Where do you draw the line? Clinical vs. Ancient vs. Biohacking?

[laansasa]

SeaGypsy said:

laansasa said:

MTSpace said:

laansasa said:

Same here. All 3 approaches are part of my routine. For prevention, I lean on ancient traditional medicine, but if a UTI flares up, the only way to avoid misery is prescription antibiotics. Alongside a lengthy daily regimen of supplements and peptides, I keep prescription medications on hand for whenever they're needed. At 47, I'm grateful to have no permanent prescriptions, and because of my family history, I'm putting in serious effort to steer clear of the diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, etc. that runs in my family.

At 47, staying off any long-term prescription could make you a unicorn!

Honestly, I think I got off easy. On both sides of my family, chronic conditions show up — diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and so on — yet my own problems ended up being different: a benign thyroid goiter, insomnia, low ferritin, lethargy, UTIs, and more. What probably protected me was that, thanks to part of my genetics, I stayed very thin for most of my life. That changed in my late 30s, when I suddenly gained 40 lbs (I'm only 5'1). I shed all of it without intervention — partly out of vanity, partly because I was afraid of the conditions listed above. These days, though, weight is a fight: not obesity, but stubborn fat that simply refuses to stay off.

Dude, that's genetic dodgeball you're caught up in! Here's hoping you can sidestep and slip past the whole mess! Part of me wishes I'd gotten that 1 skinny gene, but nope — in every group I was the fat 1

"Genetic dodgeball" really nails it! Before I was even born, my mom had already embraced every ancient wellness practice under the sun—she was a hippie through the 60s and 70s. So my childhood was full of wholesome food, visits to chiropractors and osteopaths, macrobiotic gatherings, iridologists, naturopaths, yoga (long before it became mainstream), the whole spectrum. Then my teenage years brought rebellion, and I went completely off the rails in my 20s and 30s—which eventually caught up with me. What I can say is that I came away with a strong grasp of what actually causes health problems and how to address them naturally. But aging doesn't mess around, and the price of all those years of excess is steep. These days I'm circling back to everything I already knew, while also bringing peptides into the mix (a completely unfamiliar territory for me). What a journey it's been!

 

[flapjacks]

MTSpace said:

flapjacks said:

This might not be a popular take, but I keep running into doctors telling me I'm an outlier or that my responses don't match the norm. So I usually lean toward the ancient approach or digging into things myself, since that's what actually works in my case.

A lot of us don't fit the usual mold. Sometimes that works in our favor, and sometimes it doesn't (in my case, it definitely doesn't)!

I appreciate you saying that. My own experience has been up and down as well. Because of some unusual genetics, I'm prone to infections, benign cysts, hernias, and nerves that randomly stop working. "Incidental Findings" is the phrase I dread most on any report. A few people come out ahead, and a few of us don't — I'm in the second group.

 

[mongchopz]

In my case, the reason was cost: UK prices for the pens are out of reach for me, and options such as ret aren't available through the official route. Being severely overweight in my 50s carries risks, and those risks are greater than the ones I'm taking.

 

[tcpnomad]

To me, these three aren't separate categories—they sit along a single spectrum.

Take ancient knowledge: it's centuries of lived experience boiled down, yet it often carries superstition and bias along with it. Because it lacks a logical framework and rigorous methods for testing what's true, it's hard to know how much weight any particular piece deserves, even if plenty of it may be useful.

Science, by contrast, is simply logic and systematic method turned toward discovering truth. Its limitation is capacity—it can't cover everything. And by design, it avoids subjects where rigorous methods can't be applied. So many things remain unexamined, even when there might be something worthwhile there.

As for biohacking, that's essentially science done by amateurs. It brings modern information to bear, but without the rigor or precision—because, whether we like it or not, we aren't trained the way scientists are, and we lack their resources. So we lean on partial knowledge, gut feeling, hearsay, and trial-and-error. That said, it isn't worthless. Over time, the collective experience of many people does get refined into things that work. Still, it will never match the reliability of the scientific method.

