47 replies to this topic

[Aegist]

I've been wanting to live forever since I was early teenager. I've dedicated my life to researching the problem and trying to assist in its solution. My conception of 'immortality' comes down to solving the problem of ageing, not extending our brief lifespan by a few years here and there. But it seems to me like this section of the ImmInst forums is the most active section.

I guess the most obvious reason is because there is a lot to talk about, and it is all modern day real life application (not sci-fi in the future speculative stuff).

Regardless, as someone who has never been interested in supplements, but open minded to the idea and curious to know more, can you 'sell' the idea to me. My biggest problem with supplements at the moment, is that I feel they are too expensive for me, and they aren't beneficial enough, or certain enough in their benefits. Are there any supplements which are well worth their cost? Should I bother?

[John Schloendorn]

One thing that's cheap and fairly certainly beneficial is omega 3 fatty acids. If you look that up on pubmed you will find that they are now quite routinely used in large clinical trials of other supps, as positive controls. Check if you fit the demographics though.

[niner]

It's hard to get the kind of evidence that I'd really like to see- you know, a large double blind long term study in humans... Instead we have studies with cancer-prone rats. We've seen that some major supplements don't extend the lifespan of cancer-prone rats, and coQ10 seems to make them die even faster. Is that relevant to a healthy human? Resveratrol is exciting, but even there, the life extension was demonstrated in rats eating a diet of 50% fat. Some of the things I take (carnosine, lipoic acid, pomegranate...) have shown some efficacy in humans with certain disease states. Again, I don't really know how that translates to effect on a healthy person. Maybe we could recruit people here on imminst and other places like lef that have been on a good supplement regimen for some length of time, like 5-10 years, and are old enough to be expected to show some signs of aging, then compare them to matched controls who have not supplemented. That would be a hard thing to do well, and would need institutional support, but might be useful if there were enough subjects.

[niner]

On the issue of cost/benefit of supplements, I would second John's call on fish oil. There is a ton of good evidence in humans. Some things that are really cheap, like a garden variety multivitamin or vitamin C may help a lot if your diet is not good, are unlikely to hurt you, and cost next to nothing.

By the way, if you want to live forever and you are past high school, CR and supplements are pretty much the only game in town. (excercise and accident avoidance are assumed in any case) CR is the only one that we are (almost) sure works (in humans), but I'm relying on supplements to give me a snowball's chance in hell of living long enough to see the real breakthroughs, or barring that, getting to know my future grandchildren.

[shifter]

Take them to increase the quality of your life in a way that western diet and medicine can never do.

So our life may have an end point at some stage, but live your life beaming with energy and vigour, not coughing and spluttering and riddled with disease. (I do not mean that as a generalisation, but some of those people you do end up seeing could really do with good diet/supps!). So easy!!

While most peoples bellies are full and even some of those overweight/obese, their bodies could be starving. Deprivation of nutrients that in this day and age can be as simple as swallowing several capsules or drinking powders each day.

But yeah, if your goal is to live forever, then you wont find it in any pill today. For now, the best we can do is try to live beyond a century and supps can definatly help with that. Maybe in 50 or 60 years though we will have enough breakthroughs to live several centuries! So maybe our goals dont have to be so far reaching....

[Aegist]

Well, turns out I was an easy sell, because Omega 3 and multivitamins do certainly seem incredibly obvious options, plus I realised that the chick upstairs works for a herbalist type store, and she can get them at wholesale for me, so I asked her and she just gave me some fish oil (liquid form though :() and whe's going to get some multivitamins for me.

So what about all of the rest of it. It seems like none of the conversation here is about omega 3 and multivitamins. Nothing else is conclusive yet? What about the people taking tons of vitamins and supplements? Duke Nukem says he takes over 80 supplements a day? I can't even imagine that.

[opales]

Maybe we could recruit people here on imminst and other places like lef that have been on a good supplement regimen for some length of time, like 5-10 years, and are old enough to be expected to show some signs of aging, then compare them to matched controls who have not supplemented.  That would be a hard thing to do well, and would need institutional support, but might be useful if there were enough subjects.

I think LEF had (and maybe still has) some kind of program where they collected pictures of their customers (and possibly other data too) every once in a while (every tens years maybe). I think the purpose was what you describe above.

Although, LEF sells supplements so they cannot be considered unbiased source of information.

[eternaltraveler]

I think LEF had (and maybe still has) some kind of program where they collected pictures of their customers (and possibly other data too) every once in a while (every tens years maybe). I think the purpose was what you describe above.

Although, LEF sells supplements so they cannot be considered unbiased source of information.

Not to mention the huge amount of confounding factors. LEF members are NOT representative of the general population. They are far more health conscious than most people. If they simply look younger after 5-10 years compared to their age matched counterparts in the general population that would tell us next to nothing.

