2 votes
Posted 20 January 2014 - 06:59 PM
I agree with Ajnast4r.
Regarding supplements only, the first job of a supplement program is to make up for vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies in our diet. So, for a person that eats poorly, job #1 is to get more magnesium, vitamin C, the Bs, and so on.
For a person who has the basic nutritional needs covered, I recommend consideration of these supps, most of which will be boringly familiar:
o EPA/DHA (fish oil)
o pomegranate extract
o green (and/or white) tea extract
o resveratrol
o cocoa
o Pycnogenol
o melatonin
o IP-6
o blueberry extract
o lipoic acid
o CoQ10
o pyridoxamine
o benfotiamine
o garlic extract
o broccoli extract (standardized for sulforphane)
o GliSODin
o carnosine
o n-acetyl cysteine (NAC)
For those over 40, I recommend researching these for possible inclusion:
o metformin
o deprenyl
o aminoguanidine
o acetyl-L-carnitine arginate
o ginkgo biloba
(I might update this later if something else occurs to me.)
Posted 24 January 2014 - 09:06 PM
Posted 14 March 2014 - 03:43 AM
1. Curcumin Phytosome (don't bother with regular curcumin)
2. Siliphos (don't bother with regular milk thistle)
3. Shilajit Extract
4. Pycnogenol
5. Grape Seed Extract
6. Astaxanthin
7. Lutein
8. Zeaxanthin
9. Chlorella
10. Spirulina
11. Ephedrine
12. Geranium (1-3 dimethylamylamine)
13. Caffeine
14. Tocomin SupraBio (mixed tocotrienols)
15. D3
16. Ecklonia Cava Extract
17. BCAA
18. NAC
19. Bilberry Extract
20. Pomegranate Extract
21. MK-7 (K2)
22. Vinpocetine
23. Vardenafil & Sildenafil
24. MSM
25. TMG
26. Zinc Picolinate
27. Magnesium oil & Magnesium Taurate
28. Astragalus Extract
29. Ubiquinol (don't bother with regular CoQ10)
30. Olive Leaf Extract
31. Melatonin
32. Biotin
33. Rhodiola Rosea
34. Ashwagandha
35. Black Tea Extract
36. Ceylon Cinnamon
37. Schizandra Extract
38. ALCAR
39. PLCAR
40. Cissus
Guess I'll stop here, I could go on though.. lol
Edited by semi-retarded-individual, 14 March 2014 - 03:44 AM.
Posted 15 March 2014 - 04:58 AM
Posted 15 March 2014 - 11:32 AM
Posted 15 March 2014 - 02:29 PM
(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
Posted 15 March 2014 - 09:37 PM
Wasn't it only for a few weeks on rats that yielded 90%? wouldn't life long supplementation yield potentially greater boosts in rats?(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
C60oo has already shown itself to be effective in humans and other animals at a variety of endpoints, sufficient for me to trade it for any list of 20 other substances. I'm speaking both from personal experience and from myriad reports of others. Enhanced longevity, if it occurs (and I suspect there will be some, though far from 90% in humans), will be icing on the cake.
Posted 16 March 2014 - 01:23 AM
Wasn't it only for a few weeks on rats that yielded 90%? wouldn't life long supplementation yield potentially greater boosts in rats?(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
C60oo has already shown itself to be effective in humans and other animals at a variety of endpoints, sufficient for me to trade it for any list of 20 other substances. I'm speaking both from personal experience and from myriad reports of others. Enhanced longevity, if it occurs (and I suspect there will be some, though far from 90% in humans), will be icing on the cake.
Posted 16 March 2014 - 06:10 AM
Just researched and this is what I got.Wasn't it only for a few weeks on rats that yielded 90%? wouldn't life long supplementation yield potentially greater boosts in rats?(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
C60oo has already shown itself to be effective in humans and other animals at a variety of endpoints, sufficient for me to trade it for any list of 20 other substances. I'm speaking both from personal experience and from myriad reports of others. Enhanced longevity, if it occurs (and I suspect there will be some, though far from 90% in humans), will be icing on the cake.
It was more than a few weeks- six or seven months, as I recall. They were given fairly large doses, and considering the very long half life of the compound, they probably had enough to last a year or so after the end of dosing. It's entirely possible that an extended dosing strategy would have helped.
twice a month for seven months(it seems like 1ml dosing with .8mg dissolved... for other supplements I've heard of tens if not hundreds of mgs administered per kg of body weight) doesn't sound like significant supplementation they were also ten month old when started it seems. If we were talking daily unlimited, then that would be something but it seems that is not the case.Three groups of 6 rats(10 months old, weighing 465
31 g) were administered daily
for one week, then weekly until the end of the second month and then every two weeks until the end of the 7th month, by gavages with 1 ml of water or olive oil or
C60 dissolved in olive oil (0.8 mg/ml), respectively.
