Peter Attia

But there are always animals that punch above and below their weight.

So there are animals that fall off that line either too high.

So these are animals that live much longer than you would expect based on their body size.

And there are animals that punch well below their body weight.

They live much shorter than they should based on their body weight.

Well, it turns out two interesting examples are mice and humans.

Mice live on average two years.

I forget the exact number.

They should be living close to four or five years, I think, based on the longevity quotient line.

So they are punching well below their weight.

And humans, we live 80 years.

We should probably be 40, according to the data.

By the way, we did live 40 years until modern medicine came along.

So maybe we were totally on the curve correctly until medicine 2.0 came around at the turn of the last century and basically over five generations doubled our lifespan.

Eric argues, I think this is a very interesting argument, rapamycin disproportionately works well in animals that are below the longevity quotient.

So that's why it works so reproducibly in mice.

But he argues it might not have any effect in humans because we've already captured so much of our genetic potential in terms of lifespan now that the idea that Rapa would give us an extra 15% of life, he feels is just kind of hard to imagine.

And again, it's a theoretical argument.

It's super interesting, but I'd never heard it in relation to the longevity quotient before.

And I thought it was very much worth pondering.