[zoolander]

The correct way to approach the question would be

"Disprove that supplements work"

[Mind]

I am also skeptical about how far "oral supplementation" can take us. I think it will be a net positive on lifespan but it won't cure aging. There is only so much that can enter the body through the digestive tract. For more complex chemical alteration of the aging process I think we will need intravenous application of advanced supplements. This will be the second stage beyond oral supps (it has already begun but not matured), and the third/fourth stage will be futuristic nanotech.

[eternaltraveler]

The correct way to approach the question would be

"Disprove that supplements work"

ummm... That is not the correct way to approach the question.

Supplements are A) not free, and B) in some cases have been proven harmful. If there isn't good data backing up that they have significant benefits it is illogical to take them. Making one's self into a human guinea pig is not a good way to approach life extension. At least people in studies are compensated for the risk they are taking.

In some cases there is good data. Omega 3 fatty acid supplementation being a prime example. In others there is little data either positive or negative, and in some cases there is data showing that some supplements have a net negative effect which nontheless are still under wide use. Alpha tocopherol being a prime example there.

Only use supplements that have been proven to be beneficial in humans.

[DukeNukem]

A great many supplements boost levels of chemicals already created in the body, that decline with age (CoQ10, DHEA, melatonin, lipoic acid, creatine, EPA, vit. D, etc.) or are lacking in typical diets (hence the word, supplementation). A great many other supps have known benefits, like so many plant polyphenols (green tea, ginger, resveratrol, pomegranate, blueberry, etc.).

I've posted this list elsewhere, but in general my supplement program deals with these areas:

o Providing the raw materials/co-factors for chemical/enzymatic reactions
o Inflammation control
o Glycation/glucose control
o Free-radical reduction (oxidative stress)
o Immune system boosting (includes gut flora)
o DNA protection & repair (especially mitochondria DNA)
o Lipid/fatty-acid balance

Secondary items include:
o Vascular health
o Cancer prevention
o Brain health
o Hormone balancing
o Toxin reduction

[zoolander]

The correct way to approach the question would be

"Disprove that supplements work"

ummm... That is not the correct way to approach the question.

Whoops. Let's put this into context. I'm a research scientist remember. In science the null hypothesis is often used. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise.

It's sort of back to front and some say controversial but that is what I meant when I said disprove.

I can see where you are coming from elrond. You were probably suprised when you saw that comment from me as well because in most situations I err on the cautious side.

[zoolander]

For more complex chemical alteration of the aging process I think we will need intravenous application of advanced supplements.

There are other methods that will bypass first pass metabolism in the liver such as sub-lingual, nebulisers, and transdermal patches. There a great degree of contamination with the intravenous route.

So, no no no put that needle down Justin! Naughty boy!

[xanadu]

The evidence for vitamins and various supplements is out there. To try to recreate all those debates in this thread would be pointless. Do some research yourself.

Look at it this way, if everything was proven and accepted then everyone would live a lot longer and be healthier. Would that be good or bad for society? Social security would be done away with if everyone lived a long time let alone became immortal. We need people paying into the system who never collect to pay those who live long. Let people find out for themselves. No one came up to me and said take this and that and you will be much healthier. Yes, there are voices out there but the government doesn't endorse them. We need the opales' of the world to convince people to keep eating fat and sugar otherwise there would be terrible overpopulation. The world is overpopulated as it is. I say keep the good news secret and let the media spread disinformation about how herbs and supplements are no good. Stupid people will believe the disinformation and die off leaving room for the smart ones.

[eternaltraveler]

Whoops. Let's put this into context. I'm a research scientist remember. In science the null hypothesis is often used. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise.

Yes I'm aware, but in this case the null hypothesis would be that whatever supplement you are testing has no effect (the null), just as the null hypothesis when measuring, say, exercise’s influence on heart rate, would be that exercise has no influence on heart rate. Only by disproving this to a reasonable p value can you state that, yes, exercise effects heart rate.

Likewise If I have a vial of fairy dust and tell you that if you sprinkle it on yourself and think happy thoughts it will allow you to fly the null would be that the fairy dust has no effect; only by disproving this to a reasonable p can one claim that the fairy dust has an effect. In the case of many commonly used supplements this has simply not been done in humans.

[eternaltraveler]

You were probably suprised when you saw that comment from me as well because in most situations I err on the cautious side.

indeed [thumb]

[eternaltraveler]

btw, as i hope is clear I'm not against supplements. I take several, but not as many as others here. I do stand by the statement I made above.

Only use supplements that have been proven to be beneficial in humans.

When one takes doses of some supplements at many times the dosage that one could ever naturally intake these supplements can sometimes be better considered as drugs and should be treated with the same caution one would treat a drug (think niacin) in terms of safety, efficacy, cost.