Posted 16 March 2014 - 01:48 PM
twice a month for seven months(it seems like 1ml dosing with .8mg dissolved... for other supplements I've heard of tens if not hundreds of mgs administered per kg of body weight) doesn't sound like significant supplementation they were also ten month old when started it seems. If we were talking daily unlimited, then that would be something but it seems that is not the case.Three groups of 6 rats(10 months old, weighing 465
31 g) were administered daily
for one week, then weekly until the end of the second month and then every two weeks until the end of the 7th month, by gavages with 1 ml of water or olive oil or
C60 dissolved in olive oil (0.8 mg/ml), respectively.
Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:47 AM
Hmmm, I've seen lipid soluble substances that tend to bioaccumulate given in tens of milligrams per kg. Regards this substance, I thought this was pioneering work to test toxicity, so how would there be a large body of research regarding optimal dosage prior to it?twice a month for seven months(it seems like 1ml dosing with .8mg dissolved... for other supplements I've heard of tens if not hundreds of mgs administered per kg of body weight) doesn't sound like significant supplementation they were also ten month old when started it seems. If we were talking daily unlimited, then that would be something but it seems that is not the case.Three groups of 6 rats(10 months old, weighing 465
31 g) were administered daily
for one week, then weekly until the end of the second month and then every two weeks until the end of the 7th month, by gavages with 1 ml of water or olive oil or
C60 dissolved in olive oil (0.8 mg/ml), respectively.
The amount that is significant depends on the potency and the pharmacokinetics. This is not an ordinary supplement, it's insanely potent. It also lasts a very, very long time. The typical supplement might require a dose of hundreds of milligrams to get an effect, and is rapidly washed out of the body.
Posted 17 March 2014 - 01:13 PM
Hmmm, I've seen lipid soluble substances that tend to bioaccumulate given in tens of milligrams per kg. Regards this substance, I thought this was pioneering work to test toxicity, so how would there be a large body of research regarding optimal dosage prior to it?The amount that is significant depends on the potency and the pharmacokinetics. This is not an ordinary supplement, it's insanely potent. It also lasts a very, very long time. The typical supplement might require a dose of hundreds of milligrams to get an effect, and is rapidly washed out of the body.
Posted 18 March 2014 - 05:05 PM
1.resveratrol
2.cocoa
3.astaxanthin
4.nuts
5. fish oil
6. d3
7.green tea
8.pterostilbene
9.oligonol
10.coq10/ubiquinol
11.melatonin
12.glycine
13.black tea
14.milk thistle
15.rhodiola
16.multivitamin
17.fisetin
18.mk7
19.curcumin
20.b12
(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
Posted 19 March 2014 - 02:04 AM
Well curcumin is low because I like the others better. Regards resveratrol and pterostilbene, according to lef pterostilbene does not replace resveratrol but complements it and acts downstream of resveratrol, resveratrol acts higher up even if for shorter periods.1.resveratrol
2.cocoa
3.astaxanthin
4.nuts
5. fish oil
6. d3
7.green tea
8.pterostilbene
9.oligonol
10.coq10/ubiquinol
11.melatonin
12.glycine
13.black tea
14.milk thistle
15.rhodiola
16.multivitamin
17.fisetin
18.mk7
19.curcumin
20.b12
(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
Why Curcumin so low?
And why do you choose resveratrol over pterostilbene, as pterostilbene has similar effects, yet over a longer time period?
I assume this is based on research regarding gene expression changes.Scientists have found that resveratrol activates genes near the beginning of the molecular cascade precipitated by caloric restriction. These in turn activate a broad array of disease-preventing genes. In essence, resveratrol’s beneficial genetic action takes place “upstream.”
Pterostilbene directly activates genes “downstream” from the sites of resveratrol’s action. This complements resveratrol’s ability to help prevent cancer and diabetes, and support healthy blood lipids. Acting together, resveratrol and pterostilbene produce potent longevity-promoting effects across the cycle of gene expression through complementary mechanisms.-link
Posted 19 March 2014 - 10:11 AM
Well curcumin is low because I like the others better. Regards resveratrol and pterostilbene, according to lef pterostilbene does not replace resveratrol but complements it and acts downstream of resveratrol, resveratrol acts higher up even if for shorter periods.1.resveratrol
2.cocoa
3.astaxanthin
4.nuts
5. fish oil
6. d3
7.green tea
8.pterostilbene
9.oligonol
10.coq10/ubiquinol
11.melatonin
12.glycine
13.black tea
14.milk thistle
15.rhodiola
16.multivitamin
17.fisetin
18.mk7
19.curcumin
20.b12
(If C60oo is shown as effective as suggested by the initial study in further animal studies and early human trials show promise, say reduced mortality over a few years. It would be number 1)
Why Curcumin so low?
