What a waste!
I bought a hyperbaric chamber and for 60 days I spent 90 minutes per day at 1.3 atmospheres. This regimen was based on a test that was done recently that showed an increase in telomere length over a similar length of time (albeit at a higher pressure). The reduction in biological age averaged between two and three years, with some of the patients achieving more. This is all described here https://longlifeandhealth.org/tim-vs-aging-t-minus-5-days-the-hyberbaric-chamber/
Before I started, I bought a kit, I extracted blood and sent it to Lifelength.us to get my telomere-based age. I was delighted when my biological came back as 54 years old, younger than my chronological age.
At the end, I bought another kit, I extracted blood and sent it to Lifelength.us to get my post-project telomere age. The post-project result?
61 years old.
What does this mean? I would love to have at least some scientific data, but this data is useless, the experiment is a failure.
There is no reason to think that my telomere-based age would go up, and every reason to think it would go down. But it went up.
To me, this means the Lifelength.us telomere test, at the very least, is nowhere near accurate enough to measure the results of this test. I was looking for a 2-3 year improvement in a measurement that appears to have a margin of error of at least plus or minus 4 years (giving them the benefit of the doubt).
In other words, the test data is useless, I have absolutely no idea whether the hyperbaric chamber worked, whether it affected my telomeres at all. The results are useless, I feel like I have been defrauded, I am absolutely pissed.
All that effort, only to find that my measurement system was a failure.
I will say that my experience in the hyperbaric chamber made me more aware of my breathing, and the joy of taking very deep breaths. I do believe there was some benefit there. I also believe this part of the project interfered with my sleep somewhat.
But I will not use the hyperbaric chamber again unless I can find some actual way of measuring the results.
I want to emphasize that without the ability to produce good data, we will not be able to reliably test and improve anti-aging results. No scientific method, no incremental improvements. In that case, we must suffer the noise of innuendo and anecdotal evidence. The good news is now you know what not to do.