Radiation exposure from CT scans

[Roman57]

Multi-day fasting is not needed.

I thought you mentioned you did fasting in one of the earlier replies?

Exercising BEFORE any meal each day (like first thing in the morning before you eat or drink anything)

I run first thing in the morning. But since I run for an hour, doing so before each meal seems a bit much. Didn't you say you exercized 10 hours a week? So if I do it 1 hour before each meal it would be a lot more than that.

 

[timewerx]

I thought you mentioned you did fasting in one of the earlier replies?

I practice intermittent fasting

Intermittent Fasting 101 — The Ultimate Beginner's Guide

This is a detailed guide to intermittent fasting (IF). Studies show that it can help you lose weight, improve health and perhaps even live longer.

www.healthline.com

I run first thing in the morning. But since I run for an hour, doing so before each meal seems a bit much. Didn't you say you exercized 10 hours a week? So if I do it 1 hour before each meal it would be a lot more than that.

Yes, I currently do more than 1 hr and up to 2 hrs of skating exercise before meals. If you're going to drink, it should be water only, no electrolytes, no calories added.

I do these exercises without drinking anything as well but I won't recommend exercising without drinking because I don't want you blaming me if you collapse or enter into a comma for exercising without drinking water.

It's not hard at all when you're used to it. The benefits are massive to the health if you can do it consistently.

 

[Roman57]

I practice intermittent fasting

Then I guess its the language issue. The way I am used to, is I only call something fasting if it is no food of any kind for 24 hours or more.

Intermittent Fasting 101 — The Ultimate Beginner's Guide

This is a detailed guide to intermittent fasting (IF). Studies show that it can help you lose weight, improve health and perhaps even live longer.

www.healthline.com

Yes, I currently do more than 1 hr and up to 2 hrs of skating exercise before meals.

If it is 10 hours a week, that means it is 1 and a half hour a day. If you have 3 meals and you do it before each meal, that would mean you only do it for half an hour before each meal, not an hour.

I guess you also mentioned having 2 meals a day sometimes. So are you having only 2 meals and you do it 1 hour before one meal and half an hour before the other?

If you're going to drink, it should be water only, no electrolytes, no calories added.

I do these exercises without drinking anything as well but I won't recommend exercising without drinking because I don't want you blaming me if you collapse or enter into a comma for exercising without drinking water.

Actually, I was raised in Russia (I left to the US when I was 14) and in Russia it is taught to avoid drinking before exercizing. I remember when I moved to America I was surprised that Americans were telling me I should drink, and I refused to. I am still doing it the Russian way and not drinking.

 

[timewerx]

If it is 10 hours a week, that means it is 1 and a half hour a day. If you have 3 meals and you do it before each meal, that would mean you only do it for half an hour before each meal, not an hour.

I only exercise once a day, 6 am in the morning. Before any meal, not before each meal. So I'm actually doing 1 to 2 hrs continuously. It's not always 1.5 hrs. Sometimes it's one hour, sometimes, it's 2 hrs.

I guess you also mentioned having 2 meals a day sometimes. So are you having only 2 meals and you do it 1 hour before one meal and half an hour before the other?

Actually I start exercising 4 hrs before any meal. If I start exercising at 6 am, I don't have my first meal until 10 am and no eating nor drinking prior to the first meal.

I do eat 2 meals a day and also no eating nor drinking in between. IF I want to snack, I eat the snacks right after each meal, not between meals. If someone invites me to a night cinema then I skip dinner so I can eat popcorn and what else, have both my dinner and snacks at the cinema.

Actually, I was raised in Russia (I left to the US when I was 14) and in Russia it is taught to avoid drinking before exercizing.

I also don't drink before and during exercise. And because I exercise in the morning, I don't drink anything 12 hrs prior to exercise.

I guess we both came from the school of hard knocks!

Classical athletes trained in such manner but the practice is discontinued after a few sudden deaths. But, I still train in classical method.

It's better for vascularization, the thing we discussed earlier that helps negate the harmful effects of radiation.

Also: why did they evacuate them from Chernobyl? They could have simply asked them to do good diet and exercize, and saved a lot of resources. I mean, radiation from living in one of the less contaminated areas in Chernobyl zone is only 3 mCv a year, while radiation from a single CT scan is 10 mCv.

I forgot to answer this question of yours.

The biggest danger in Chernobyl is from the radioactive dust (fallout) around Chernobyl. Inhaling one of these will cause concentrated zone of radioactivity in the body and the body may not be able to work fast enough to prevent accumulation of harmful mutations even if you are very physically fit and exercise a lot.

The place still have lots of radioactive dust until today.

Intriguingly though, wildlife is thriving in Chernobyl even better than before the disaster:

 

[Roman57]

I only exercise once a day, 6 am in the morning. Before any meal, not before each meal. So I'm actually doing 1 to 2 hrs continuously. It's not always 1.5 hrs. Sometimes it's one hour, sometimes, it's 2 hrs.

As far as running for more than an hour, yes I can do that sometimes. Its a lot easier than before every meal, at least based off of my schedule. However, I am a late person. I usually get up at 9, and thats when I run.

Actually I start exercising 4 hrs before any meal. If I start exercising at 6 am, I don't have my first meal until 10 am and no eating nor drinking prior to the first meal.

I wasn't taught that. I was taught half an hour should pass between exercizing and meal.

I do eat 2 meals a day and also no eating nor drinking in between. IF I want to snack, I eat the snacks right after each meal, not between meals.

But, in terms of total calories, its the same thing whether you snack right after meal or between meals. So what difference does it make?

In Russia I actually heard the opposite how dieters might eat frequently and in small portions. Although nobody told me to do that, because this strategy is either for weight loss, or for stomach problems, and neither of those apply to me. But I haven't really heard the opposite where you would be asked to increase your portions in order to be able to limit their number.

I am also not sure why you say "not drinking between meals". When I said I agree with "no drinking", I meant no drinking before or during the exercize. But I am not sure why drinking between meals would be bad. I thought we are supposed to drink 2-3 liters of water a day?

By the way, in Russia I didn't see anybody carrying bottles or drinking water spontaneously the way Americans do. But at the same time I haven't really seen them saying that you shouldn't. It just wasn't a thing. The only thing I remember them saying is you shouldn't drink before/during exercizing.

Classical athletes trained in such manner but the practice is discontinued after a few sudden deaths. But, I still train in classical method.

So could it be that its not the difference between Russia and the US, but rather the practice changed at the same time as when I moved to the US? The time when I moved to the US was 1994. What time did the above practice change?

I forgot to answer this question of yours.

The biggest danger in Chernobyl is from the radioactive dust (fallout) around Chernobyl. Inhaling one of these will cause concentrated zone of radioactivity in the body and the body may not be able to work fast enough to prevent accumulation of harmful mutations even if you are very physically fit and exercise a lot.