And why do you choose resveratrol over pterostilbene, as pterostilbene has similar effects, yet over a longer time period?I assume this is based on research regarding gene expression changes.Scientists have found that resveratrol activates genes near the beginning of the molecular cascade precipitated by caloric restriction. These in turn activate a broad array of disease-preventing genes. In essence, resveratrol’s beneficial genetic action takes place “upstream.”
Pterostilbene directly activates genes “downstream” from the sites of resveratrol’s action. This complements resveratrol’s ability to help prevent cancer and diabetes, and support healthy blood lipids. Acting together, resveratrol and pterostilbene produce potent longevity-promoting effects across the cycle of gene expression through complementary mechanisms.-link
With regards to resveratrol, I do know that it tripled human cell survival upon exposure to gamma radiation, and it's shown the ability to lengthen lifespan in many species, and abolishes the detrimental effects on lifespan of obesity in rodents(which to me suggests it should be recommended to the growing obese population of americans). Optimal dosage is what's needed.
Posted 21 March 2014 - 03:39 AM
I'm still hopeful that the dosing was suboptimal. If it was suboptimal it would make it extremely promising.Hmmm, I've seen lipid soluble substances that tend to bioaccumulate given in tens of milligrams per kg. Regards this substance, I thought this was pioneering work to test toxicity, so how would there be a large body of research regarding optimal dosage prior to it?The amount that is significant depends on the potency and the pharmacokinetics. This is not an ordinary supplement, it's insanely potent. It also lasts a very, very long time. The typical supplement might require a dose of hundreds of milligrams to get an effect, and is rapidly washed out of the body.
Well, c60-oo is more potent than something that needs to be given in tens of mg/kg. Most lipids don't bioaccumulate. The work that Baati et al. reported was indeed a toxicity test, and there was no previous work with this particular form of fullerene. From work with other fullerene analogs, it's clear that high doses are not required, but as for the dose of this particular compound, the Longecity community just figured it out through self-experimentation.
Posted 22 March 2014 - 01:47 AM
I don't think that there's much room for improvement from changes in dosing. Longecity community members have probably covered four orders of magnitude in dose and have tried intervals ranging from hours to a month. When a compound has high potency, extremely long half life, and low toxicity, this is what it looks like. It doesn't much matter how much you take or how often you take it, as long as you are over a certain minimal amount per unit of time.I'm still hopeful that the dosing was suboptimal. If it was suboptimal it would make it extremely promising.Hmmm, I've seen lipid soluble substances that tend to bioaccumulate given in tens of milligrams per kg. Regards this substance, I thought this was pioneering work to test toxicity, so how would there be a large body of research regarding optimal dosage prior to it?The amount that is significant depends on the potency and the pharmacokinetics. This is not an ordinary supplement, it's insanely potent. It also lasts a very, very long time. The typical supplement might require a dose of hundreds of milligrams to get an effect, and is rapidly washed out of the body.
Well, c60-oo is more potent than something that needs to be given in tens of mg/kg. Most lipids don't bioaccumulate. The work that Baati et al. reported was indeed a toxicity test, and there was no previous work with this particular form of fullerene. From work with other fullerene analogs, it's clear that high doses are not required, but as for the dose of this particular compound, the Longecity community just figured it out through self-experimentation.
Posted 22 March 2014 - 03:09 AM
Edited by Ukko, 22 March 2014 - 03:10 AM.
Posted 22 March 2014 - 06:30 AM
Well, there are some supplements where people have said the more the better, as much as you can afford supposedly, even though you probably wouldn't notice any difference.I don't think that there's much room for improvement from changes in dosing. Longecity community members have probably covered four orders of magnitude in dose and have tried intervals ranging from hours to a month. When a compound has high potency, extremely long half life, and low toxicity, this is what it looks like. It doesn't much matter how much you take or how often you take it, as long as you are over a certain minimal amount per unit of time.I'm still hopeful that the dosing was suboptimal. If it was suboptimal it would make it extremely promising.Hmmm, I've seen lipid soluble substances that tend to bioaccumulate given in tens of milligrams per kg. Regards this substance, I thought this was pioneering work to test toxicity, so how would there be a large body of research regarding optimal dosage prior to it?The amount that is significant depends on the potency and the pharmacokinetics. This is not an ordinary supplement, it's insanely potent. It also lasts a very, very long time. The typical supplement might require a dose of hundreds of milligrams to get an effect, and is rapidly washed out of the body.