 

[MTSpace]

flapjacks said:

MTSpace said:

flapjacks said:

This might not be a popular take, but I keep running into doctors telling me I'm an outlier or that my responses don't match the norm. So I usually lean toward the ancient approach or digging into things myself, since that's what actually works in my case.

A lot of us don't fit the usual mold. Sometimes that works in our favor, and sometimes it doesn't (in my case, it definitely doesn't)!

I appreciate you saying that. My own experience has been up and down as well. Because of some unusual genetics, I'm prone to infections, benign cysts, hernias, and nerves that randomly stop working. "Incidental Findings" is the phrase I dread most on any report. A few people come out ahead, and a few of us don't — I'm in the second group.

There is no fairness in life, that much is certain! At some point in the past, my forebears encountered the plague along with other infections, and those events reshaped the course of my gene pool. A few genetic markers I carry led me to dig into the hypotheses about why my genetics turned out so unfavorable. Still, I have the curiosity and the drive to find ways around my genetics so I can live a life I feel grateful for. Keep up the good fight.

 

[MTSpace]

tcpnomad said:

To me, these three aren't separate categories—they sit along a single spectrum.

Take ancient knowledge: it's centuries of lived experience boiled down, yet it often carries superstition and bias along with it. Because it lacks a logical framework and rigorous methods for testing what's true, it's hard to know how much weight any particular piece deserves, even if plenty of it may be useful.

Science, by contrast, is simply logic and systematic method turned toward discovering truth. Its limitation is capacity—it can't cover everything. And by design, it avoids subjects where rigorous methods can't be applied. So many things remain unexamined, even when there might be something worthwhile there.

As for biohacking, that's essentially science done by amateurs. It brings modern information to bear, but without the rigor or precision—because, whether we like it or not, we aren't trained the way scientists are, and we lack their resources. So we lean on partial knowledge, gut feeling, hearsay, and trial-and-error. That said, it isn't worthless. Over time, the collective experience of many people does get refined into things that work. Still, it will never match the reliability of the scientific method.

My take is that Biohacking is basically the modern descendant of BroScience — both are amateur-run, do-it-yourself versions of science.

Take anabolic steroids. BroScience claimed they boosted strength, sped up healing, and packed on muscle. Back in the 80’s, the bulk of what I was reading said the science didn’t back that BroScience claim about anabolic steroids. I was an athlete who never touched steroids, yet I had friends and co-teammates who put on 10-30 lbs of muscle within months by using AAS. As a teenager I remember saying that science can be blind to its own ambition — a view I still hold in “some” situations.

The same building blocks BroScience had are what today’s Biohackers have. And those among us with sharp pattern recognition and analytical minds are a blessing to the rest of us who benefit from their efforts.

 

[tcpnomad]

MTSpace said:

tcpnomad said:

To me, these three aren't separate categories—they sit along a single spectrum.

Take ancient knowledge: it's centuries of lived experience boiled down, yet it often carries superstition and bias along with it. Because it lacks a logical framework and rigorous methods for testing what's true, it's hard to know how much weight any particular piece deserves, even if plenty of it may be useful.

Science, by contrast, is simply logic and systematic method turned toward discovering truth. Its limitation is capacity—it can't cover everything. And by design, it avoids subjects where rigorous methods can't be applied. So many things remain unexamined, even when there might be something worthwhile there.

As for biohacking, that's essentially science done by amateurs. It brings modern information to bear, but without the rigor or precision—because, whether we like it or not, we aren't trained the way scientists are, and we lack their resources. So we lean on partial knowledge, gut feeling, hearsay, and trial-and-error. That said, it isn't worthless. Over time, the collective experience of many people does get refined into things that work. Still, it will never match the reliability of the scientific method.

My take is that Biohacking is basically the modern descendant of BroScience — both are amateur-run, do-it-yourself versions of science.