The place still have lots of radioactive dust until today.

This is a good step in the direction of answering my question, but not completely. On the one hand, yes, if you inhale the dust, you will get more radiation than you would otherwise. But the question is: more by how much? Because here I am talking about several magnitude of difference. You see, you don't have to live in Chernobyl for a year to be sick. Even living there for a few days would be a bad idea. Yet CT scan is equivalent to living in more severe portions of Chernobyl for a year or in less severe for few years. So that is several magnitude worth of difference. Can the radioactive dust account for THAT much?

Were there any calculations of the number of mCv the person will absorb by living in Chernobyl zone that would account for the radioactive dust?

Intriguingly though, wildlife is thriving in Chernobyl even better than before the disaster:

Just curious: why is the third animal lying down?

 

[timewerx]

I wasn't taught that. I was taught half an hour should pass between exercizing and meal.

That is also true to prevent further muscular tissue breakdown (protein catabolism). However, in my experience, the body can adapt to prevent it.

But, in terms of total calories, its the same thing whether you snack right after meal or between meals. So what difference does it make?

It's probably no difference in calories.

The advantage of reducing number of meals is to minimize or avoid chronic inflammation in the body. The body is more efficient at managing inflammation with fewer meals and the body adapts to burning fat for energy.

Chronic inflammation can lead to cancer and cardiovascular disease. The opposite is resilience to inflammation which can also improve resilience to radiation.

I am also not sure why you say "not drinking between meals". When I said I agree with "no drinking", I meant no drinking before or during the exercize. But I am not sure why drinking between meals would be bad. I thought we are supposed to drink 2-3 liters of water a day?

By the way, in Russia I didn't see anybody carrying bottles or drinking water spontaneously the way Americans do. But at the same time I haven't really seen them saying that you shouldn't. It just wasn't a thing. The only thing I remember them saying is you shouldn't drink before/during exercizing.

I only drink 1 glass of water the whole day everyday and I still exercise 1 to 2 hrs every day in usually 90 to 100 F temperatures.

I don't recommend doing this. This is due to my unique biology. Water is toxic to me in greater quantities.

This is a good step in the direction of answering my question, but not completely. On the one hand, yes, if you inhale the dust, you will get more radiation than you would otherwise. But the question is: more by how much? Because here I am talking about several magnitude of difference. You see, you don't have to live in Chernobyl for a year to be sick. Even living there for a few days would be a bad idea. Yet CT scan is equivalent to living in more severe portions of Chernobyl for a year or in less severe for few years. So that is several magnitude worth of difference. Can the radioactive dust account for THAT much?

Were there any calculations of the number of mCv the person will absorb by living in Chernobyl zone that would account for the radioactive dust?

The problem with the dust is that the radiation dose right next to the dust particle would be much higher dose of radiation than the CT scan. Radioactive dose increase is squared by distance to the source. If the source is microscopic in size like a dust particle, the squared increase in dosage goes to microscopic distances to the source. You're looking at very high dosages at microscopic distances to a radioactive dust particle

It may take only a handful of malignant cells for the problem to turn into cancer even if the size of the area receiving high dose of radiation is microscopic, it greatly raises the chances of cancer.

Worse still, you have high chance of inhaling radioactive dust just standing outdoors in Chernobyl.

Just curious: why is the third animal lying down?

I think it wants a belly rub.

 

[Roman57]

The problem with the dust is that the radiation dose right next to the dust particle would be much higher dose of radiation than the CT scan. Radioactive dose increase is squared by distance to the source. If the source is microscopic in size like a dust particle, the squared increase in dosage goes to microscopic distances to the source. You're looking at very high dosages at microscopic distances to a radioactive dust particle

I am a physicist so I am very familiar with the inverse square. I guess we now need to be a bit careful to see whether we are plugging in the correct distances. What we ultimately have to explain is why the radioactive exposure by people that inhale the dust is much larger than the radioactive exposure by the dosimiter that doesn't inhale the dust. But you see, dosimiter interacts with dust particles too, it just doesn't inhale them. So the issue here is not the radius of the dust particle itself (since it presents itself in both cases) but rather the issues is their location. In case of the dosimiter, the dust particles are spread thrughout the whole room, while if you inhale them they would be in your lungs. And size of the lungs will be much smaller than size of the room.

But even here you have to be careful. If you look at dust particles evenly spread throughout the room, then some of them would be in the close vicinity to the dosimeter. Based on what you just said, the ones in the close vicinity to the dosimeter would be the main contributors to what it shows. So we have to say that the concentration of the dust particles in the lungs have to be greater than the one in the room. But, from the point of view of simple diffusion, it doesn't make sense. So we have to say that, beyond simple diffusion, the dust particles get absorbed into the tissue and can't get out, so the tissue accumulates them. So now the question is: how much does the tissue accumulates the dust particles? And this is something we can't predict just based off of common sense, this would require some knowledge of biology.

The other question is what exactly does mCv stand for? Because when I asked the internet what it is, it simply told me it measures the amount by which it is harmful to humans. But, if so, does it mean that when they evaluated number of mCv-s in Chernobyl they already took into account everything you just said about dust particles? Or is mCv refers to the level of harm in a hypothetical situation if the exposure would end by the time the person leaves the zone -- that is, in a hypothetical case where no dust particles get accumulated?

In any case, is there any formula that relates the amount of mCv shown in the dozimeter (that neglects what we just said about dust particles) to the amount of mCv that the person would, in actuality, be exposed to, if dust particles are accounted for? So, if we don't account for dust particles, then 1 CT scan would be the same as a year in bad part of 30 kilometer zone and few years in one of the milder parts of 30 kilometer zone. But now, if we do account for dust particles, then what time in the zone would it be the same as? Would a year become a month, or a day, or even just an hour? I guess an hour or even a day there isn't so bad: there are trips there. The reason I ask for actual numbers is to be convinced. Since I saw one number that scared me, I need to see another one thats less scary.

It may take only a handful of malignant cells for the problem to turn into cancer even if the size of the area receiving high dose of radiation is microscopic, it greatly raises the chances of cancer.

Worse still, you have high chance of inhaling radioactive dust just standing outdoors in Chernobyl.

Mathematically speaking, this is referred to as standard deviation. Can you quantify the standard deviation of concentration of radioactive dust particles in the human body after visitting Chernobyl. In particular, the ration of that standard deviation to the mean. If standard deviation happens to be several magnitudes times the mean, this would explain it. If, on the other hand, it is of the same order as mean, then it wouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised by either scenario: I am not a biologist. But do you have actual data to point to, one way or the other?