Others than myself view the risk/return ratio differently. Either because they see the risk as smaller, or more often it appears, they view the return as greater. In many cases I have respect for these individuals; they merely put more importance on data that I put less importance on (mostly in terms of believing stronger correlations with animal data than I will believe without seeing some human data first). Everyone is entitled to use their own judgment, and they should. Your own judgment is all you have.

[eternaltraveler]

Whoops. Let's put this into context. I'm a research scientist remember. In science the null hypothesis is often used. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise.

I suppose i can understand in this community why you would choose what you did as the null instead of the opposite )

[Mind]

Just for the record...I do not currently use anything that requires a needle (growth hormone, testosterone, etc.). I was just thinking of the most direct route to get complex molecules into cells without them being metabolized. There are pros/cons no matter which route is taken.

[bgwowk]

Mind wrote:

I am also skeptical about how far "oral supplementation" can take us. I think it will be a net positive on lifespan but it won't cure aging.

I think it's critical to disentangle the issue of aging intervention from the issue of health and longevity. Of course we want aging intervention because it is the ultimate tool for creating health and longevity. But there is much that can be done to promote health and longevity before it is possible to directly address aging. Just because some supplement, exercise, or dietary regimen is not proven (or is disproven) to affect intrinsic aging doesn't mean that it won't help you live longer or healthier until real anti-aging therapies are developed.

In lamenting the way that the "anti-aging" marketplace has created misleading impressions about certainly supplments and aging, we've got to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's clear that there are many non-patentable substances that are very useful in prevention and treatment of diseases. Because they are non-patentable, they don't get billion-dollar validating studies and primetime advertisements. Omega3s are a classic example.

In my opinion, another really cheap, big benefit supplement is vitamin D3.

http://exchange.heal...00/vitamind.cfm

The toxicity issue is discussed here

http://clltopics.org.....or health.htm

and a especially here

http://www.direct-ms.....HAPTER 61.pdf

which is an extensive referenced book chapter by a vitamin D expert. It says

The official safety limit for vitamin D intake
without supervision by a physician is referred to as the
“upper limit” (UL) (114;116). This is the amount of
vitamin D that the general public can take safely on a
long-term basis with no anticipation of harm. Guidelines
in both North America (67) and Europe (76) have
established the UL as 50 µg (2000 IU) /day. This is a very
conservative value that seems to remain the same, even
though the evidence shows that higher intakes are safe.

The author argues that the limit should be raised to at least 4000 I.U.

Elsewhere I've read that submariners need 4000 I.U. per day just to maintain normal blood levels.

[Aegist]

Look at it this way, if everything was proven and accepted then everyone would live a lot longer and be healthier. Would that be good or bad for society? Social security would be done away with if everyone lived a long time let alone became immortal. We need people paying into the system who never collect to pay those who live long. Let people find out for themselves. No one came up to me and said take this and that and you will be much healthier. Yes, there are voices out there but the government doesn't endorse them. We need the opales' of the world to convince people to keep eating fat and sugar otherwise there would be terrible overpopulation. The world is overpopulated as it is. I say keep the good news secret and let the media spread disinformation about how herbs and supplements are no good. Stupid people will believe the disinformation and die off leaving room for the smart ones.

...This sounds like our goals are quite different here xanadu. I'm interested in eternal youth first, natural selection last.

Since we still lack any cure to ageing, supplements and CR etc seems to be the ONLY available options to increase our chance of not dying prematurely to some stupid disease like cancer or heart disease. But the effects of everyone living longer are precisely what i would like to see..I DO want to see everyone living longer.

Stupid people will believe the disinformation and die off leaving room for the smart ones.

But which part is the disinformation? The part telling you that drug/supplement X does nothing, or the part telling you that you should spend money on it? In my experience, there is more to gain from disinformation which convinces people to spend money than there is to gain from disinforming people to not spend money.

In anycase, I don't think this is a case of disinformation so much as a case of lack of information and ignorance.

[Aegist]

Another consideration IMO, is liver function. Excessive supplement use 'just in case', could in fact over-work your liver as it tries to purify out all of the unneeded molecules. Does anyone concern themsleves about this?

[DukeNukem]

Others than myself view the risk/return ratio differently. Either because they see the risk as smaller, or more often it appears, they view the return as greater. In many cases I have respect for these individuals; they merely put more importance on data that I put less importance on (mostly in terms of believing stronger correlations with animal data than I will believe without seeing some human data first). Everyone is entitled to use their own judgment, and they should. Your own judgment is all you have.

Very well stated, Elrond. [thumb]

Just want to add, that the age of a person plays a huge role in the personal decision to use which supps and how much. Obviously, younger people have more time to wait until SENS or otherwise comes about. Older people need to start placing some bets, though, and taking measures to help extend their lives to reach that glorious day.

