cm²), not as a demonstrated ceiling. And extrapolating a 4-day CPD time-course to lifetime melanoma risk is a large leap: carcinogenesis runs through clonal selection, photoimmunosuppression, and UVA-driven indirect damage over decades. A short-term biomarker null doesn't establish lifetime safety." https://t.co/bg80i4oVKk https://t.co/R5czMrV2ge

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 12 天前赛道影响

@MattZirwas More tradeoffs here than presented. Even UV-A exposure ages skin. That's a distinct bucket from lifespan or healthspan that some people care about and some don't, but it needs to be named.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 17 天前赛道影响

But I agree that within-individual, just tracking absolute VO2 might be better than VO2max, since your body dimensions (organ size, length of limbs, height, bone size) don't change much. For the scenario if an individual gains or loses a meaningful amount of muscle, that change in weight shouldn't be a handicap or booster for the VO2 figure, but it would be for VO2max.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 22 天前观点输出

Want to do a dark retreat? And help science study the effects? Many slots open from Oct into Jan at this new facility at Holos, Uvita, CR. I'm doing my first in Jan. It's 4 nights / 3 full days of dark. 6 nights overall at Holos. https://t.co/BKMYoDTKgF

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

Winslow Strong@winslow_strong · 22 天前赛道影响

I think some normalization is needed, to adjust for different overall sizes of individuals, including for example their lung size. It does not make any sense to use absolute VO2 to compare performance of a 5-ft 90 lb athlete to to a 6'3 200 lb athlete cuz their bodies are so much different in size. That being said, I agree that weight is not actually the proper normalization to use. It should probably be some size factor calculated from height and limb length and maybe joint girth like knee and wrist circumference.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。