 

[timewerx]

I am a physicist so I am very familiar with the inverse square. I guess we now need to be a bit careful to see whether we are plugging in the correct distances. What we ultimately have to explain is why the radioactive exposure by people that inhale the dust is much larger than the radioactive exposure by the dosimiter that doesn't inhale the dust. But you see, dosimiter interacts with dust particles too, it just doesn't inhale them. So the issue here is not the radius of the dust particle itself (since it presents itself in both cases) but rather the issues is their location. In case of the dosimiter, the dust particles are spread thrughout the whole room, while if you inhale them they would be in your lungs. And size of the lungs will be much smaller than size of the room.

But even here you have to be careful. If you look at dust particles evenly spread throughout the room, then some of them would be in the close vicinity to the dosimeter. Based on what you just said, the ones in the close vicinity to the dosimeter would be the main contributors to what it shows. So we have to say that the concentration of the dust particles in the lungs have to be greater than the one in the room. But, from the point of view of simple diffusion, it doesn't make sense. So we have to say that, beyond simple diffusion, the dust particles get absorbed into the tissue and can't get out, so the tissue accumulates them. So now the question is: how much does the tissue accumulates the dust particles? And this is something we can't predict just based off of common sense, this would require some knowledge of biology.

The other question is what exactly does mCv stand for? Because when I asked the internet what it is, it simply told me it measures the amount by which it is harmful to humans. But, if so, does it mean that when they evaluated number of mCv-s in Chernobyl they already took into account everything you just said about dust particles? Or is mCv refers to the level of harm in a hypothetical situation if the exposure would end by the time the person leaves the zone -- that is, in a hypothetical case where no dust particles get accumulated?

In any case, is there any formula that relates the amount of mCv shown in the dozimeter (that neglects what we just said about dust particles) to the amount of mCv that the person would, in actuality, be exposed to, if dust particles are accounted for? So, if we don't account for dust particles, then 1 CT scan would be the same as a year in bad part of 30 kilometer zone and few years in one of the milder parts of 30 kilometer zone. But now, if we do account for dust particles, then what time in the zone would it be the same as? Would a year become a month, or a day, or even just an hour? I guess an hour or even a day there isn't so bad: there are trips there. The reason I ask for actual numbers is to be convinced. Since I saw one number that scared me, I need to see another one thats less scary.



Mathematically speaking, this is referred to as standard deviation. Can you quantify the standard deviation of concentration of radioactive dust particles in the human body after visitting Chernobyl. In particular, the ration of that standard deviation to the mean. If standard deviation happens to be several magnitudes times the mean, this would explain it. If, on the other hand, it is of the same order as mean, then it wouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised by either scenario: I am not a biologist. But do you have actual data to point to, one way or the other?

It appears I maybe wrong about the extreme cancer risk of inhaling radioactive dust. The risk is not as high according to this research paper because living tissues next to the dust particle dies which helps prevent development of cancerous tissue.

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20637400

Radiation dose from inhaling/ingesting radioactive dust from above article seems to match radioactive dosage of CT scans. The whole body dosage seem more relevant than local high concentrations of radioactivity such as from embedded radioactive particles in the body.

Cancer risk from inhaling radioactive dust (Chernobyl):

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/52/067/52067228.pdf

Dosage of CT scans (after reading above article, you'll realize the dosages are similar to inhaling radioactive fallout dust) and in some cases, higher.

Risk studies of CT scans and also showing dosages:

CT Scans and Cancer Risks: A Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis - PMC

There is still uncertainty on whether ionizing radiation from CT scans can increase the risks of cancer. This study aimed to identify the association of cumulative ionizing radiation from CT scans with pertaining cancer risks in adults. Five ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dosages from WebMd website:

How Much Radiation Do You Get From CT Scans?

CT scans use radiation. Here’s what you need to know about your safety.

www.webmd.com

It looks like the CT scan risk is real. Although not crazy alarming. But if you need to avoid taking any chances, you need a lifestyle change, Live healthier, exercise, eat right as soon as possible.

 

[Roman57]

It appears I maybe wrong about the extreme cancer risk of inhaling radioactive dust. The risk is not as high according to this research paper because living tissues next to the dust particle dies which helps prevent development of cancerous tissue.

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20637400

Radiation dose from inhaling/ingesting radioactive dust from above article seems to match radioactive dosage of CT scans. The whole body dosage seem more relevant than local high concentrations of radioactivity such as from embedded radioactive particles in the body.

Cancer risk from inhaling radioactive dust (Chernobyl):

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/52/067/52067228.pdf

Dosage of CT scans (after reading above article, you'll realize the dosages are similar to inhaling radioactive fallout dust) and in some cases, higher.

Risk studies of CT scans and also showing dosages:

CT Scans and Cancer Risks: A Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis - PMC

There is still uncertainty on whether ionizing radiation from CT scans can increase the risks of cancer. This study aimed to identify the association of cumulative ionizing radiation from CT scans with pertaining cancer risks in adults. Five ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dosages from WebMd website:

How Much Radiation Do You Get From CT Scans?

CT scans use radiation. Here’s what you need to know about your safety.

www.webmd.com

It looks like the CT scan risk is real. Although not crazy alarming. But if you need to avoid taking any chances, you need a lifestyle change, Live healthier, exercise, eat right as soon as possible.

What I am even more concerned about than cancer is aging. Both overall aging and brain aging. To me brain aging is especially important since I want to do physics and I don't want my brain to stop working. But also overall aging is important too because I want to live a long life.

Now, the article that bothers me is this one: Ionizing Radiation-Induced Brain Cell Aging and the Potential Underlying Molecular Mechanisms.
If you look at Table 1 of that article, it specifically mentions CT scans, and it, in fact, says they lead to both overall aging and brain aging. Now, can you find information by how much? Is it a few months or is it several years, or is it somewhere in between?

 

[timewerx]

What I am even more concerned about than cancer is aging. Both overall aging and brain aging. To me brain aging is especially important since I want to do physics and I don't want my brain to stop working. But also overall aging is important too because I want to live a long life.

Now, the article that bothers me is this one: Ionizing Radiation-Induced Brain Cell Aging and the Potential Underlying Molecular Mechanisms.
If you look at Table 1 of that article, it specifically mentions CT scans, and it, in fact, says they lead to both overall aging and brain aging. Now, can you find information by how much? Is it a few months or is it several years, or is it somewhere in between?

Anything that can prevent or even reverse cancer can also delay aging.

It takes us back to diet, feeding discipline, and exercise.

Brain aging can be slowed or even reversed because the brain can actually grow new cells and networks.

For that you also need ways to stimulate brain activity in addition to diet and exercise.

One effective way is to learn new things and they don't have to be mental activities but can also be physical activities which is great because you get to exercise at the same time.

Learn martial arts, learn to dance salsa, or what I'm training to do atm - figure skating. Learn to speak a new language. After you're done, learn another new thing.

I have extremely positive experiences about these things and also lots of research papers concerning the things I've been sharing so far.

 

[Roman57]

Brain aging can be slowed or even reversed because the brain can actually grow new cells and networks.

For that you also need ways to stimulate brain activity in addition to diet and exercise.