[makoss]

Well said Duke. I just turned 50 this year and decided to use supplements a year ago.
My health was good before the use of these supplements, but I decided to put together a
regimen for preventative purposes. If the supps add more years to my life, it's a bonus.
So far I'm glad I took the plunge.

[Aegist]

Aegist, if your goal is clinical immortality, then wait 10 years for advances in monoclonal antibody technology. Medicine is about to get very interesting, very fast. Until then, any measure we take is a simple delay.

And that is exactly what I am doing Although, I don't plan on passively waiting 10 years, so much as actively urging that 10 year mark here a little faster... I am asking about supplements simply to see if there is any really clear cut obvious things which i should be doing. Its just a bit of 'insurance' really..

Very well stated, Elrond.  [thumb]

Just want to add, that the age of a person plays a huge role in the personal decision to use which supps and how much.  Obviously, younger people have more time to wait until SENS or otherwise comes about.  Older people need to start placing some bets, though, and taking measures to help extend their lives to reach that glorious day.

Well yeah, I'm still comparatively young (25), but I don't want to be using that excuse until I suffer my first heart attack.... better to ask and be safe than be sorry... or dead (which doesn't leave much scope for even being sorry!)

[Aegist]

I guess my current perspective on Supplementation is in line with this brief interview here:

Stan Correy: Here in Australia, at the Centre for Education and Research on Ageing at Sydney University, Professor David Le Couteur warns of being sidetracked.

David Le Couteur: Anti-ageing medicine is best viewed as a pseudo-science whose sole aim is to make large profits for people that sell their anti-ageing medicines. Anti-ageing medicine is best viewed as a pseudo-science whose sole aim is to make large profits for people that sell their anti-ageing medicines. Many of the anti-ageing medicines are based on extrapolations or plausible interpretations of what’s known about the biology of ageing, but at this point in time, scientists around the world can categorically say that there is no pill or potion that will prolong life expectancy. So most of those anti-ageing medicines and longevity extension medicines are snake oil issues. For example, Francis Bacon, the great philosopher, believed that if you inhaled the breath of virgins that would make you live longer. Brown Sequard a very famous neurologist, believed that if you injected yourself with a mixture of pig and dog testicles, that would make you live longer. Nobel prizewinners like Linus Pauling suggested taking vitamin C would make you live longer.

Stan Correy: That doesn’t mean you give up, says David Le Couteur. There are just other more sensible things to do.

David Le Couteur: One is, don’t smoke. Two is, don’t smoke. Three is, lose weight. Four is, exercise. And five is to all of those standard things that your general practitioner will tell you: treat your blood pressure, treat your cholesterol, look after your bones, and have your various disease-screening processes done. They’re simple bits of advice but for every individual, those things do much more to make your life expectancy longer than any of the anti-ageing potions.

My emphasis.

But I was easily convinced with regards to Omega3 and multivitamins because they seem obvious enough, harmless and 'supplemental' to my lacking diet, and I know I can get them cheap.

[zoolander]

Yes I'm aware, but in this case the null hypothesis would be that whatever supplement you are testing has no effect (the null), just as the null hypothesis when measuring, say, exercise’s influence on heart rate, would be that exercise has no influence on heart rate. Only by disproving this to a reasonable p value can you state that, yes, exercise effects heart rate.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Isn't that what I said though Elrond?

Disprove that supplements work

followed by explanation

Let's put this into context. I'm a research scientist remember. In science the null hypothesis is often used. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise.

ok....now I see where the misunderstanding is. Just for the record, if I were to test the above, which I have with my research, my null hypothesis would be no effect. This is what I have been trying to get across from the word go.

[jdog]

I've been wanting to live forever since I was early teenager. I've dedicated my life to researching the problem and trying to assist in its solution. My conception of 'immortality' comes down to solving the problem of ageing, not extending our brief lifespan by a few years here and there. But it seems to me like this section of the ImmInst forums is the most active section.

I guess the most obvious reason is because there is a lot to talk about, and it is all modern day real life application (not sci-fi in the future speculative stuff).

Regardless, as someone who has never been interested in supplements, but open minded to the idea and curious to know more, can you 'sell' the idea to me. My biggest problem with supplements at the moment, is that I feel they are too expensive for me, and they aren't beneficial enough, or certain enough in their benefits. Are there any supplements which are well worth their cost? Should I bother?

\

Haven't had a chance to read all the posts in this thread yet, so someone may have brought up this point.

If you want to live forever, those "few years here and there" might be all you need to see our technology get to the point where it can take us there.

[Aegist]

ok....now I see where the misunderstanding is. Just for the record, if I were to test the above, which I have with my research, my null hypothesis would be no effect. This is what I have been trying to get across from the word go.

hence why I need to be convinced that supplements are worth it. Cost / benefit / risk / statistical relationship analysis is what I guess I really need (but not what I really expect to come from this thread persay). Maybe just educated opinions on the matter.