Take anabolic steroids. BroScience claimed they boosted strength, sped up healing, and packed on muscle. Back in the 80’s, the bulk of what I was reading said the science didn’t back that BroScience claim about anabolic steroids. I was an athlete who never touched steroids, yet I had friends and co-teammates who put on 10-30 lbs of muscle within months by using AAS. As a teenager I remember saying that science can be blind to its own ambition — a view I still hold in “some” situations.

The same building blocks BroScience had are what today’s Biohackers have. And those among us with sharp pattern recognition and analytical minds are a blessing to the rest of us who benefit from their efforts.

haha - "BroScience" is a term I enjoy!

 

[MTSpace]

BroScience has a following that resembles a cult.

 

[BigDaddyJ]

I happen to have a PCP who is on board with “alternates” too. Following her advice, that's how I ended up here. That journal really makes a difference!!

 

[Habibibi]

There are way too many drugs and supplements available, so my approach is to stick with what clinical data supports in order to narrow things down. Every 2-3 months I get blood work done to keep track.

 

[MTSpace]

Habibibi said:

There are way too many drugs and supplements available, so my approach is to stick with what clinical data supports in order to narrow things down. Every 2-3 months I get blood work done to keep track.

I agree there are lots of options out there, including some that are much riskier than anything people talk about here.

What's your peptide stack like? Right now I'm just running Reta. In the past I've tried BPC, TB, Mots-C, DSIP, gHK-cu, plus a short period on HGH.

 

[Habibibi]

MTSpace said:

Habibibi said:

There are way too many drugs and supplements available, so my approach is to stick with what clinical data supports in order to narrow things down. Every 2-3 months I get blood work done to keep track.

I agree there are lots of options out there, including some that are much riskier than anything people talk about here.

What's your peptide stack like? Right now I'm just running Reta. In the past I've tried BPC, TB, Mots-C, DSIP, gHK-cu, plus a short period on HGH.

My current stack is retatrutide plus tesamorelin. As for the other items on your list, I went ahead and purchased many of them, yet eventually I stopped and felt a bit foolish, since human efficacy data was lacking in my view. With retatrutide, HGH, and tesamorelin, by contrast, there is a large body of clinical evidence that I can go through.

 

[HistLady]

Throughout my entire life, I've seen my mother work to outpace aging. She keeps up an exercise routine, eats a whole food diet, uses supplements, tries every sort of homemade or ancient remedy, and at 79 chose to start peptides too—without telling a soul. She isn't on any regular prescription, and what matters most to her is never becoming a physical burden on her children or grandchildren. Heart problems run in her family, and either she was adopted or her way of living has left her in better health than her siblings. Modern medicine isn't something she opposes—her goal is simply to look after her body and avoid being a physical burden on her children and grandchildren.

That outlook has shaped how I think about health and aging, and I hope it will do for me what it has done for her.

 

[Meritocrat]

Not ideal, but my cutoff point is simply whatever proves effective in my own case. My distrust of academia, government, and large corporations runs deep — so deep that whenever they make a claim, I feel an almost reflexive pull toward doing the reverse. Dealing with medical problems in my family is what pushed me here... I've confirmed for myself that Reta, BPC, TB500, MGF, and IGF-DES do the job, so those are the ones I'll keep using.

 

[MTSpace]

HistLady said:

Throughout my entire life, I've seen my mother work to outpace aging. She keeps up an exercise routine, eats a whole food diet, uses supplements, tries every sort of homemade or ancient remedy, and at 79 chose to start peptides too—without telling a soul. She isn't on any regular prescription, and what matters most to her is never becoming a physical burden on her children or grandchildren. Heart problems run in her family, and either she was adopted or her way of living has left her in better health than her siblings. Modern medicine isn't something she opposes—her goal is simply to look after her body and avoid being a physical burden on her children and grandchildren.

That outlook has shaped how I think about health and aging, and I hope it will do for me what it has done for her.

That looks like a strong model she gave you. I appreciate you posting this.