Would you apply it to general aging too, or just the brain aging? If you apply it to general aging as well, then it would imply that everyone can live forever, which is obviously not true. I think aging goes a lot deeper than just lifestyle. Because there are 20 year olds who have horrible lifestyle and who are obese and what not, but you can still tell they are 20. And, conversely, there are 50 year olds who are very athletic, very healthy, yet you can still tell they are 50. So why is it you can still tell that a healthy 50 year old is older than obese 20 year old? So I guess aging goes a lot deeper than just health. Now, if you take an obese 20 year old, they can improve their lifestyle over the years, get in shape, and live till they are 90, if they do that. But if you take athletic 50 year old, you can't get them to live till they are 120. So an obese 20 year old is actually in a much better situation than an athletic 50 year old. And thats why CT scans are so much worse than having a bad diet. Because bad diet will make you fat, but it would still leave you the age that you are. On the other hand, CT scan makes you literally older.

Now, here is the question. I am still waiting for you to find out how many years do people age by CT scan. But, for the sake of the argument, lets assume 3 years (the reason I said 3 years is that this is one of the answers AI gave me, but on a other occasions it gave me other answers, such as 1 to 2 years, or 5 years, or aging speeds up twice (agh) or none at all; thats why I want a human, such as yourself, to find out what it actually is). Now, I am 44 years old. Since I had two CT scans (one two years ago, and the one ten days ago), I would be 6 years older than my age (provided I assume its "3 years" per scan, which you have to check), so I am biologically 50. Now, lets say a real 50 years old also does the things you just recommended for me. So, as we both do those things, we are both going to be younger than other 50 year olds. But the question is: are we going to be equally young to each other, or no?

1) If we are going to be equally young to each other, then this still means that I threw away 6 years of my life. Because if I didn't have CT scan, I could have waited 6 years and then started what you recommend 6 years later. But CT scan basically threw me 6 years into the future. So its like I just wasted 6 years for nothing and then trying to run against the clock to catch up. And its not me wasting 6 years enjoying good food. No! Its me being stupid by agreeing to CT scan when I didn't have to!!!

2) If, on the other hand, I would end up being biologically 6 years younger than my hypothetical 50 year old companion, then this would address my concern. In this case I would have reversed CT scan, which is what my goal is. What I would like to happen is to "undo" CT scan. Once I "undone" it, then of course it would still be a good idea to have a healthy lifestyle (just like it would have been if I didn't have it on the . first place). But at least I wouldn't have that regret weighing on me.

Let me put it in those terms. I asked an AI what supplements to take. So I got CoQ10, Vitamins C, D3 and E, Glutathione, Selenium, Alpha Lipotic Acit, Ginko Biloba, Digestive Advantage and Ashwagantha (not sure why it recommended the last two). Anyway, as far as Glutathione and Selenium, they specifically are designed to neutralize free radicals: so they would be helping me WITHOUT hypothetically helping my 50 year old companion. So thats good. On the other hand, if I look at the other ones, they sound more like a general health thing, so they would be helping my 50 year old companion too, so thats not so good. So I guess my question is: does your advice fall into the category of Selenium and Glutathione, or does it fall into the category of those other supplements?

Speaking of supplements, I asked an AI whether I would undo CT scan if I take them, and it said I would only partly metigate it but not completely undo it. Thats why I want more advice so I can undo it.

One effective way is to learn new things and they don't have to be mental activities but can also be physical activities which is great because you get to exercise at the same time.

Learn martial arts, learn to dance salsa, or what I'm training to do atm - figure skating. Learn to speak a new language. After you're done, learn another new thing.

For the past several years I been trying to learn quantum field theory, supersymmetry and string theory, which is what I was supposed to have learned as a graduate student, especially since at some point those things were my focus, yet I haven't since a lot of it appeared too abstract and too hard to visualize. I wrote a paper, in collaboration with one of my professors, as to how to remove one of the conceptual blocks to my conceptualizing supersymmetry, https://math.berkeley.edu/~scanlon/papers/BIRS-9May2020.pdf However, I still run into other issues. It just seems too abstract. But I still challenge myself to learn it, part by part. And, slowly but surely, I am making some progress.

Now, this is not really learning "new" things, because I been staring at it for years. As far as learning other things I was shying away from them because it seemed like it would take away from my time with quantum field theory. For example, I was told I needed to learn various computer languages and I didn't want to. So the only computer language that I know is Pascal, which I learned back when I was in the 7-th grade. Also, I was hired as a postdoc to work on quantum information, but I couldn't wrap my mind around the notion of qubit, because it just seemed too abstract. Then I was invited to Scottland to do project on scale relativity, and it contradicted my intuition in other ways. Looking back, it seems like my mind was rejecting everything thats not quantum field theory because logically everything should be reduced to the latter.

So maybe what I should do is to make myself put aside my self-made projects on quantum field theory and learn those other things (whether it be programming or a different area of physics)? But that would put me behind since I have a lot of stuff that is still not published that I want to publish. I guess I can budget my time.

However, learning martial arts sounds like a big disraction. If it comes to physical activity, maybe I would be better off learning how to drive, which I still haven't (my parents don't drive because back in Russia it was normal not to, so they never taught me).

But anyway, back to the main point. Do you REALLY think learning new things would "undo" CT scan? It seems like it would compensate for it rather than undo it. But I would like to undo it. Because if its all about compensation, then its no better than me simply wasting off few years of my life and then, after I wasted them, try to learn new things in order to run against the clock. Yet it didn't take few years to do my two CT scans, it took few minutes. Thats why its so frustrating.

 

[timewerx]

Would you apply it to general aging too, or just the brain aging? If you apply it to general aging as well, then it would imply that everyone can live forever, which is obviously not true. I think aging goes a lot deeper than just lifestyle. Because there are 20 year olds who have horrible lifestyle and who are obese and what not, but you can still tell they are 20. And, conversely, there are 50 year olds who are very athletic, very healthy, yet you can still tell they are 50. So why is it you can still tell that a healthy 50 year old is older than obese 20 year old? So I guess aging goes a lot deeper than just health. Now, if you take an obese 20 year old, they can improve their lifestyle over the years, get in shape, and live till they are 90, if they do that. But if you take athletic 50 year old, you can't get them to live till they are 120. So an obese 20 year old is actually in a much better situation than an athletic 50 year old. And thats why CT scans are so much worse than having a bad diet. Because bad diet will make you fat, but it would still leave you the age that you are. On the other hand, CT scan makes you literally older.

I'm 43 years old but AI thinks I'm 23 when analyzing my face. Other people thinks I'm in my mid twenties.

"Telomeres" in DNA influences aging. Exercise, the right diet, calorie restriction, and disciplined eating habit exerts a large influence on telomeres health. These positive habits can also affect gene expression in the DNA.