Well, c60-oo is more potent than something that needs to be given in tens of mg/kg. Most lipids don't bioaccumulate. The work that Baati et al. reported was indeed a toxicity test, and there was no previous work with this particular form of fullerene. From work with other fullerene analogs, it's clear that high doses are not required, but as for the dose of this particular compound, the Longecity community just figured it out through self-experimentation.
Areas where I think we could see some significant optimization are in the chemical nature of the lipid adduct and exclusion of interfering impurities like oxygen, and possibly polyphenols. I think that phenolic compounds in the olive oil might slowly react with c60 epoxides (formed from reaction with O2) yielding compounds with less activity than the parent compound.
One other area of optimization that is dose-related involves the stopping of dosing at the 7 month mark in Baati. I think this was very likely sub-optimal. The animals should have been dosed periodically throughout their adult lives. Another potential improvement would be to examine the effect of starting dosing earlier in life. If the compound doesn't interfere with development, starting much earlier might be helpful. The effect of this compound on development remains to be determined, so at present we treat it as though it was developmentally toxic.
Posted 22 March 2014 - 02:19 PM
Well, there are some supplements where people have said the more the better, as much as you can afford supposedly, even though you probably wouldn't notice any difference.
So on what basis or parameter are you judging that it is enough? It may be enough to say improve cholesterol or blood sugar or blood pressure or homocysteine(don't know if it does any of these), but that would not mean it's reached the optimal dosage for longevity enhancement. Unless the longecity members have done longevity experiments in animals, or mortality per year reduction experiments in humans how can they possibly know the dose at which longevity benefits peak?
AFAIK, the mechanism is unknown, hypothesized to be antioxidant from what I hear but it may be something else. And less than 1mg twice a month does sound low, imho.
Posted 23 March 2014 - 12:57 PM
Can you point to research indicating that it's action is akin to a potent pharmaceutical or animal testing with it or similar molecules indicating optimal dose? Even many pharmaceuticals are given in mg doses. So if the method of action is unknown, how can we know where to categorize it and what the optimal dose is? Substances that tend to bioaccumulate, have been given in mg doses, so for this to work at doses 100 times lower than substances that also bioaccumulate its elimination from the body would have to be 100 times lower.Well, there are some supplements where people have said the more the better, as much as you can afford supposedly, even though you probably wouldn't notice any difference.
So on what basis or parameter are you judging that it is enough? It may be enough to say improve cholesterol or blood sugar or blood pressure or homocysteine(don't know if it does any of these), but that would not mean it's reached the optimal dosage for longevity enhancement. Unless the longecity members have done longevity experiments in animals, or mortality per year reduction experiments in humans how can they possibly know the dose at which longevity benefits peak?
AFAIK, the mechanism is unknown, hypothesized to be antioxidant from what I hear but it may be something else. And less than 1mg twice a month does sound low, imho.
There is nothing that follows a 'more=better' rule forever. Everything reaches a point where too much is too much. Most supplements are far less potent than typical pharmaceuticals, so doses of typical supplements tend to be in the hundreds of mg's per day. C60-oo is not a typical supplement. There is no comparison- you just have to get that out of your head. It's more like a very potent pharmaceutical, some of which are dosed in the microgram range.
C60 is not likely to affect cholesterol, blood sugar, bp or other typical bloodwork. Our ideas about dosing are based on things like the effect of c60oo on performance in the gym, effects on hypoxic disease states. allergic asthma, eczema, and a few other things. We can also consider published data on other fullerene compounds, which show similar potency. The only lifespan data we have is in rodents, and dose ranging experiments haven't been done there. It's likely that the effect of c60 on rodent lifespan is caused by the same things that result in some of the effects we see in humans. To actually do a dose-ranging longevity experiment with humans would require a huge, expensive, very long term study.
Less than one mg twice a month is quite a lot for a rat, given the potency and pharmacokinetics of this compound. A typical human dose would be in the 10-50mg/month range.
The ingested C-60 had an elimination half-life from blood of about 10 hours, so was essentially fully eliminated from the body within two days. It is not clear from the report if the C-60 was eliminated from intracellular fluid on that time scale.-link
“The elimination half-lives indicate that C60 is completely eliminated from blood 97 h after administration irrespective of the route of administration.” – “The elimination process follows a non-urinary route because unmodified C60 was not detected in urine samples taken up 48 h after administration. Previous investigations showed that C60 is mainly eliminated through the bile ducts -link
Edited by Castiel, 23 March 2014 - 01:15 PM.
Posted 25 March 2014 - 05:37 PM
Posted 05 December 2014 - 03:13 PM
Colostrum (stimulate increased IGF-1)
My understanding from reading many threads here is that increase in IGF-1 is distinctly pro-aging.
I think the verdict is out on this one. Most likely igf is beneficial for some aspects of ages and detrimental to others. I believe its beneficial in that it may help keep blood glucose levels down.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