You may skip to conclusion if you don't have time to read the whole article:

Physical Activity and Nutrition: Two Promising Strategies for Telomere Maintenance? - PMC

As the world demographic structure is getting older, highlighting strategies to counteract age-related diseases is a major public health concern. Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that serve as guardians of genome stability by ensuring ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Increase in telomerase activity can potentially extend/restore telomeres length. Some companies are developing drugs to increase telomerase activity but it can also be stimulated by intense bouts of exercise (once or thrice per week with regular exercise in between). These drugs are not yet available in the market.

We're Ready To Regrow Telomeres In Humans. Will It Work? - Gowing Life

Telomeres are protective DNA sequences that cap the ends of our chromosomes. They don’t code for anything, but instead serve…

www.gowinglife.com

Now, here is the question. I am still waiting for you to find out how many years do people age by CT scan. But, for the sake of the argument, lets assume 3 years (the reason I said 3 years is that this is one of the answers AI gave me, but on a other occasions it gave me other answers, such as 1 to 2 years, or 5 years, or aging speeds up twice (agh) or none at all; thats why I want a human, such as yourself, to find out what it actually is). Now, I am 44 years old. Since I had two CT scans (one two years ago, and the one ten days ago), I would be 6 years older than my age (provided I assume its "3 years" per scan, which you have to check), so I am biologically 50. Now, lets say a real 50 years old also does the things you just recommended for me. So, as we both do those things, we are both going to be younger than other 50 year olds. But the question is: are we going to be equally young to each other, or no?

I'm not an expert in CT scans and can't find life expectancy reduction in years.

Best article I found so far said 2.5% to 5% increased mortality risk in 5.5 years for those who underwent CT scans:

Experts weigh risks of CT scans

The scans typically deliver about 70 times the radiation of normal X-rays.

www.usatoday.com

So maybe what I should do is to make myself put aside my self-made projects on quantum field theory and learn those other things (whether it be programming or a different area of physics)? But that would put me behind since I have a lot of stuff that is still not published that I want to publish. I guess I can budget my time.

However, learning martial arts sounds like a big disraction. If it comes to physical activity, maybe I would be better off learning how to drive, which I still haven't (my parents don't drive because back in Russia it was normal not to, so they never taught me).

Learning new, unrelated fields can force the brain to re-wire itself. Who knows, this might give you a different perspective on your quantum field research and may even expedite the completion of your work. It's possible you have hit a 'block' in your work and learning new things could 'unblock' your mind.

Computer programming follows very similar logic as math. So for you, it would be like learning how to speak in a different language.

Driving could be an excellent new thing to learn for you. It's not as simple as you think especially if your goal is perfection, avoiding accidents for as long as you're driving.

You can even ride bicycle to exercise since you needed exercise anyway and because you're quite experienced at running already, cycling will provide fresh stimulation.

But anyway, back to the main point. Do you REALLY think learning new things would "undo" CT scan? It seems like it would compensate for it rather than undo it. But I would like to undo it. Because if its all about compensation, then its no better than me simply wasting off few years of my life and then, after I wasted them, try to learn new things in order to run against the clock. Yet it didn't take few years to do my two CT scans, it took few minutes. Thats why its so frustrating.

Learning new things can make you even smarter. It can help re-wire some parts of the brain and improve cognitive skills and therefore be able to solve problems quicker.

It can make you more productive in the long term even if only considering your work on quantum field research. As everything we've discussed so far, the health and potential cognitive damage can be reversed by any mutations and tissue death cause by CT scan.

Additionally, the presence of telomerase activity in the brain makes physical activity a possibly better stimulant in improving overall brain performance. It is crucial to maintaining or improving telomere in DNA within brain cells and even prevent degenerative diseases of the brain.

I used to have poor memory, poor cognitive skills, slow of thought so I'm unable to get any decent job. My brain have vastly improved since I started research and experimenting on trying to fix and improve myself. I'm still slow but not as slow as before. I'm just lagging a bit and hopefully will be fully fixed in a few years.

 

[timewerx]

I asked an AI what supplements to take. So I got CoQ10, Vitamins C, D3 and E, Glutathione, Selenium, Alpha Lipotic Acit, Ginko Biloba, Digestive Advantage and Ashwagantha (not sure why it recommended the last two). Anyway, as far as Glutathione and Selenium, they specifically are designed to neutralize free radicals: so they would be helping me WITHOUT hypothetically helping my 50 year old companion. So thats good. On the other hand, if I look at the other ones, they sound more like a general health thing, so they would be helping my 50 year old companion too, so thats not so good. So I guess my question is: does your advice fall into the category of Selenium and Glutathione, or does it fall into the category of those other supplements?

Some of these compounds are naturally produced in the body during exercise and fasting like Glutathione.

Exercise stimulates the body to produce anti-oxidants to eliminate free radicals in the body. These antioxidants can also help reduce inflammation.

It seems like AI agrees with me but my advice doesn't require taking supplements but purely through exercise and/or fasting. It's a lot safer to just stimulate the body naturally to produce these compounds instead of taking supplements with synthetic compounds that is likely to cause side effects.

 

[Roman57]

I'm 43 years old but AI thinks I'm 23 when analyzing my face. Other people thinks I'm in my mid twenties.

"Telomeres" in DNA influences aging. Exercise, the right diet, calorie restriction, and disciplined eating habit exerts a large influence on telomeres health. These positive habits can also affect gene expression in the DNA.

You may skip to conclusion if you don't have time to read the whole article:

Physical Activity and Nutrition: Two Promising Strategies for Telomere Maintenance? - PMC

As the world demographic structure is getting older, highlighting strategies to counteract age-related diseases is a major public health concern. Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that serve as guardians of genome stability by ensuring ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Increase in telomerase activity can potentially extend/restore telomeres length.

So can you explain why this strategy can't make people live forever?

Some companies are developing drugs to increase telomerase activity but it can also be stimulated by intense bouts of exercise (once or thrice per week with regular exercise in between). These drugs are not yet available in the market.

We're Ready To Regrow Telomeres In Humans. Will It Work? - Gowing Life

Telomeres are protective DNA sequences that cap the ends of our chromosomes. They don’t code for anything, but instead serve…

www.gowinglife.com

What are the closest drugs to those that are available?

Best article I found so far said 2.5% to 5% increased mortality risk in 5.5 years for those who underwent CT scans:

Experts weigh risks of CT scans

The scans typically deliver about 70 times the radiation of normal X-rays.

www.usatoday.com

Actually it seems to refer to the death caused by the conditions that led to doctors ordering CT scans rather than CT scans themselves (see the bolded part of the quote below)

But another study in last month's journal Radiology concluded that the conditions for which young adults had CTs posed a greater risk than radiation from the scans.

The researchers looked at 22,000 patients 18 to 35 who most commonly had a CT scan for trauma, abdominal pain and cancer.

After an average of 5.5 years, 7.1% of those who had had a chest CT scan and 3.9% of those who had abdominal CT scan had died, much higher than the expected 0.1% risk of death from radiation-induced cancer. And even when the cancer patients were culled from the statistics, the risk of death ranged from 2.5% to 5%, well above the risk in the general population.

In other words, it compares two things:

1) The death rate due to the underlying conditions that the patients had prior to being sent to CT scans

2) The death rate due to cancer caused by CT scans

But what I am interested in is

3) The death rate due to non-cancer related consequences (especially the aging) from CT scans

I don't think that particular paragraph where you got those numbers looks at 3. But I didn't have time to read the rest of the article.

However, the articles that I sent you earlier do show that the aging increases due to CT scan, both general aging and brain aging. Yet it doesn't quantify it.

Additionally, the presence of telomerase activity in the brain makes physical activity a possibly better stimulant in improving overall brain performance. It is crucial to maintaining or improving telomere in DNA within brain cells and even prevent degenerative diseases of the brain.

Actually, temolere is what I was thinking of, since that seems like the marker for aging. But the question is: do I really know that by having healthy lifestyle I made them longer? Are there any tests I can order where they actually test my telomers? And how much do they cost?

Separate question: I know you said multiday fasting isn't necessary. But perhaps you said it because it is too hard to do. But lets say I am up to it. Then here is a question. On the one hand, fasting helps. On the other hand, there is some food that helps (such as miso soup, leafy vegetables, etc). Clearly, both can't be done at the same time. So which of the two helps more? I guess one way to go is fast for few days and eat that food outside of those few days. But what should be first: fasting or that other food? AI mentioned "acute phase" that lasts first month after CT scan, but it mentioned it in terms of my prioritizing anti-free-radical supplements during acute phase and focusing on other ones afterwords. But in terms of fasting versus eating leafy vegetables, how would you place it in terms of time? And the other question is: what if I decide to fast for a month (I never done it before, I am just thinking of doing it because I am desperate), is it a good idea since then my system will really clean up, or is it a bad idea because this would prevent me from eating leafy vegetables?

 

[timewerx]

So can you explain why this strategy can't make people live forever?

No data exists for your question yet.

In 20 more years, there might be research data to answer that question. I may be able to answer that question for you after 20 years.

What are the closest drugs to those that are available?

No idea. The article mentioned the drug stimulate increase in telomerase activity in the cells.

Exercise and fasting/calorie restriction can do the same thing and more, including disposal of potentially cancerous tissues.

Actually it seems to refer to the death caused by the conditions that led to doctors ordering CT scans rather than CT scans themselves (see the bolded part of the quote below)

You're right. I was speed reading. It seems the radiation-induced risk remains at 0.1% in 5.5 years.

But what I am interested in is

3) The death rate due to non-cancer related consequences (especially the aging) from CT scans

From the article research sample, 0.1% mortality risk in 5.5 years. I think that's small enough chance to stop worry about it and can easily be reversed by exercise, good diet, and disciplined eating habit (no eating between meals and having only 3 meals each day or less).

But the question is: do I really know that by having healthy lifestyle I made them longer? Are there any tests I can order where they actually test my telomers? And how much do they cost?

I have no idea. You work in the science fields, you probably know someone who knows where to source such test equipment. Anyway you begin to sound like you might over-do this situation and end up wasting time on it than being productive on your quantum field work.

Separate question: I know you said multiday fasting isn't necessary. But perhaps you said it because it is too hard to do. But lets say I am up to it. Then here is a question. On the one hand, fasting helps.

5 day fasting would be enough to trigger the biggest positive effects from fasting. It's not going to make you thin within 5 days in case you're wondering but its potent healing potential will be manifested.

Drink water during the fast in case you're wondering but this quantity should be less, NOT more. Because if you drink more water to try to numb hunger, you can become deficient in electrolytes.

Ways you can help maintain electrolytes in the body during fasting is by adding some salt in your water (it should only taste mildly salty and not as salty in taste like miso soup) and also drinking tea (no sugar, no milk) to keep calories as close to zero as possible. This doesn't mean you can drink more water because you're adding electrolytes to it. The body needs much less water when you're not eating anything. Only drink when thirsty and only small quantities at a time.

Doing some light exercise during fasting like walking a few miles each day can simulate a longer fast.

I guess one way to go is fast for few days and eat that food outside of those few days. But what should be first: fasting or that other food?

That could work, I strongly recommend you begin with the fast first. When you're super hungry, vegetables will become quite palatable.

I love Japanese miso soup btw, I think everyone does.

AI mentioned "acute phase" that lasts first month after CT scan, but it mentioned it in terms of my prioritizing anti-free-radical supplements during acute phase and focusing on other ones afterwords.

I'd guess the "acute phase" is the time when the risk of damage to tissues from CT scan is the greatest where incidence of free radicals from the CT scan is also the greatest.

And the other question is: what if I decide to fast for a month (I never done it before, I am just thinking of doing it because I am desperate), is it a good idea since then my system will really clean up, or is it a bad idea because this would prevent me from eating leafy vegetables?

One month fast is very risky. People have died from it.

Start with just a 3 day fast at first, include some light exercise to simulate a longer fast. And then you can attempt a longer fast few weeks later.

You should also begin to exercise like running when you're not fasting. The adaptations you get from exercising will help you deal with fasting far better with less risk.

 

[Roman57]

You're right. I was speed reading. It seems the radiation-induced risk remains at 0.1% in 5.5 years.

I don't think that means this either. Because remember, there are three categories:

1) The death due to underlying conditions prior to CT scans

2) The death due to cancer caused by CT scans

3) The death due to non-cancerous conditions due to CT scans

What that quote shows is that "2" is at 0.1% But it doesn't seem to say anything about 3.

One can argue that it said something about 3 "by omission". Namely, if they were able to ignore it, then it is probably smaller than both 1 and 2, which is where you would "read between the lines" it is smaller than 0.1%

However, argument by omission might not be too persuasive, because it is possible that there were lots of cases of 3, they just couldn't have been proven as such. Because, unless its cancer (that is, 2), you can't really prove it was caused by CT scan, although it might have been.

I guess one thing they could have done is this. Include into "3" all deaths due to the non-cancer conditions developed *chronologically* after CT scan. And then have a control group of the same age and the same pre-existing conditions that didn't have CT scan, and look at the non-cancer conditions they chronoglocially developped after the other group had CT scan. And then compare the two. Did that article ever talked about that?

But even if 3 is at 0.1%, keep in mind that they were talking about the population of young adults. So it is still possible they all aged by few years yet were still all young. So I would like to see the stats about aging (done through telomere studies).

I know, if you take that article by itself, it might look like I am nitpicking. But the problem is that there are other articles, such as the one I were referring to earlier (look at Table 1 of Ionizing Radiation-Induced Brain Cell Aging and the Potential Underlying Molecular Mechanisms ) that does seem to imply that CT scanning causes aging.

You work in the science fields, you probably know someone who knows where to source such test equipment

Due to my Asperger's, I am not very well connected. Besides, theoretical physics is a very different field than medicine.

5 day fasting would be enough to trigger the biggest positive effects from fasting. It's not going to make you thin within 5 days in case you're wondering but its potent healing potential will be manifested.

But if my concern is few years worth of chronological age, then it has to be more than just 5 days. I mean, radiation from CT scan is extreme because it is equivalent to 1 year spent in Cherobyl or 7 years of background radiation. So it would take something extreme to undo it.

That could work, I strongly recommend you begin with the fast first. When you're super hungry, vegetables will become quite palatable.

I like vegetables regardless, and they are palatable as it is. I like eating big plates full of vegetables, including leafy ones.

The reason I was asking was more in terms of what will be more effective in undoing CT scan. Whatever is more effective needs to be done sooner, or so it seems.

One month fast is very risky. People have died from it.

I heard Paul Bragg did 90 day fast and didn't die. And of course Moses and Jesus both fasted for 40 days and didn't die.

You should also begin to exercise like running when you're not fasting.

I already began running, I ran an hour yesterday and an hour today. I intend to simply continue it while I fast.

 

[timewerx]

One can argue that it said something about 3 "by omission". Namely, if they were able to ignore it, then it is probably smaller than both 1 and 2, which is where you would "read between the lines" it is smaller than 0.1%

However, argument by omission might not be too persuasive, because it is possible that there were lots of cases of 3, they just couldn't have been proven as such. Because, unless its cancer (that is, 2), you can't really prove it was caused by CT scan, although it might have been.

Since 0.1% is due to ionizing radiation, and the article is about ct scans and ct scans is probably the biggest dosage of ionizing radiation one is going to experience in their lifetimes, it's safe to assume, the article is talking about ct scans.

But even if 3 is at 0.1%, keep in mind that they were talking about the population of young adults. So it is still possible they all aged by few years yet were still all young. So I would like to see the stats about aging (done through telomere studies).

I've been exposed to electron particles as well that is essentially beta radiation. It can penetrate 1 cm into living tissue.

My biggest exposure to ionizing radiation mostly X-ray, some gamma ray, and electron/beta radiation was back in 2002 and 2003. There were accidental exposure to ionized gas plasma as well in the same period that vaporized my skin that got into contact with the super hot plasma. Fortunately, there was no scarring and damaged skin tissue fully healed in just couple of minutes.

That's over two decades ago. If there was any lingering tissue damage that turned cancerous, I'd have it by now because most of the last two decades of my life I was living unhealthy. Junk food, fast food, and zero exercise. I only took up exercise last 2020, and dieting + eating discipline last year.

But if my concern is few years worth of chronological age, then it has to be more than just 5 days.

True but it's safer and easier to just break it down in multiple 5-day fasting instead of 30 day continuous fast.

For example, week1 - 5 day fasting, week2 - no fasting, week3 - 5 day fasting and so on and so forth.

Personally, I practice "Intermittent fasting" on a daily basis and I found it to be the most sustainable form of regular fasting. I do the "16/8" intermittent fasting. That means everyday, I have 16 hours of absolutely no eating, zero calories ("fasting window") and only 8 hrs of "eating window". I only have two meals within the 8 hour eating window and absolutely no eating/zero calories between meals. I also exercise within the 16 hr window before the first meal of the day.

You're allowed to eat until full on all your meals with intermittent fasting. You can combine exercise + intermittent fasting. Best time to exercise is within the fasting window right before your first meal of the day. Adding exercise within your fasting window simulates longer fasting interval.

Been doing it for 1 year, 7 months now. The biggest temptation in intermittent fasting is snacking between meals. Solution is remove all snacks from your house. You can also eat more during meals to reduce hunger between meals. Another solution is sleeping soon after the last meal of the day, this is avoid temptation for "midnight snacking".

Intermittent Fasting 101 — The Ultimate Beginner's Guide

This is a detailed guide to intermittent fasting (IF). Studies show that it can help you lose weight, improve health and perhaps even live longer.

www.healthline.com

I like vegetables regardless, and they are palatable as it is. I like eating big plates full of vegetables, including leafy ones.

The reason I was asking was more in terms of what will be more effective in undoing CT scan. Whatever is more effective needs to be done sooner, or so it seems.

Great! Do the fast first. But I recommend intermittent fasting because it's the most sustainable and easiest form of fasting if you're going to practice fasting on a regular basis.

I heard Paul Bragg did 90 day fast and didn't die. And of course Moses and Jesus both fasted for 40 days and didn't die.

These people did not have junk food, nor processed food in their diet and they had tons of exercise walking very long distances to spread the Gospel.

They are physiologically adapted to such extremes. If you're looking for life-long benefit, you'll have to fast on a regular basis throughout your life and a multi-day fast isn't the most sustainable in my experience. Intermittent fasting is nearly as good alternative if combined with exercise but far more sustainable and easier.

I already began running, I ran an hour yesterday and an hour today. I intend to simply continue it while I fast.

Great! No problem. Just take it easy on the exercise in case you start feeling sick. Wait on your body to adapt and eventually, it will be easy enough to do on multiple consecutive days each week.

 

[Roman57]

Since 0.1% is due to ionizing radiation, and the article is about ct scans and ct scans is probably the biggest dosage of ionizing radiation one is going to experience in their lifetimes, it's safe to assume, the article is talking about ct scans.

You misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking "CT scan radiation versus other radiation". Instead, I was asking "CT scan causing cancer versus CT scan causing other things".

But in any case, I found a different article that answers my question: Ionizing radiation and aging: rejuvenating an old idea And the parts of the article that answer it are the following:

The ratio of non-cancer to solid cancer excess deaths is about 0.63

So in other words, 2 and 3 have similar magnitude. So if one is small, the other is small too.

As far as my other questions,

A-bomb survivors exposed to a dose of 1 Gy lose 1.3 years of life and details are emerging that show premature increases in inflammation markers and ROS, equivalent to an astonishing nine years of aging

But, of course, it applies to atomic bomb, not CT scan. So I need to compare one level of radiation to the other. Since atomic bomb was given in Gy and CT scan in mSv, I asked AI to compare:

The radiation dose from a CT scan of the neck can vary depending on several factors, such as: 1. Scanner type and model 2. Scan protocol (e.g., slice thickness, pitch, and rotation time) 3. Patient size and anatomy 4. Scan length (e.g., just the neck or including the chest) Typically, a CT scan of the neck can deliver an effective dose ranging from: - 1-3 millisieverts (mSv) for a low-dose protocol - 3-6 mSv for a standard protocol - 6-10 mSv or more for a high-resolution or complex scan To convert this to Gray (Gy), we need to know that: 1 Gy = 1000 mSv (for the purpose of this conversion) So, for a CT scan of the neck: - 1-3 mSv = 0.001-0.003 Gy (low-dose) - 3-6 mSv = 0.003-0.006 Gy (standard) - 6-10 mSv = 0.006-0.01 Gy (high-resolution or complex) Please note that these values are approximate and can vary depending on the specific scan and scanner used. Your healthcare provider or the imaging center can provide more accurate information about the radiation dose associated with your CT scan.

I then took worst case scenario of it being 0.01 Gy. So then the aging would be 9 years divided by 100, which would only be a couple of days more than a month, which is really not that much. And the shortening of life expectancy would be 1.3 years divided by 100, which is between 4 and 5 days, which is even less!

Its interesting that the key here was that CT scan is 100 times less than atomic bomb, even though I read from the other sources that it is the same. So I guess the difference is in terms of where you are located. The above data that said atomic bomb is 100 times more than CT scan was referring to the epicenter. On the other hand, the data that said they are the same didn't specify where. But I found a different link that said they are the same 2.4 kilometers away from epicenter CT scan radiation can equal nuclear bomb exposure

I am still confused about Chernobyl comparison though. If the CT scan only makes you age by a month, and takes away only few days out of your life, yet it is equivalent to a year in a more polluted parts of Chernobyl zone and few years in less polluted parts, why did they bother evacuating them? I know you told me earlier that the radioactive dust is what makes a difference. Yet, later, you recanted that explanation and said that the effects of radioactive dust are comparable.

most of the last two decades of my life I was living unhealthy. Junk food, fast food, and zero exercise. I only took up exercise last 2020, and dieting + eating discipline last year.

But I thought you told me earlier that the reason you are so much younger than your colleagues is because of your lifestyle? Are you saying that

a) You were looking as if you were in your 20-s back in 2019 too, due to genetics

Or

b) Back in 2019, you looked 38, but now you look 23 due to getting younger as a result of healthy lifestyle

Been doing it for 1 year, 7 months now. The biggest temptation in intermittent fasting is snacking between meals. Solution is remove all snacks from your house.

But what about the feeling of hunger?

multi-day fast isn't the most sustainable in my experience.

Actually my motivation for multi-day fast is not for it to be sustainable but rather for it to "fix" my system so that I can eat whatever food I want after that. It is better to have multi-day fast and look forward to being able to eat whatever I want, rather than realize that I will never be able to eat what I want the rest of my life.

 

[timewerx]

I then took worst case scenario of it being 0.01 Gy. So then the aging would be 9 years divided by 100, which would only be a couple of days more than a month, which is really not that much. And the shortening of life expectancy would be 1.3 years divided by 100, which is between 4 and 5 days, which is even less!

I'm inclined to agree with your analysis and it seems where's very little to worry about.

I am still confused about Chernobyl comparison though. If the CT scan only makes you age by a month, and takes away only few days out of your life, yet it is equivalent to a year in a more polluted parts of Chernobyl zone and few years in less polluted parts, why did they bother evacuating them? I know you told me earlier that the radioactive dust is what makes a difference. Yet, later, you recanted that explanation and said that the effects of radioactive dust are comparable.

I forgot about the fact, the inhaled radioactive dust can accumulate in the lungs and you can be inhaling radioactive dust in Chernobyl at a daily basis more or less. Therefore, the internal radiation dosage at the lungs can increase to dangerous levels over time.

But I thought you told me earlier that the reason you are so much younger than your colleagues is because of your lifestyle? Are you saying that

a) You were looking as if you were in your 20-s back in 2019 too, due to genetics

Or

b) Back in 2019, you looked 38, but now you look 23 due to getting younger as a result of healthy lifestyle

It's b)

My picture from 2019, before my lifestyle change, AI estimated my age to be 36, when my actual age then was 38. Another picture form 2016, same AI estimated my age to be 32 when my actual age was 35 years old.

Another picture of me taken only few weeks ago at the age of 43.75 years old, same AI estimated my age to be 23.

The huge discrepancy in estimated vs actual age happened exactly around the period of huge lifestyle changes. Whatever it is that I'm doing, it's causing huge changes in how I appear.

But what about the feeling of hunger?

You can eat more during the meal itself. It's the simplest solution to avoiding hunger between meals in intermittent fasting.

If you really can't resist those chocolate bars or cookies or chips or popcorn, w/e, then eat them immediately after each meal. It's healthier that way than to eat them between meals.

Actually my motivation for multi-day fast is not for it to be sustainable but rather for it to "fix" my system so that I can eat whatever food I want after that. It is better to have multi-day fast and look forward to being able to eat whatever I want, rather than realize that I will never be able to eat what I want the rest of my life.

This is why I recommended you intermittent fasting instead.

It's the same thing I'm doing and you can actually eat whatever you want with this eating habit. You're simply skipping breakfast or doing "brunch" at a late hour. You just have to avoid snacking between meals in this eating habit and time your exercise shortly before the first or second meal, preferably do all your exercise before the first meal of the day.

 

[Roman57]

I forgot about the fact, the inhaled radioactive dust can accumulate in the lungs and you can be inhaling radioactive dust in Chernobyl at a daily basis more or less. Therefore, the internal radiation dosage at the lungs can increase to dangerous levels over time.

The crucial part here is by how much would the effect gets multiplied. If it will get multiplied just by the factor of 2, it won't explain it. If it gets multiplied by a factor of 1000, it will.

Now, as a physicist, I won't be able to just "know" it. Because this depends on how long it would stay in the lungs when it accummulates, which depends on the microscopic structure of the lungs. And I don't know its microscopic structure, nor do I have means of running computer simulations on this.

So are there any studies that quantified this?

It's b)

My picture from 2019, before my lifestyle change, AI estimated my age to be 36, when my actual age then was 38. Another picture form 2016, same AI estimated my age to be 32 when my actual age was 35 years old.

The huge discrepancy in estimated vs actual age happened exactly around the period of huge lifestyle changes. Whatever it is that I'm doing, it's causing huge changes in how I appear.

So what about wrinkles, gray hair, and hair loss? Did your new lifestyle fixed those three things?

This is why I recommended you intermittent fasting instead.

It's the same thing I'm doing and you can actually eat whatever you want with this eating habit.

I guess when I said "eating whatever I want", I misspoke. I actually meant both whatever and whenever. So I guess what I am thinking is that if I can fast for 30 days straight and then after that be able to eat both whatever I want and whenever I want for the next few years, then those 30 days would be worth it.

You're simply skipping breakfast or doing "brunch" at a late hour. You just have to avoid snacking between meals in this eating habit and time your exercise shortly before the first or second meal, preferably do all your exercise before the first meal of the day.

As far as replacing breakfast with branch, I been doing it anyway due to getting up very late and then going for a run. However, I had snacks between my branch and my dinner. So that part is the harder one.